The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian (Chandos Information Professional Series) [1 ed.] 008102925X, 9780081029251

Table of contents :
Chandos Information Professional Series
The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian
Copyright
Acknowledgments
1 . Introduction
1.1 A case of institutional improvisation: the electronic resources librarian
1.1.1 Synopsis of Chapters 2-8
References
2 . The academic library just before the World Wide Web
2.1 A brief history of the development of academic libraries in North America
2.2 Information science and computers in contemporary academia
2.3 The professional culture and organizational structure of academic libraries
2.4 Library automation in practice
References
3 . Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology
3.1 The problem of new information resources: revisiting CD-ROM
3.2 The early transition from print to electronic journals
3.3 The development of an online presence for academic libraries
3.4 The first electronic resources librarians
References
4 . The transition to the hybrid library
4.1 Changes in traditional library services
4.2 Changes in the user population: the wider adoption of computers
4.3 Electronic resources management as a new specialization
4.4 Managing electronic resources from A to Z
4.5 Entering a brave new world: self-directed users, virtual information services, and nonlinear workflows
References
5 - Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development
5.1 The many faces of the electronic resources librarian in the early 21st century
5.2 First attempts at defining electronic resources management
5.3 Metadata for electronic resources
5.4 Building new organizational structures to manage online Information Services
5.5 Academic libraries in the information marketplace: from big deals to document delivery
References
6 . The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries
6.1 The budgetary crisis and its impact on higher education and academic libraries
6.2 Reclassification, reorganization, and redundancy
6.3 Promotion and tenure for librarians during the Great Recession
6.4 The endurance of the book as brand: for good or evil
References
7 . Reimagining technical services
7.1 The growth of electronic resources from eBooks to streaming media
7.2 The impact of webscale discovery services and other changes in the online information environment
7.3 The expansion of discovery, interoperability, and system integration: from KBART, RDA to APIs
7.4 Changes in technical services
7.5 Changes in LIS education, professional development, and training
References
8 . At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians
8.1 The electronic resources librarian in technical services
8.2 The role of professional organizations
8.3 Measuring our success: electronic resources management and assessment of information services
8.4 Consideration of ongoing problems, opportunities, and future possibilities
References
A -
Core competencies for electronic resources librarians∗∗Final version approved and adopted by the NASIG Execut ...
Introduction
1. Life cycle of electronic resources
2. Technology
3. Research and assessment
4. Effective communication
5. Supervising and management
6. Trends and professional development
7. Personal qualities
References
B*
C*
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y

Citation preview

CHANDOS INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERIES

Series Editor: Ruth Rikowski (Email: [email protected]) Chandos’ new series of books is aimed at the busy information professional. They have been specially commissioned to provide the reader with an authoritative view of current thinking. They are designed to provide easy-to-read and (most importantly) practical coverage of topics that are of interest to librarians and other information professionals. If you would like a full listing of current and forthcoming titles, please visit www.chandospublishing.com. New authors: we are always pleased to receive ideas for new titles; if you would like to write a book for Chandos, please contact Dr. Glyn Jones on [email protected] or telephone þ44 (0) 1865 843000.

THE ROLE OF THE ELECTRONIC RESOURCES LIBRARIAN

GEORGE STACHOKAS

Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-08-102925-1 For information on all Chandos Publishing publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals Publisher: Glyn Jones Acquisition Editor: Glyn Jones Editorial Project Manager: Naomi Robertson Production Project Manager: Joy Christel Neumarin Honest Thangiah Cover Designer: Miles Hitchen

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Acknowledgments Daniel Callison, Professor Emeritus, Indiana University, encouraged me to write this book after he read my article, “The Electronic Resources Librarian: From Public Service Generalist to Technical Services Specialist,” published in Technical Services Quarterly. I thank my colleagues at Auburn University Libraries, Nadine Ellero and Dana Caudle, for reviewing my original book proposal and making helpful suggestions. As always, I appreciate the leadership of Dr. Glyn Jones in ensuring that books about library and information science find their way to publication, as well as comments from peer reviewers of the book proposal. I am grateful for all of the support and efforts of Naomi Robertson, Editorial Project Manager, and Joy C. Neumarin, Project Manager, and all of the other staff involved in the development of this book at Chandos Publishing and Elsevier.

vii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction 1.1 A case of institutional improvisation: the electronic resources librarian Why write about the role the electronic resources librarian (ERL)? Why does it matter? This position came into existence as part of the broader and ongoing transition from physical information resources to digital information resources in academic libraries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Studying how this position came into existence, what it does, and how it continues to change can help those interested in library and information science to understand how libraries have adapted to the ongoing digital revolution. Studying the ERL position might also help us to understand some of the additional work that might be required to adapt to the information needs of contemporary users. This book draws upon previous research published in 2018 in Technical Services Quarterly by the author in the article, “The Electronic Resources Librarian from Public Service Generalist to Technical Services Specialist,” but expands the subject to encompass additional sources to address questions of greater significance. Some of these additional sources include a broad survey of literature reviews in acquisitions, cataloging, metadata, collection development, serials, and electronic resources management published in journals such as Library Resources and Technical Services (LRTS), The Serials Librarian, Collection Building, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Collection Management, The Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, and others during the past 30 years, statistics available from professional associations such as the American Library Association (ALA) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARLs), other relevant books, articles, and websites, as well as the professional experience of the author. The first use of the title, electronic resources librarian, did not occur until 1992 (Fisher, 2003). The earliest version of the position was actually a public service specialist who managed CD-ROM collections, but by 2018, most ERLs at ARL institutions and other large academic libraries in North The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00001-5

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1

2

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

America were in technical services units. These ERLs had general responsibilities for licensing electronic resources, negotiating contracts with vendors, and varying levels of responsibility for managing online access, discovery, and metadata (Stachokas, 2018). In fact, by 2018, some of the largest academic libraries had more than one ERL who carried out various roles associated with different aspects of electronic resources management (Stachokas, 2018). The very use of the term ERL is highly suggestive of how the digital transition in libraries began, at least in North America. Initially, rather than recognizing that the entire library had to change its organizational structure, skill sets, or technology in order to provide electronic resources, academic libraries treated electronic resources as a kind of add-on, an exploration of a new format that could be managed by one or a few specialized personnel. Initially, most libraries had only a few online journals and databases that began to replace CD-ROM materials in the early 1990s. Serious consideration and development of standards and best practices for electronic resources management did not begin until the 21st century with the development of the Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI) standards and tools such as A-Z lists to manage online journals. It took libraries many years to develop more comprehensive websites, let alone the more sophisticated Webscale Discovery tools that are now ubiquitous. Formal competencies for the ERL position were only developed about 20 years after the position had been in existence by the former North American Serials Interest Group, now simply known as NASIG, in the 2010s (NASIG, 2013). This improvisational, and in many cases incremental, development of the ERL position and the services it purports to provide has arguably created some negative consequences for academic libraries. One could argue that libraries have been slower to adopt efficient and user-friendly online information services that have resulted in declining support among some users and funding agencies for libraries in general. Academic libraries have sometimes not adapted well or at least not very quickly to changes in technology, new business models, or user expectations. Transitioning from analog to digital information is difficult for all institutions and organizations, but since librarians are quite literally in the information business, one could argue that librarians must learn to adapt even more quickly in order to remain relevant. Of course, this is a very controversial question: what is a librarian in the 21st century and what should a librarian be able to do? What is the appropriate role for a librarian in a self-service digital information

Introduction

3

world that requires constant innovation, creativity, nonlinear thinking, and the perpetual reorganization of routine work? Is there any tension between the rhetorical goals of some contemporary academic libraries and the real value that users place on different types of service? This book cannot address these questions completely, but by looking at changes in one important area of specialization, one hopes that we can further the existing dialogue. Electronic resources management is inherently practical and focused on current needs, almost to the point that writing a book that attempts to look at past developments might seem less than timely or not particularly helpful, but that is not the case. Like many other aspects of contemporary human life, we are challenged to adapt rapidly and in real time to highly dynamic changes driven by the digital clock. However, we are still biological creatures whose presuppositions, misunderstandings, and outmoded ways of thinking can thwart our attempts to adapt to new circumstances when we fail to take the necessary time to reflect and understand what we really need to do. My hope with this book is to reveal more about how the ERL position and related functional areas in academic libraries have developed in the past few decades, what seems to be going right or wrong in the present, and to discuss, at least briefly, how libraries are beginning to address potential future needs. Given that electronic resources management touches upon so many different aspects of librarianship, it will not be possible to examine every change or every area of specialization in that much depth. This book will briefly survey the impact of the earliest form of online databases before the Internet and World Wide Web, the deployment of CD-ROM which served as a transition phase from print to electronic formats for many types of information resources, and the complex transformation of the ERL from a public service generalist to a technical services specialist in the early 21st century. The overall focus is on the “prehistory” of electronic resources management in libraries, broadly defined, helps to show not only how libraries have adapted or transitioned as the larger society has changed. Depending on the library and specific strategy used, one can see signs of both positive adaptation but also attempts to contain or resist necessary innovation.

1.1.1 Synopsis of Chapters 2e8 Chapter 2: The Academic Library Just Before the World Wide Web will explore library automation, technology use, organizational structure, and the professional role of academic librarians in the late 1980s and partly phasing into

4

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

the early 1990s. It is important to note that the professional position that is most closely aligned with databases, electronic journals and eBooks in contemporary academic libraries, the electronic resources librarian, was actually developed just before the World Wide Web became ubiquitous in the modern library. Less than 30 years ago, the academic library was an entirely different professional world in terms of technology, organizational structure, and user expectations. Many libraries had not yet discarded the card catalog in the 1990s. The integrated library system (ILS) was still cutting-edge technology for managing mostly print collections, and online public access catalogs (OPACs) were the limit of discovery. Many tasks in libraries were still driven by traditional technical services methods and this was reflected in contemporary organizational structures. Harvard University employed 363 professional staff in 1991e92, but 600 “nonprofessional” staff outnumbered them (Daval & Brennan, 1993). More recently, Harvard University reported 432 professional staff and 303 staff in 2015e16 (Morris & Roebuck, 2018). Metadata librarians, even the term metadata itself, were not yet found in libraries, let alone research data management, collections strategists, or specialists in emerging technology. Chapter 3: Digital Dawn: Libraries Experiment and Adapt New will focus primarily on the development of CD-ROM databases and other related information systems as an important transitional stage between the traditional print library and the hybrid library of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. As the technology matured, CD-ROM provided unprecedented convenience in comparison to previous online databases such as Dialog and print information resources. Libraries used the technology to experiment with distance education and early efforts in digitization. This chapter will also look at the very first electronic resources librarians (ERLs) whose precise areas of specialization and responsibility had not yet been determined in their commonly understood form. As previously noted, these early specialists often worked in public services but soon had to adapt to a wide range of professional responsibilities that were then new to libraries: licensing, new business models such as big deal journal packages, and new technologies as not only journals, but databases, eBooks, and reference materials began to shift to online access. Chapter 4: The Transition to the Hybrid Library will further analyze changes in the electronic resources librarian (ERL) position, different attempts to organize work and personnel, and the ongoing process of improvising electronic resources management in libraries that continued to advertise and identify with the book as their brand. This chapter will

Introduction

5

consider some of the consequences of developing tools to manage electronic resources separately from the integrated library system (ILS) such as knowledge bases, A-Z lists, link resolvers, as well as work new previously unknown in libraries such as troubleshooting access problems. Together, these changes constituted entry into a brave new world for libraries in which self-directed users discovered information resources on their own in a virtual environment that was supported by new nonlinear and multidirectional workflows in acquisitions, cataloging, and troubleshooting. Chapter 5: Early Trends and Transformation: ERMI, ERMs, and Separate Development will discuss developing standards and tools used in electronic resources management, primarily in the first decade of the 21st century. This chapter will address why the electronic resources management system (ERMS) was developed separately from the integrated library system (ILS), how much electronic resources management work was still separate from the rest of the library, and how some libraries and librarians resisted change. Academic libraries in North America experimented with different organizational structures and competing models for what the ERL was and should do. The growing impact of emerging technologies such as Webscale Discovery Services, COUNTER usage statistics, and more complex metadata for electronic resources will also be discussed. Chapter 6: The Great Recession and its Impact on Academic Libraries will review the positive and negative impact of financial problems for academic libraries. In terms of loss of access to expensive information resources, budget cuts that impacted highly used services, the period has had a lasting negative legacy, but in other ways, these financial problems actually forced some libraries to pursue much needed reorganization and reform. The impact on libraries in terms of assessment and attempts to measure return on investment also needs to be taken into consideration. Chapter 7: The Reimagining of Technical Services provides an in-depth discussion of recent and ongoing efforts to reorganize technical service units and functions in large academic libraries in North America. Many of these libraries have been refocusing institutional goals and strategies to emphasize electronic resources over traditional information resources in collections, creating new positions, identifying the demand for new skills to meet routine needs in the digital information workplace and rethinking the electronic resources librarian (ERL) position. This chapter will also review important developments such as KBART, RDA, and the growing use of application program interfaces (APIs) to integrate systems and tools, both those used by patrons and library staff. LIS education, training and

6

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

professional development for electronic resources librarians will also be considered. Chapter 8: At the Crossroads: Ongoing Efforts to Transform Libraries and Librarians will take a closer look at the current roles of electronic resources librarians in technical services, particularly in academic member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). A synopsis of current trends and emerging roles for ERLs will include a discussion of specific job functions and the influence of professional organizations. This chapter will also briefly address some more recent improvements in the assessment of electronic resources. Finally, a summary of how the ERL has helped to reshape the academic library will conclude the book.

References Daval, N., & Brennan, P. (1993). ARL statistics 1991e1992. Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries. Fisher, W. (2003). The electronic resources librarian position: A public services phenomenon? Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27, 3e17. Morris, S., & Roebuck, G. (2018). ARL statistics 2015e2016. Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries. NASIG. (2013). NASIG core competencies for electronic resources librarians. NASIG Newsletter, 28(5), 1e9. Stachokas, G. (2018). The electronic resources librarian: From public service generalist to technical services specialist. Technical Services Quarterly, 35, 1e27.

CHAPTER 2

The academic library just before the World Wide Web Understanding how academic libraries developed in the past is important in making sense of how contemporary libraries work. Reexamining the past, to the extent possible, can also help us to develop better strategies for changing or improving libraries to provide better information services in the 21st century. Many other parts of the world have made and continue to make important contributions to improving electronic resources management in libraries, but for practical reasons of scope and relevance, the primary focus of this book will be on considering developments in North America. However, many important milestones have occurred elsewhere, including the invention of the World Wide Web itself in 1989. Tim Berners-Lee while working for CERN first proposed the World Wide Web on March 12, 1989, and later wrote the first browser to explore the web in 1990 (World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 1990). This chapter will explore the history of how academic libraries developed in North America, primarily the United States, and provide insight into the philosophy, technology, organizational structure, and to some degree, culture of the academic library that existed in 1989. To the extent that adapting to the new technologies, user expectations, business models, and administration of the electronic library has proven difficult for academic librarians, understanding what libraries were like just before the world dramatically changed can provide some insight. Some of the problems that libraries have faced in adapting to change are representative of problems common to the rest of contemporary, whereas some issues are arguably unique to libraries and librarians.

2.1 A brief history of the development of academic libraries in North America Libraries were slow to develop in most of the 13 original colonies that later became the United States of America. Substantial libraries, loosely defined The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00002-7

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

7

8

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

as 1000 books or more, were almost exclusively the private collections of wealthy individuals and families. However, there were substantial regional differences. Southern gentry and wealthy planters tended to rely on private tutors and sending their sons to European universities. New England, largely settled by Puritans and others not part of the contemporary English religious establishment, as well as non-English settlers in colonies such as Pennsylvania, had a stake in developing their own educational institutions. Harvard University, the first American university, was founded in 1636 to provide a way to train puritan preachers and scholars; the first printing press was established 1 year later in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well. Most books in this period were imported from Europe and by 1789; only 19 printing presses were in operation on American soil (Predeek, 1947, pp. 84e87). By 1723, around 87 years of operation, Harvard’s library’s first printed catalog listed only 3500 titles, mostly in theology (Johnson & Harris, 1976, p. 189). To make a comparison with England, Oxford University’s Bodleian Library, housed in its own separate building since 1612, held 16,000 volumes by 1620 and almost 30,000 by 1700 (Johnson & Harris, 1976, p. 155). If Harvard University’s library can be considered the first academic library in North America, it was quite different from libraries in the 21st century. Existing well before any established curriculum in the sciences or technology as we know it today, this first academic library was not staffed by professional librarians and did not have an organizational structure, collection, or mission that would require a detailed strategic plan. It was a product of its time and place and originally conceived to meet a different purpose than most academic libraries centuries later. Substantial library collections, particularly academic libraries, would await the late 19th century with dramatic growth in the 1880s and 1890s. Harvard’s collection expanded to 70,000 books and 30,000 pamphlets by 1856; Yale held 78,000 volumes by 1870; Columbia held 16,000 volumes by 1860 (Johnson & Harris, 1976, p. 192). Columbia College Library, a precursor to Columbia University, had a book budget of $500 in 1862; this same institution purchased only 325 volumes in 1870, 50 of which were bound periodicals (Johnson & Harris, 1976, p. 195). By 1900, Oxford University Libraries had increased to 800,000 volumes and 41,000 manuscripts (Johnson & Harris, 1976, p, 55), while Harvard University had 560,000 volumes, Yale held 300,000 and Columbia was well on its way to catching up with 250,000 volumes (Johnson & Harris, 1976, p. 275). The cumulative impact of the Morrill Act in 1862 that funded the development of new land-grant universities in the United States, the Union

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

9

victory in the Civil War, settlement of the West, and the industrialization of cities in the East greatly expanded higher education and the academic libraries that supported them. Notable public libraries, including the Boston Athenaeum and the New York Public Library, also grew tremendously during this period while many communities across the continent began to develop local public libraries, partly due to the efforts of new library associations, often led by women, and philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie who funded libraries across the country. A notable example of Carnegie’s philanthropy includes $478,000 of grants used to help establish 31 public libraries in Oregon between 1901 and 1920 (Scheppke, 2009). If all of this money were considered as having been spent in 1920, this amount would be well over $6 million in March 2019 dollars as estimated using the online CPI Inflation Calculator provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). General advances in education and the new complex system of libraries demanded full-time specialists with appropriate training to manage large and expanding collections. While libraries have played an important role throughout thousands of years of human civilization, the modern library was developed to manage an enormous and a growing amount of information that was historically unprecedented. The establishment of the American Library Association (ALA) in 1876 and the Library Association, now known as the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), in what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1877 are clear milestones for the development of the modern profession. Fred Lerner describes the early Library Association’s approach to the education of librarians in The Story of Libraries: From the Invention of Writing to the Computer Age; the Library Association developed a certification and apprenticeship program with three tiers: A preliminary certificate after passage of an exam in English language and literature, history, arithmetic, and at least one foreign language; a second-class certificate required 1 year of library experience plus an exam in English literature, another European literature such as French, the basic principles of bibliography, cataloging with “cataloging knowledge” of two foreign languages, and library administration; the first-class certificate required 2 years of library experience, more intensive testing in the same subjects with cataloging knowledge of three foreign languages plus library history (Lerner, 1998, p. 189). Learning was gained on the job or through self-study, although Lerner

10

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

notes that correspondence and summer programs were available starting in 1893 (Lerner, 1998, p. 189). Education from almost the very beginning in the United States emphasized formal instruction with Melvin Dewey teaching a 4-month course in the School of Library Economy starting in January 1887. The first class of 20 students included 17 women (Lerner, 1998, p. 189). The program was transferred to Albany as part of the development of the New York State Library School, partly due to Columbia’s concerns about providing undergraduate education to womend then a very controversial subject (Lerner, 1998, pp. 189e190). However, it is important to add that while Dewey’s program emphasized formal instruction, it was oriented not toward research, but rather technical skills that would enable future librarians to manage physical libraries. Compiling bibliographies, shelving books, and cataloging materials were quite literally hands-on work. Some of Dewey’s courses emphasized good handwriting among other skills and were much criticized by some future librarians for their lack of intellectual content (Lynch, 2008). Modern education for librarians transitioned to more formal credentials, including baccalaureate and master’s degrees, in the United States in the 20th century. The United Kingdom was slower to require university degrees but began to transition to a much more formal system of education after World War II. Doctoral degrees were also offered by some institutions to conduct research and teach new generations of librarians. The development of a dense network of public and academic libraries in the United States of America before World War II coincided with growth in library science as a formal discipline that incorporated quantitative methods, collection analysis, and methods borrowed from the social sciences. Librarianship as a profession also began to make great strides internationally. One of the most influential thinkers in the transition to a more formal and fully modern profession was S.R. Ranganathan who published The Five Laws of Library Science in 1931 stating as follows: (1) Books are for use, (2) Every person his or her book, (3) Every book its reader, (4) Save the time of the reader, and (5) The library is a growing organism (Ranganathan, 1931). To some extent, the five laws help to inform the professional ethos of many librarians today in their work of collecting, preserving, and making information resources available to patrons. The five laws have also been influenced by and complement the legacy of the freedom of the press and the freedom of intellectual inquiry in the ideals of British and American civic culture, even though censorship has been practiced in different times and for different reasons. Above all, the late 19th century and the early 20th

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

11

century before World War II helped to define the practice and study of library science as a distinct discipline.

2.2 Information science and computers in contemporary academia Despite considerable diversity in collections and clients, libraries before World War II were defined by physical information resources whether these existed in the form of books, journals, newspapers, atlases, gazetteers, phonograph records, maps, music scores, or finding aids. The computer has changed how humanity gathers, stores, and manipulates information in general and the computer began to challenge and change libraries well before the Internet emerged in the late 20th century. Partly inspired by the computer, information science developed in the middle of the 20th century as a new discipline with a complex relationship to library science. For some scholars such as Marcia Bates, library science or librarianship is best defined as an applied subfield of a much larger and more complex domain assigned to information science (Bates, 2006). Bates defines information as nothing less than: Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy. All information is natural information, in that it exists in the material world of matter and energy. Represented information is natural information that is encoded or embodied. Encoded information is information that has symbolic, linguistic, or signal-based patterns of organization. Embodied information is the corporeal expression or manifestation of information previously in encoded form. (Bates, 2006, p. 1044).

As a practical matter, the work of librarianship is applied information science for academic libraries in that the professional librarian is called upon to collect, store, manage, label, and otherwise promote discovery of relevant information to those conducting research, teaching, or learning. While careful to consider the pioneering work in documentation in Europe in the 1890s and its intellectual export to the United States in the 1930s, Dorothy Lilly and Ronald Trice focus on developments after World War II in their History of Information Science 1945e1985 (Lilly & Trice, 1989). They reference the work of Dr. Glynn Harmon in his Human Memory and Knowledge: A Systems Approach in describing nine divisions of a mature information science: “(1) Information needs and uses, (2) Documentation creation and copying, (3) Language analysis, (4) Translation, (5) Abstracting and classification, (6) System design, (7) Analysis and evaluation of systems, (8) Pattern recognition, and (9) Adaptive systems: artificial intelligence” (Harmon, 1973. P. 90).

12

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Lilly and Trice began their History of Information Science 1945e1985 by discussing the work of five visionaries: Vannevar Bush, Norbert Weiner, Claude E. Shannon, Samuel C. Bradford, and Arthur C. Clarke (Lilly & Trice, 1989). Vannevar Bush, an engineer with a doctorate from MIT, served as head of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), a unit responsible for research into key weapon systems during World War II, including the earliest stages of the Manhattan Project to build a working atomic bomb. Bush’s article, “As We May Think,” published in 1945 called for the development of a Memex device well before the creation of modern consumer electronics that would store information resources and notes for instant retrieval as a means of extending human memory (Bush, 1945). Weaver and Shannon, both American mathematicians, made contributions in their disciplines that helped further electronic communications including the development of computers. Bradford, an English scientist, wrote Documentation, published in 1948, the year of his death. Addressing problems of how to manage a growing body of scientific literature, Bradford formulated a law of scattering, usually now known as “Bradford’s law” that estimated the exponentially diminishing returns in searching for relevant articles in science journals. Arthur C. Clarke was not only the famous science fiction author of works such as 2001: A Space Odyssey but had previously studied physics and mathematics at King’s College and served as a radar specialist during World War II. His article, “Extra-terrestrial relays,” published in 1945 in Wireless World: Radio Electron was the first to call for the positing of communication satellites in earth’s orbit, well before the former Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957 (Clarke, 1945, pp. 305e308). Projecting forward in time, Lilly and Trice further explore innovation and growth in information science from 1948 to 68, partly by exploring the careers of three individual innovators: Mortimer Taube for this work on coordinate indexing, Hans Peter Luhn for his design of Keyword-inContext and Keyword-out-of-Context indexes, and Eugene Garfield for his Science Citation Index, the core resource of what would eventually become the Web of Science (Lilly & Trice, 1989, p. 17). Another notable milestone during this period was the development of the Educational Information Resources Center (ERIC) database based on a collaboration between the chemist Allen Kent, the US Office of Education (USOE), and The Western Reserve University Library School faculty (Lilly & Trice, 1989, p. 35).

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

13

Innovation in information science was partly dependent upon but also influenced development in information technology. As Eric Swedin and David Ferro remind us in their Computers: The Life Story of Technology, World War II witnessed the birth of modern computing technology (Swedin & Ferro, 2007, p. 47). Most readers should be familiar with the transition from early computers based on vacuum tubes in the middle of the 20th century to the first transistor in 1947. Later machines relied on integrated circuits and microprocessors. As noted by Swedin and Ferro, an estimated 7000 digital computers existed throughout the world in 1960. By 1970, there were 170,000 machines (Swedin & Ferro, 2007, p. 83). The general growth in computing, particularly in support of scientific research, led to the creation of new jobs in information technology throughout the higher education industry in the United States as even small liberal colleges began to see the value in not only complex services to manage and analyze data sets but also more widely used communication systems such as e-mail. Jobs that were dependent on creating, managing, and developing paper or other physical records were greatly reduced in number. Overall, most campuses saw a decline in the number of secretaries and clerks previously required to type letters, print forms, and manage paper records that were increasingly replaced by digital information.

2.3 The professional culture and organizational structure of academic libraries Academic libraries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had undergone many changes as collections, facilities, and personnel expanded to manage extreme growth in the amount of scholarly literature, especially in the sciences. For most of the period between 1876 and 1989, this growth meant more and more physical objects, including journals, books, atlases, maps, pamphlets, music scores, and also growing audioevisual collections, microforms for long-term storage and preservation, as well as the further development of special collections and university archives. Expansion, change, and the need to address novel problems were very much essential parts of librarianship during this time period, but unlike the transition form print to digital information, these innovations did not usually challenge the fundamental theory and practice of library science itself. Attempts to develop a more universal sense of what was available in terms of information resources within the United States, if not the world, began before the existence of most integrated library systems (ILSs) or

14

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

online public access catalogs (OPACs). The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules or ACCR in 1967 reconciled differences in British and American cataloging and became the de facto standard for many libraries worldwide. Most records remained printed on paper cards as part of the historical card catalog system, but OCLC, then known as the Ohio College Library Center, emerged in its first incarnation in Dublin, Ohio, as a true online bibliographic system that would enable libraries to share the fruits of their labor in creating new resource records, original cataloging, for information resources. None of this would have been possible without the development of MARC or machine-readable cataloging in the same era. The formation of tags or fields and their associated subfields closely matched the contemporary limits in computing of the time while faithfully reproducing the essential information from the AACR rules that had been designed with paper cards as the frame of reference. Future generations of librarians and IT specialists who work in libraries would often lament the limited and archaic structures of MARC, but it was cutting-edge technology for the time. The development of MARC records, still the most commonly used form of metadata in the 21st century academic library, although this may be changing, was very much a translation of the existing cataloging system, based on paper cards, into electronic form. Contemporary librarians did not take the development of MARC as an opportunity to rethink cataloging. This makes sense to the extent that most libraries were still using paper card catalogs when MARC was initially developed. Libraries and librarians were not unusual in terms of not anticipating the full range of changes that the transition to digital information would bring to professional work. Finally, as most trained catalogers would argue, there is no such thing as MARC cataloging. MARC is only a technology for encoding resource records according to systems of cataloging rules such as AACR or later Resource Description and Access (RDA). The 1960s witnessed the development of not only OCLC in 1967, but also Medline in 1964; ERIC mentioned earlier in this chapter was launched in 1966, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) in 1964 while Harvard University and Cornell University launched SMART (experimental automatic retrieval system) as an early prototype of the OPAC later associated with ILSs (Lilly & Trice, 1989, p. 85). Most of these early online databases required libraries to pay for individual searches or the time connected to the database since these resources were developed and made available well before the World Wide Web. The earliest versions of these databases did not even include access to information via screen or monitor;

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

15

search results were printed out via teletype instead. However, this was still a time period in which most work in libraries was still based not just on physical information objects such as books but also physical processes. Many workstations did not include computers in the 1960 and 1970s, and most internal records and documentation were still stored on paper. Most information accessible via computers was not stored on servers or in the cloud but was usually stored on magnetic tape, floppy disks, or other media generally considered obsolete in the 2010s. Somewhat like problems of MARC record conversion to other metadata formats today, librarians in the 1970s also worried about the problem of converting the huge investment in paper card catalogs. J. McRee Elrod wrote of how many thought it unlikely that the 22 million cards that represented the collection of the Library of Congress would ever be successfully converted, arguing instead for a hybrid solution (McElrod, 1976). Library organizational structure, as today, varied considerably given differences in size and academic mission. Special libraries such as law and medical libraries were well established and distinct from other academic libraries in many ways. Libraries that were small would often collapse entire categories of work or require positions to carry multiple responsibilities that would be unheard of in larger institutions. However, it is possible to sketch out a very broad division of labor in very large academic libraries such as the Association of Research Libraries (ARLs) members. The first and most important division within academic libraries after World War II and before 1989 was between public and technical services. Public services consisted of units that were responsible for customer service or interacting directly with users such as Reference or Circulation. Other terms were sometimes used, and some very large libraries might have multiple units with these functions or in a more complex structure, but reference literally meant librarians, sometimes subject specialists and sometimes not, who would staff a physical reference desk and act as guides to a physical collection. Only a reference librarian in department X could directly and quickly advise a user that a particular resource was held in the library or not, whether to submit an interlibrary loan request or visit a library with a reciprocal borrowing agreement, or to select another source that just happened to include better information. To the extent that information lived on the shelves, consulting an expert local guide was sometimes the only way to know whether a text was in the right or obvious place, had been temporarily removed for preservation work or if there was a substitute available elsewhere. It may seem strange to digital natives born

16

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

after 1989, but keeping a large group of reference librarians on staff was once more efficient than not having them since users could not use online information resources to guide their searching. Circulation units were responsible for managing the physical stacks, rows and rows of books, and other materials that had to be carefully stored in just the right place, as well as checking out materials. Technical services could be roughly grouped into different areas based on the often-laborious tasks required to obtain, track, catalog, and make physical information resources usable to patrons. Acquisitions were responsible for opening boxes, filing, and processing payment for invoices, as well as tracking financial expenditures. Cataloging units were responsible for original and later copy cataloging. They applied the detailed and rigorous AACR rules consistently and correctly. Preservation units mended books and made sure that physical information resources were as usable as possible. Further breakdowns of this general pattern sometimes included specialized serials units, sometimes combining acquisitions and cataloging functions, since managing journals was quite different from managing books in some respects. Specialized staff or entire units might also handle bindery or physical processing tasks such as applying labels, stamps, and security strips to books. Most notably support staff or clerks with responsibilities not then defined as professional work would greatly outnumber the cataloging, acquisitions, or serials librarians who supervised them. According to ARL statistics published for 1979e80, the University of California Berkeley had 141 professional staff and 249 nonprofessional staff; Michigan State University had 77 professional staff and 124 nonprofessional staff, while Harvard University had 285 professional staff and 531 nonprofessional staff (Mandel & Johnson, 1980, pp. 6e9). Interlibrary loan services also emerged since no single physical library could hope to meet the needs of the most active large academic institutions, let alone smaller libraries with much more limited collections. Before automation, Kate Nevins recalled the process of fulfilling an interlibrary loan request “complex searches for verification of elusive citations, laborious typing of ALA four-part forms to be mailed off to possible holding libraries, waiting weeks or even months for the item to arrive in the library to be placed in the patron’s hands” (Nevins, 1998, p. 65). The implementation of OCLC’s Interlibrary Loan subsystem in 1979 marked a revolution for libraries according to Nevins with many fulfillment requests reduced to a week or less in time. OCLC’s work also brought many smaller libraries into the lending stream for the first time, greatly expanding access to scholarly information throughout the United States (Nevins, 1998).

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

17

While most large academic libraries had a generally similar organizational plan, there were some exceptions and variations. Collection development often existed as a separate unit or units, sometimes clustered with public or technical services, but often effectively an extension of the library administration. Some very large academic libraries also included specialized bibliographers with advanced subject expertise. Overall, in addition to having more staff, particularly support staff, academic libraries in the 1960, 1970, and 1980s also had larger administrations in comparison to the early 21st century. More administrative layers were needed to supervise a greater number of workers who performed physical labor but also the complex problem of managing finite space and addressing new formats, technologies, and techniques. Divisions within the library existed not just in practice but also in the scholarly literature. Journals such as Serials Review and The Serials Librarian addressed the needs of serials librarianship; Cataloging and Classification Quarterly addressed cataloging; Collection Management and Collection Building addressed collection development. Given that work tended to be organized by these different functions, most librarians spent their decades in their professional careers developing and perfecting skills in these defined areas. Eventually, some librarians might have to address concerns common to the entire library if they were promoted to the uppermost administrative ranks, but journals such as The Journal of Library Administration were there to address these needs. The ALA had an organizational structure that began during this period and was further developed along roughly the same lines, e.g., the Association of Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS), the Library Leadership and Management Association (LLAMA), the Reference and User Association (RUSA), and so on. Some organizations such as the Public Library Association (PLA) and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) reflected the even broader division between public and academic libraries. For many academic librarians, they developed their thinking, work habits, and understanding of what librarianship actually is in terms of these siloed areas of specialization. Education for librarians in the United States during this time period emphasized the Master of Library Science (MLS) degree, often completed in 1 or 2 years with 10e12 courses, sometimes requiring a thesis, but often not. A few general courses about the history and mission of librarianship were usually complemented by a few specific courses in reference librarianship, cataloging, and library management. Special collections librarianship and archival management, partly due to their activities of their own separate

18

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

professional organizations, were somewhat different in requiring further specialized coursework and/or certification. The Society of American Archivists (SAA) began to explore professionalization and certification in the 1970s and created the Academy of Certified Archivists (ACA) in 1989 (Linn, 2015). Most academic librarians earned a generalized MLS degree or its equivalent and then developed their specialization later while working on the job, often continuing to learn more advanced specialized skills after their professional career formally began. The SAA exceptions included highly specialized bibliographers, subject specialists, or collection development officers who held advanced degrees, sometimes doctorates in subject areas outside librarianship. Notable examples include bibliographers at institutions such as the University of Chicago who continue to hold PhD degrees in relevant subject areas in addition to an MLS or equivalent degree in library and information science. Some library science schools also struggled with an identity crisis in relation to perceived differences between library and information science, although schools solved this problem simply by combining the two names in their degrees and also with varying levels of success, attempting to combine relevant curricula. The academic library of the 1960 and 1970s certainly had its weaknesses, but it must be noted that contemporary librarians were largely able to manage an exploding volume of scientific literature that was unprecedented in both overall size and complexity. The Library of Congress subject headings and the Dewey Decimal system, both products of the 19th century, were stretched by thousands of catalogers who carefully developed new controlled vocabularies, designations, and mapped relationships between the existing disciplines and entirely fields of theory and practice in the sciences and technology. The information network created by these librarians and other staff was somehow able to ensure that a nuclear engineer in Berkeley, a nursing student in Kansas City, and an undergraduate student with an undeclared major in Michigan State University were all able to acquire the information resources they needed, even when some of these materials were on the other side of the continent. That is a remarkable achievement in understanding and managing information.

2.4 Library automation in practice Automation in libraries entered theory and practice in multiple ways at different times in the 20th century and continues to change libraries in the 21st century. After the development of OCLC in the 1960s and MARC

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

19

cataloging, libraries began to use computers to catalog materials, track holdings, and share resources through interlibrary loan. Library automation brought extensive changes to libraries, particularly in technical services functions such as acquisitions and cataloging. The development of ILSs in the 1970 and 1980s brought computers to libraries in force. New ILS systems such as Voyager and Horizon included separate modules for cataloging, acquisitions, and circulation that mirrored the existing staff organization in most academic libraries to some extent but also came with the added benefit of providing search capabilities. Many libraries provided terminals that provided the ability to quickly search holdings even as card catalogs lingered. The University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library implemented its first ILS in the 1970s after partly automating some systems separately using punch card technology. The complexity of this early “batch processing” is best described by Doris L. Owen, Instructor and Project Coordinator to the Library Staff, in her own words, “Batch processing for serials and bindery control and acquisitions and accounting control has been functioning since the late 1960s at the Bio-Medical Library. Data was keypunched on 80character punch cards and submitted with control cards to a large, timesharing computer facility,” (Owen, 1975, p. 18). This process required quite a bit of “duplication of effort” as Owen further elaborates noting the complex process of transcription between different paper forms and the special coding format of the punch cards (Owen, 1975, p. 18). A very important consequence for libraries was the need to hire information technology specialists to help maintain the computers that libraries increasingly relied upon to manage their collections. Library IT or systems departments, usually named systems since their primary function was to manage the new ILSs, were indispensable in most large academic libraries well before 1989. Some libraries hired systems librarians as managers or librarians with relevant IT skills, but in many respects, the hiring of IT staff constituted a significant introduction of nonlibrarian professionals into libraries. As a practical matter, some libraries and librarians were likely aware of potential changes on the horizon, but implementation was delayed partly due to the need to change the workflows and procedures of large groups of librarians and staff who had thoroughly trained according to the expectations of a previous change. Unlike the private sector, reorganization in academic libraries tended to take a slower path toward reorganization and repurposing of work, partly due to limited resources but also a desire to

20

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

limit the negative impact on long-serving employees. Old and new workflows sometimes existed side by side, e.g., even well after ILS systems were created, many libraries still relied on paper forms, slips, and other physical documentation that could have been entirely discarded but for the complex problems of change management. Marie Bednar noted how the greatest adjustments were required from clerical staff as Penn State University automated copy cataloging and presearching workflows, often requiring staff to perform more complex functions. As some staff retired, remaining staff doing more complex work were rewarded with upgraded positions or promotions. While still too early to assess the impact on patrons, Penn State Libraries noticed a measurable increase in productivity and efficiency while also recognizing the need to switch from a model of perfection in traditional library cataloging to what Bednar called “reasonable care” (Bednar, 1988). It would take the development of the Internet and more refined versions of the OPAC to remove card catalogs entirely from libraries and not without resistance. Liz Mitchell interviewed Ron Diener, Systems Librarian at Harvard University, about his work in 1976 and the following quotation captures some of the then controversy concerning library automation in systems, “The old arguments about the dehumanizing of library work by the addition of machine-assisted technical processing is so much bunk. What is so humane about a person’s sitting day in and day out typing out headings on cards?” (Mitchell, 1976, p. 363). Diener further lauded Verner Clapp’s leadership in foreseeing the need for standardization of information in bibliographic form more than a decade before most librarians were ready to accept this important change (Mitchell, 1976). The long tail of the introduction of new ideas to librarianship and their delayed acceptance is illustrated by another example from 1976. The University of Texas at Dallas used a HewlettePackard 21 MX minicomputer installed by Innovative Systems, Inc. to interface with an IBM 370 Computer to permit selfcheckout by users (Computerworld UK, 1976, p. 32). The earliest online databases usually were not directly accessible patrons and often required staff mediation to operate successfully. Usability was far below late 20th century, let alone 21st century standards. Search results were more often a printout than a screenshot. Some pre-Web online databases such as ERIC might be searchable using public terminals toward the end of this period, but many machines were still restricted to staff-only use in this transitional period of early automation in libraries. However, as the Internet was further developed in the 1970 and 1980s, other online search

The academic library just before the World Wide Web

21

tools such as INSPEC and BIOSIS appeared. Most of these early online resources were indexes that pointed back to mostly physical journals, books, and other information resources such as microfilm, however. The greatest change for libraries was the development of ILSs that increasingly enabled librarians and staff to do their own work using computers. Frederick Kilgour mentioned how the principle obstacle in the way of computerization for acquisitions was the need for librarians to learn more about new technology and to rethink their work, but he was confident that computerization would greatly enhance staff productivity (Kilgour, 1969). More interestingly, Kilgour argued that libraries were inherently unproductive in the era of print materials in that any increase in service required a commensurate increase in staffing. Overall, the US economy enjoyed a productivity increase of 2% for decades after World War I, and while very difficult to prove, there were no obvious gains in productivity in libraries during the same time period. From 1959/1960 to 1965/1965, Kilgour estimated that expenditures per student in academic libraries rose at 5% annually, far above inflation (Kilgour, 1969, 12e13). Occurring well before the rising costs of online journals, eBooks, and databases known today, this cost increase was most likely the result of the explosion in scientific publishing after World War II that still shows no signs of abating as documented by Derek J. de Solla Price in his Little Science, Big Science (Price, 1965). As Karen Hunter framed the problem, writing decades later in 1980s, “There may be a basic misunderstanding of scholarly communication if it is believed that individual publishers are capable of slowing down the general increase in scholarly publishing output. Publishers add value in many ways, including by serving as sorters and gatekeepers, but they cannot perform the miracle of changing the ocean of water into a mere stream of wine.” (Hunter, 1988, p. 41).

References Bates, M. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033e1045. Bednar, M. (1988). Automation of cataloging. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14(3), 145e149. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101e108. Clark, A. C. (1945). Extra-terrestrial relays. Wireless world: Radio electron (pp. 305e308). October. Computerworld UK. (1976). Mini helps library users borrow books, also provides theft control (Vol. 10 (21)). Harmon, G. (1973). Human memory and knowledge: A systems approach. Westport: Greenwood Press.

22

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Hunter, K. (1988). Academic librarians and publishers: Customers versus producers or partners in the planning of electronic publishing? Journal of Library Administration, 9(4), 35e48. Johnson, E. D., & Harris, M. H. (1976). History of libraries in the Western World (3rd ed.). Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Kilgour, F. (1969). Effect of computerization on acquisitions. Program, 3(3,4), 95e103 (1969 November). 20 Ref. Paper presented at the Institute on acquisitions procedures in Academic Libraries, held at the University of California, San Diego, 25 August to 5 September 1969. Lerner, F. (1998). The story of libraries: From the invention of writing to the computer Age. New York: Continuum. Lilly, D. B., & Trice, W. B. (1989). A history of information science 1945e1985. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Linn, M. (2015). Not waiting for Godot: The Academy of certified Archivists and the professionalization of the archival field. American Archivist, 78(1), 96e132. Lynch, B. P. (2008). Library education; its past, its present, its future. Library Trends, 56(4). Mandel, C. A., & Johnson, M. P. (1980). ARL Statistics 1979e1980: A compilation of statistics from the Hundred and Eleven Members of the Association of Research Libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. McElrod, J. M. (1976). Is the card catalogue’s unquestioned sway in North American ending? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2(1), 4. Mitchell, L. (1976). Ron Diener, systems librarian, hard-nosed at Harvard. American Libraries, 7(6), 363e365. Nevins, K. (1998). An ongoing revolution. Journal of Library Administration, 25(2e3), 65e71. Owen, D. (1975). The use of an on-line system for library processing operations: A librarian’s point-of-view. LARC Series on Automated Activities in Health Sciences Libraries, 1(2), 18e23. Predeek, A. (1947). A history of libraries in Great Britain and North America (L. S. Thompson, Trans). Chicago: American Library Association. Price, D. J. S. (1965). Little science, Big science. New York: Columbia University Press. Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). The five laws of library science. London: E. Goldston. Scheppke, J. (2009). Public library buildings in Oregon: A historical sketch. OLA Quarterly, 15(3), 8e11. Swedin, E. G., & Ferro, D. L. (2007). Computers: The Life story of a technology (Paperback ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc. pl, 2019. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html, 1990.

CHAPTER 3

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology Academic libraries had already undergone many changes, including several phases of automation before the launch of the World Wide Web in 1989, but the development of easily accessible online information resources would later challenge the professional identity of librarians and value of libraries. Before directly addressing the problem of electronic resources for libraries, it is helpful and necessary to explore an important intermediate step, the development and demise of CD-ROM services in academic libraries. Whatever the many shortcomings of this technology and associated business models, the very first documented electronic resources librarians were in fact CD-ROM specialists. Understanding and adapting to the challenges of CDROM helped libraries begin to adapt to the new online frontier.

3.1 The problem of new information resources: revisiting CD-ROM Compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM) was first developed in 1982 by the company Denon in Japan as an adaptation of the earlier Compact Disc Digital Audio technology developed by Sony and Philips in 1980. CD-ROM had a maximum storage capacity of 650 megabytes as the technology matured, a tiny amount of storage by standards in the second decade of the 21st century, but this was a vast improvement over contemporary options when the technology was first introduced. To give one a sense of scale, desktop computers sold to consumers commonly had 20- and 40-megabyte hard drives in the late 1980s. Previous advances in library automation, apart from early online databases such as Dialog, had a greater impact on back-end workflows as opposed to front-end operations and collections. Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, most libraries provided collections based overwhelmingly on physical The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00003-9

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

23

24

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

information resources. CD-ROM forced librarians to rethink collections and services, both technical and public, in more fundamental ways that foreshadowed some of the greater changes to come with the development of online journals, eBooks, and even Webscale Discovery Services. David H. Davies, project manager for 3M’s Optical Recording Project, provides a concise but in-depth description of CD-ROM technology. Physically, the CD-ROM or disc was a 120 mm donut-shaped polycarbonate plastic disc with a 15 mm hole. One side of the plastic disc was embossed with recesses or pits, coated in aluminum and lacquer, in order to store digital data. Information was read from the plastic side of the disc while the lacquered side could be labeled (Davies, 1988, 34). Davies further explained how the components of a CD-ROM drive read the data encoded on the disc using an optical head with a laser diode (Davies, 1988, pp. 34e36). Perhaps, most remarkably given later developments in information technology, Davies wrote of the then 550 megabyte storage capacity that “the technology currently exceeds the application base; the problem of developing exciting and useful applications is today’s challenge” (Davies, 1988, p. 42). Many saw the early CD-ROMs only as the first generation of a much broader and more user-friendly technology, “Ultimately new information productsdones which do not exist today in any formdwill be introduced, and new markets will include people who never before have been heavy information consumers” (Schwerin, 1988, p. 54). Regarding the economics of CD-ROM, Peter Schipma noted that, “The CD-ROM is a published medium, much like paper. Making the master disc is expensive, as is the type-setting for a book; pressing copies is inexpensive, as is pressing the copies of a book once the plates have been made” (Schipma, 1988, p. 66). Elaborating further, Schipma estimated that the expense of CD-ROM systems precluded individual buyers, but CD-ROM databases would be viable products in the contemporary marketplace of the late 1980s if hundreds or thousands of copies could be sold, making business feasible as long as these services were attractive to libraries (Schipma, 1988, p. 66). Vendors often sold CD-ROM databases in bundles that included the drives necessary to read the discs in 1980s. Bill Zoellick lamented the lack of interchangeability or interoperability of these early CD-ROM, which remarkably coexisted in the same time with interchangeable music CDs that were based on a different application or use of the same disc (Zoellick, 1988). This further increased the cost and inconvenience of maintaining multiple CD-ROM databases as early CD-ROMs were shackled with three different types of incompatibility in hardware, media including systems environments, and

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

25

retrieval software (Zoellick, 1988). A given library might not only have to purchase or lease the CD-ROM database but also buy compatible computers, CD-ROM drives, monitors, and printers. Like many other early technologies, standardization and interoperability were an afterthought in CD-ROM. By the late 1980s, library literature was virtually awash in publications about CD-ROM as noted by Raja Jayatilleke, “Every characteristic and technical detail has been researched, reviewed, and dissected in the minutest way. Yet, no definitive suggestions for dealing with the high service costs have emerged” (Jayatilleke, 1987, p. 98). Writing in 1988 in the Journal of Library Administration, John Cochenour and Patricia Weaver-Myers emphasized that “CD-ROM has gone from a buzzword to a technology that commands sole attention at more than one national conference” (Cochenour & Weaver-Meyers, 1988, 57). To confirm, a search by the author of “CD-ROM” in April 2019 using the Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA) database produced 11,469 hits albeit “trade publications” with 4586 hits was the highest category in search results. Interestingly, a search of “CD-ROM” produced 14,099 hits in Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) with “scholarly journals” ranked as the first category accounting for 10,537 hits. Given limited resources, staffing, and the challenges of a shifting technology marketplace, libraries often struggled to manage CD-ROM information services while many continued to celebrate its potential. One of the greatest challenges of CD-ROM was cost. John B. Lowe, Library Automation Consultant and doctoral student at the University of California Berkeley, wrote that “The CD-Revolution is upon us, and, at least in the beginning, it is going to be expensive” (Lowe, 1988, p. 37). Lowe noted how the “up-front” costs of CD-ROM technology would have to be born by either the information providers or the information consumers (Lowe, 1988, p. 38). While acknowledging the costs of producing content, producing the CD-ROMs, acquiring the technology necessary to read the discs and for users to access them, Lowe hoped that reproduction and distribution costs, along with all associated maintenance costs of both updating content and computer equipment, would drop over time since CD-ROM would need to be cost-effective in comparison to print and existing online dial-up technologies in order to acquire market share. Furthermore, a dedicated but small user group with professional expertise, mostly librarians and other public sector specialists in higher education, would work with the private sector to find ways to produce better products and achieve broader distribution (Lowe, 1988).

26

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Content providers that sold CD-ROM to libraries often seemed acutely aware of the need to work with librarians to develop and sell their products. Karen Hunter, Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman, Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., stated that “Publishers would like to understand libraries’ desires and concerns about CD-ROM. How fast will CD-ROM be accepted by the librariesdor will it be a fad which is replaced within five years by something else?” (Hunter, 1988, p. 42). Barbara Beach of Gale Research wrote 10 years later, “The library market presents special challenges to market research. The varied layers of purchaser and users add complexity to the design and development process. The customer is not always the consumer; the librarian is not always the end user” (Beach, 1998, p. 61). Just as libraries began to adapt to the challenges of electronic resources management during the heyday of CD-ROM, the period served as a valuable learning opportunity for some publishers and vendors as well. Paul Travis Nicholls provides a “statistical profile” in his words of CDROM at the time of writing in 1988. First, the total universe of available CD-ROM databases had risen from zero in 1985 to roughly 200 as tracked in Bower’s Optical Directory (Nicholls, 1988, p. 38). This compares favorably to the growth rate of the original “online” databases such as Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) that were first launched in the late 1960s. These “online” resources numbered around 60 in 1976 and approximately 400 by 1986 (Butler, 1988, p. 49). Broken down by subject area, 32% of CD-ROMs could be assigned to the “general” category; 31% to science and technology; 18% to business; 15% to social science; and 6% to humanities (Nicholls, 1988, p. 38). Roughly half of the available databases were indexes, sometimes without abstracts, while the other half were divided between full-text source and reference (Nicholls, 1988, p. 40). According to Nicholls, costs varied from $112 to over $25,000 with a median cost per disc of $1273; roughly a quarter of CD-ROM were updated frequently defined as from “1 week to 2 months” while three quarters of CD-ROM products were updated at least on a quarterly basis (Nicholls, 1988, p. 42). Costs for the same information resources in different formats have shifted over time, but CD-ROM generally cost more than print. Writing in 1991, Marilyn J. Martin reported that Biological Abstracts cost $7660 in CD-ROM format and $5845 in print while Compendex Plus cost $2085 in print format and $3450 in CD-ROM (Martin, 1991, p. 95). However, it is important to add that the cost of CD-ROM did seem to decline from the time that it first appeared in the 1980s. Nancy Melin Nelson wrote in Library Journal that the median price for CD-ROM had already fallen from $1300 in 1987 to $1000

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

27

in 1989 (Nelson, 1990, p. 47). Most importantly, for most librarians and patrons, there were no connect or communication charges as with other dial-up online systems before the World Wide Web (Karp, 1988). Overall, one could argue that CD-ROM was relatively affordable and accessible for most libraries in the United States in the late 20th century. CD-ROM, somewhat like the introduction of electronic resources in the 1990s, also served to democratize and promote greater accessibility to users without the need for mediation by librarians. For some reference librarians, use of new databases stored on optical discs freed up their time since they had previously been searching contemporary online systems on behalf of patrons due to charges per use, although there was a tradeoff between doing on behalf of users versus teaching them how to use new information resources (Karp, 1988). Ron J. Rietdyk, Vice President, SilverPlatter Information Services, Inc., wrote that “From the beginning of the product design it was stressed that this product should be able to be used directly by the true end user of the library and not only by the experienced searcher” (Rietdyk, 1988, p. 58). As Paul Kahn noted “CD-ROM has made it possible for the first time to deliver databases that take up many hundreds of megabytes of storage space on personal computers” (Kahn, 1988, p. 169). In his review of six CD-ROM user interfaces, Khan confirmed a broad range of usability with SilverPlatter providing the best support for printing and saving files combined with a simple search interface. Having reviewed searching, browsing, the ability to refine results, as well as printing and saving files, Kahn concluded that in this early phase of development, too many CD-ROM databases reproduced the limitations of the original online databases developed in the 1970s (Kahn, 1988). While this problem is not unique to libraries or information services, a recurring theme in electronic resources management is the delay in grasping opportunities for systemic change offered by new technologies. It is important to note that for many library staff, the development of CD-ROM services coincided with their introduction to personal computers. This was partly a coincidence due to the growing use of personal computers in offices in general in the late 1980s, not only the investment of libraries in CD-ROM. While the focus of this chapter is on historical developments in North America, some of the same changes were also occurring in the rest of the English-speaking world. Dennis Warren, a subject librarian on Monash University in Australia, discusses the impact of CD-ROM on staff and users. The Information Desk had a greater workload that included explaining how to use technology and troubleshooting problems (Warren, 1989). Warren

28

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

also lamented the lack of online tutorials and resource-specific instructions for contemporary CD-ROM services. He argued for developing user support for CD-ROM that would copy user support for computers in general. This approach included an unobtrusive strategy so that knowledgeable library staff responded to user requests at the point of need rather than offering unwanted advice, direct access to human assistance as well as relevant training or documentation materials, and the need for user support to be flexible, adaptive, and informative to users (Warren, 1989, 83). By the early 21st century, many organizations, not just libraries, were using CD-ROM as instructional materials such as the Journey: Discovery Social Services 9-module multimedia course used by the State of New York to train new social services personnel and developed by the Bureau of Training and Workforce Development (Bookhagen, Wegengast & McCowan, 2002). To understand the impact of CD-ROM on library reference services, Kristine Salomon conducted a survey of 150 colleges and universities based on a randomized list of institutions derived from the 1985 American Library Directory. Salomon included only libraries that the Directory listed as a college or university library, not as a military or specialized library, and held more than 200,000 books (Salomon, 1988). The 80% response rate provided a number of interesting results. CD-ROM adoption was greater at 68% than that of early online services such as Dialog with only 34% of libraries offering those services. Roughly, 76% of respondents agreed that users would accept CD-ROM while 74% of librarians agreed that they welcomed the new technology as well. Only 35% of librarians indicated that patrons would not find CD-ROM difficult to use while a majority expected users to have problems in developing good strategies. Only 24% of librarians anticipated that CD-ROM would replace print reference resources such as Books in Print while 35% of respondents indicated that CD-ROM would not replace any print resources at all. While 40% were willing to use book budgets to purchase CD-RPM, 26% were not. Fifty-eight percent of reference librarians saw the introduction of CD-ROM services as increasing the amount of work required at the reference desk, including troubleshooting and maintenance of the CD-ROM and associated equipment (Salomon, 1988). CD-ROMs presented new challenges for cataloging as well. Dickinson College in Pennsylvania organized CD-ROM into four categories: music, reference, data, and parts of sets (usually CD-ROM accompanying monographs). Depending on the expected use of a CD-ROM and how conversant library staff were with the contents, different levels of cataloging were used. Music CDs received full records but not call numbers since the

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

29

collection was closed and simply designed with “CD-ROM” and an accession number. Reference CDs were also fully cataloged with special modifications for location, but data CDs were sometimes only classified by accession number and did not always receive full subject analysis. Parts of sets were managed on a case-by-case basis, sometimes with both the book and accompanying CD-ROM designated as in-house use only (Persons, 1996). As another physical medium, however, CD-ROM did not lead directly to the kind of transformative questions that electronic resources have inspired such as linked data but simply required extensive modification of machine-readable cataloging (MARC) records, often done more to suit local needs of circulation and housing. While not as transformative as electronic resources, CD-ROM had an impact on all aspects of library operations. The University of Northern Iowa experienced a 16.6% growth in interlibrary loan requests from 1989/1990 to 1990/1991. Networking CD-ROMS in the following year witnessed a 43.6% increase (Martin & Rose, 1996, p. 98). Perhaps most importantly in the future development of electronic resources management, CD-ROM often required complex license agreements that required an understanding of content, technology, and overall usability (Martin & Rose, 1996). CDROM also made the work of assessment more complex in collection development as noted by Veronica Harry and Charles Oppenheim, “To evaluate a CD-ROM product, one not only needs to consider such elements as purpose, authority, scope, audience, format, and cost, but one also has to consider features such as the user interface software, the search software, and the reliability of the package” (Harry & Oppenheim, 1993a, p. 211.) Victoria Harry and Charles Oppenheim at the University of Strathclyde in the United Kingdom developed a complex system for reviewing CD-ROM that included the categories of general description, technical specification, documentation and support, database contents, user interface, searching, output, and reliability with a scoring system for detailed features in each category (Harry & Oppenheim, 1993b, pp. 348e350). Some libraries such as the Karl E. Mundt Library of Dakota State College employed highly effective outreach programs to demonstrate the value of CD-ROM to their patrons that included individual training, group sessions, and demonstrations at faculty meetings. “Our purpose was to educate the faculty to the possibilities of ERIC on CD-ROM searching, to encourage them to integrate its use into their regular class and services of the Mundt Library. We succeeded beyond our hopes. Several of the faculty arranged for one-on-one training for themselves and asked for bibliographic training for

30

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

their classes within a week of the meeting” (Bean, 1987, pp. 40e41). Director Ethelle S. Bean also mentioned that during the same time period the College administration also required faculty to integrate computers into their teaching, a factor that may have helped the libraries to operate in an institutional climate that was more amenable to innovation (Bean, 1987). Gonzaga University, a private institution in Spokane, Washington, used CD-ROM to help develop a distance learning program for students at the Canim Lake Reserve in British Columbia, a Bachelor of Education in Native American Leadership (Burr, 1988). These First Nations people, numbering around 350 in total at Canim Lake, were part of the larger Shuswap Nation which was related to the Flathead tribe in Montana and the Coeur d’Alene people in Idaho and Washington. All of these groups of Native Americans or First Nations people were once part of a larger group of Salish and affiliated tribes that previously occupied much of the Rocky Mountain and plains regions on both sides of the United States and Canadian border. The education program was very much the product of an initiative undertaken by the Canim Lake Band itself in 1980, which had developed a long-term plan to develop and improve their community. One of the major problems for the Band was that students enrolled in educational programs off the Reserve often dropped out due to loneliness, isolation from community support, and lack of financial resources. Finding a way to increase educational opportunities on the Reserve itself seemed imperative for further development. Having first tried and failed to achieve agreements with Canadian academic institutions, the Band signed an agreement with Gonzaga University that launched the program in April 1987. The program required 2 years of complex negotiations between the Canim Band Council, Gonzaga University, as well as provincial British Columbian and Canadian federal authorities (Burr, 1988, pp. 37e38). The Bachelor of Education in Native American Leadership program was technically more of a hybrid program than a fully fledged system of distance or remote education that would combine on-site learning at Canim Lake during the fall and spring semesters with summer sessions at the main campus in Spokane, Washington. To accommodate the cultural needs of the students, entire families along with the enrolled students would be provided with housing in Spokane during the summer sessions. Gonzaga University created a library resource center at Canim Lake that included a general reference collection in print format as well as an IBM-PC XT microcomputer, one Hayes 1200 Baud Smartmodem, a Hitachi 2500-S CD-ROM drive, and a Ricoh 210 Fax Receiver. Software included a WLN LaserCat

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

31

Search Software and Database and the PFS First Choice Integrated Applications Program (Burr, 1988, p. 39). Staff at the main campus library in Spokane communicated with staff at the Library Resource Center via e-mail while document delivery for the students was supported via fax and online, specifically the UMI Article Clearinghouse. Books were delivered to students within 11 days (Burr, 1988, p. 40). An assessment of the program in December 1987 indicated high usage by the students, overall satisfaction with training and results, but the lack of on-site technical support at Canim Lake, particularly when local computer equipment failed, was cited as a weakness of the program (Burr, 1988, p. 41). CD-ROM was also used in efforts to digitize large amounts of archival information, including communities that had previously been underserved by libraries and general information services. The Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (PCLMC) created an African American Album Volume 2 that addressed local African American history in North Carolina from the 1940s to the 1990s at a cost of $100,000. The previous first volume was a print book restricted to black and white format with limited text at a cost of $25,000, whereas the CD-ROM included “more than 6 hours’ worth of narrative, interactive maps, videos and photographs that recreate the World War II era, the integration of public schools, urban renewal, and the election of Charlotte’s first black mayor in the 1980s” (Johnston, 1999, p. 54). While more expensive to produce, one can argue that the CD-ROM was a much more effective tool in providing in-depth information in context about the African American community’s history in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County than the book, which despite its many merits, can provide only limited information. Before the World Wide Web, CD-R was also used to help develop services in ways that most associate the electronic resources. One of these services included union catalogs and expand interlibrary loan as in the case of ReQuest in Connecticut in the late 1980s. Some problems encountered included the lack of real-time updates for circulation data which might have been facilitated by connections to local area networks as well as the cost and practical problems of extending service to nonautomated libraries although the program was considered a success in comparison to previous technologies (Uricchio & Duffy, 1990). The development of local area networks (LANs) and client/ server architecture further extended accessibility for CD-ROM information resources (Perone, 1996) constituting an early form of electronic resources management in libraries. CD-ROM was also used to improve facilities for advanced graduate work such as the Library Electronic Text Resource Center

32

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

(LETRS) created by Indiana University in 1992, originally as a limited extension of the main reference desk, but later expanded in its own facility that could be open for extended hours (Willett, 1998). Search functionality of CD-ROM databases greatly improved after their launch in the mid-1980s. ABC-Clio’s Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life, now offered in the 21st century as online databases by EBSCO, provided advanced search capabilities for author, subject, print entry number, and documentation fields with the use truncation and wildcards, as well as Boolean operators to combine terms (Still, 1992). By the mid-1990s, many CD-ROMs offered free-text searching. Serious efforts were made, before the development of commonly used search algorithms on the Web, to develop conceptual indexing that would enable the discovery of relevant information resources that did not include the literal text of search strings such as A History of Australia undertaken by Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. (Cousins, 1996). One could argue that academic libraries in North America have undergone the following broadly defined transition in the 20th and 21st centuries. (1) Modern print libraries defined by rational principles for organizing space and maximizing the usability of traditional library materials such as books, periodicals, maps, reference works, and later other forms of physical media; (2) automated print libraries that continue the general pattern of the first phase with the benefit of computerized management of physical materials and the resulting reduction in staffing and changes in workflows due to automation; (3) hybrid libraries that offer materials in both electronic and traditional formats; and (4) 21st century libraries that prioritize contemporary electronic information resources with services that use other formats such as special collections when available or as appropriate. CD-ROM services are a bridge between the second and third phases in this model, partly due to the intrinsic characteristics of the technology but also due to the proximity in time of the heyday of CD-ROM in the 1990s that coincided with the emergence of the World Wide Web that provided access to electronic resources. CD-ROM forced libraries to rethink how to manage information, work with vendors on complex license agreements, explore new business models, reorganize services and personnel, and devise new positions.

3.2 The early transition from print to electronic journals The development of the World Wide Web in 1989 helped major academic publishers to develop online journals throughout the 1990s. Elsevier Science announced the launch of its ScienceDirect platform in 1996 with the

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

33

planned release of 300 journals in the first quarter of 1997. Elsevier planned to include what was then its entire suite of around 1200 journals while inviting other publishers to publish their content on their platform as well (“Elsevier Science announces ScienceDirect, releases final report on TULIP project,” 1996, 2). Charles Ellis, President and CEO of Wiley, announced that “a major new project to deliver many of our journals on the World Wide Web to those subscribers who want electronic access” at their annual meeting on September 19, 1996 (Milliot, 1996, p. 16). Wiley unveiled their InterScience online journal platform on October 1, 1997 including 50 of its 400 journals. Access was initially freely available in 1997 with plans to start subscriptions in 1998 (“Wiley launches online journal service,” 1997). EBSCO announced the pending launch of its own EBSCO online journal service in 1998 (“EBSCO Subscription Services announces EBSCO Online Electronic Journal services,” 1997). SpringereVerlag later agree to partner with EBSCO to make its content available on their new platform (“Springer-Verlag to Provide Electronic Journals through EBSCO Online,” 1998). Ovid Technologies released some online content in its Biomedical Collections II and III including such journals the American Journal of Psychiatry, British Journal of Surgery, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings (“Competitors ‘Web up’: Elsevier Science and Ovid, 1996). Simply posting content online in browsable form was only an initial step in the development of online journals. Full-text linking or the reciprocal linking of full-text articles would make electronic resources even more convenient to patrons. Elsevier developed version 3.0 of the ScienceDirect Gateway in 1998, which allowed the direct retrieval of individual articles using bibliographic searches. Provided that other publishers were willing to share their bibliographic data, the new “smart-links” would also reciprocal retrieval across different publisher’s platforms (“ScienceDirect Updates its URL Gateway.” 1998). The growth in scientific publishing and the total number of information sources in the late 20th century had led started to put great pressure on libraries, both in terms of physical space for book stacks to house serial runs and increasingly overtaxed photocopy machines used to make personal copies of articles. The development of online journals brought unprecedented convenience to users but required additional refinements to meet the demands of users who were increasingly used to the short life cycle of information technology with constant improvements in overall computing power and usability. The transition from print to online journals also impacted pricing. One of the factors sometimes forgotten in the cost of producing print journals is the

34

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

difference in currency rates. Partly due to the development of ScienceDirect, Elsevier announced plans to keep the annual increases for journals below 10 percent, with an anticipated increase of 7.5% for the 2000 subscription year (“Elsevier Science Announces New Approach to Journal Pricing,” 1999). While the base unit cost for online journal site subscriptions was originally set by many companies to make up for anticipated loss of print sales since IPauthenticated subscriptions were group subscriptions by definition that permitted multiple simultaneous users, online journals also helped to stabilize and make pricing more predictable given international variability in currencies, physical production costs, and shipping. The Library Journal conducted a survey of 440 public and academic libraries in 1996. While 71% of public library reference collections and 63% of academic libraries were in print format, academic libraries had increased their annual spending by 91% on electronic resources since 1991 whereas spending on print materials had only increased by 5.7%. For all libraries, spending had increased during the past five years in the amount of 6% for print reference, 80% for CD-ROM, and 52% for online. For the next 3 years, the Library Journal projects that libraries would only increase their spending on print by 2%, the CD-ROM increase would drop to 51% while online would increase by 43% (Oder, 1996, S75eS76).

3.3 The development of an online presence for academic libraries The US Government was a pioneer and early proponent of shifting information resources from analog to digital form. The entire Internet as we know it was developed originally from Arpanet, but the role of the US Government in developing electronic resources extends developing infrastructure to changing the format of information resources commonly sent to academic libraries included in the Federal Depository Program. By the late 1990s, hundreds of websites were organized to deliver freely available information to the public at large, including a number of metasites designed to help users navigate a seemingly innumerable amount of text and images. These metasites were organized hierarchically, by subject classification or category, and finally by type of publication. Importantly, metasites were developed not only by the US Government itself, but also academic institutions, regional branches of government agencies, State Governments, as well as private institutions. Some of the most important included the Federal Web Locator available since 1994. The University of California Riverside

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

35

developed INFOMINE to search government information by subject. The Regional Depository Library at the University of Memphis created the Uncle Sam Migrating Publications website by publication. The Government Printing Office (GPO) developed its own Browse Electronic Titles (BET): The Virtual Depository website. Another notable early entry that was not updated after 1995 was the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Governments on the Web project that listed information resources for all levels of government from international to local. The American Library Association (ALA) Government Document Roundtable’s International Documents Task Force maintained its own list of resources published online (Notess, 1998). Libraries in North American began to develop and expand websites in the 1990s. The University of Saskatchewan spent $1.7 million to upgrade its library system, including the launch of a new comprehensive Web search called U-Search in 1994 (Fox, 1997, pp. 11e20). Western Illinois University developed its first website in 1995 (Greenwood, 1997, pp. 63e75). St. Joseph Public Library in South Bend, Indiana, was most likely the first public library to launch a website and tracked the development of other public library websites listing 127 in total in mid-September 1995 (Cisler, 1995, p. 24). These institutions were located not only in the United States, however, but also in Europe, Canada, and Australia (Cisler, 1995, p. 24). Steve Cisler, Senior Scientist, Apple Computers Library, cited the growth in such online services as Netscape, America Online, and search tools such as InfoSeek and Yahoo as creating an online environment conducive to the development of a new web presence by libraries (Cister, 1995). Libraries in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia also launched websites in the 1990s, for example, the University College London (Edwards, 1997). Making library services available online changed the game for libraries as noted by Don L. Bosseau and Susan K. Martin, “We need to ask ourselves whether, in a world where our primary clientele are asking us fewer questions, and the rest of the world is asking us more questions, we should rethink the way that we offer these services” (Bosseau & Martin, 1998, p. 469). The decline in physical traffic by users of libraries, particularly for serials, as well as a reduction in reference questions was long-term trends, documented thoroughly in the library and information science literature well before the 21st century.

3.4 The first electronic resources librarians The first documented use of the term electronic resources librarian was in a position announcement in July/August 1992 for a Reference/Electronic

36

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Resources Librarian (Fisher, 2003, p. 6). Having reviewed 298 positions listed in American Libraries from 1985 to 2001, William Fisher discovered that the very first use of the term “electronic” appeared in a job ad for an “Electronic Information Services Librarian” in December 1988 that worked almost exclusively with “CD-ROM databases, a local information access system, and end-user oriented services from the commercial database vendors” (Fisher, 2003, p. 6). CD-ROM services arguably set the stage for the future development of electronic resources librarianship in some important ways, particularly the creation of a format-based specialization, separate or siloed workflows, and a focus on information resources delivered through vendor-supplied technology, but Fisher seems right to argue that electronic resources librarianship proper could not exist before the World Wide Web and what we now call “electronic resources.” While 1989 is the actual year that the Web was created at CERN, it did not really take off as a widespread phenomenon until several years later. 1988 is too early for the first electronic resources librarian, partly since CD-ROM services still left many traditional library functions, organizational structures, and best practices relatively intact despite multiple waves of automation in libraries in the 20th century. Of course, having written that electronic resources librarians were not identical to CD-ROM librarians, some of the early specialists did staff reference desks a great deal of time working with CD-ROM and other technologies. A good example would be the development of the electronic resource librarian positions at the Holland Library of Washington State University. When Holland Library added a new physical wing or extension of their building in 1994, the Head of Holland Public Services decided to change two existing reference librarian positions to electronic resource librarians who would staff the reference desk, assist patrons with new computers and technologies such as CD-ROM, and act as liaisons between the Reference and Systems departments. These positions had a range of “computer-related duties,” including troubleshooting problems, and a third position was added in 1995 (Felt, 1999, pp. 75e76). Later, one position was designed as an “Electronic Resources Librarian, Humanities” and another as an “Electronic Resources Librarian, Social Sciences” while the third position was advertised as “Social Science Reference and Electronic Resources Librarian” since these positions included varying levels of collection development responsibility (Felt, 1999, p. 76). Part of the reason for the creation of new positions was that managing electronic resources required a great deal of additional specialized work. As

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

37

Cheryl LaGuardia, Coordinator of the Electronic Teaching Center, Harvard College Library, put it, “Now, however, reference librariansdwith all our expertise in information accessdfind ourselves facing an online information onslaught of unprecedented proportions. Electronic resources are proliferating in gratifying, yet alarming, numbers, and the plaint everywhere is: ‘I have so much to do I can’t find time to learn X’ (for X read Gopher, the Internet, the Web, UNIX, and a multitude of other computer-accessible systems and resources)” (LaGuardia, 1995, p. 8). From the very beginning, there was considerable tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces in the work of electronic resources librarians as libraries struggled to delegate and disperse workflows while ensuring that new electronic resources librarians remained sufficiently conversant with what was going on to advise and communicate important developments to other library departments. Nicholas Lewis, the first electronic resources librarian at the University of East Anglia, discussed future needs to address over specialization and the need for much greater coordination for successful electronic resources management in libraries, “Library staff at all levels need to broaden their roles and make sure they have ‘bought into’ the electronic aspects of our library services. Electronic resources Librarians will have an ever-increasing role in facilitating this kind of change by acting as a linchpin between different groups and different departments both within the library and the institution as a whole” (Lewis, 2001, p. 187).

References Beach, B. J., Marketing, & Williams, M. E. (1998). The importance of obtaining customer input in the development of electronic publishing applications for CD-ROM and the Internet. Proceedings of the National Online Meeting, 19(1), 55e61. Bean, E. S. (1987). Integrating CD-ROM technology into the undergraduate library. In V. S. Hatfield (Ed.), Libraries and the literary challenge: the frontier of the 90’s. Proceedings of the mountain plains library association academic library section Research forum (Bismarck, North Dakota, September 23-26, 1987) (pp. 31e43). Emporia, KS: Emporia State University Press. Report No: ED 290 494. Bookhagen, A. D., Wegenast, D. P., & McCowan, R. J. (2002). Multimedia interactive training development- Journey: Discovering social services CD-ROM. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 20(3/4), 333e343. Bosseau, D. L., & Martin, S. K. (1998). A new kind of audience. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(6), 469. Burr, R. L. (1988). The electronic branch library: Using CD-ROM technology and online services to support off-campus instructional programs. Proceedings of the National Online Meeting, 37e41. Butler, M. (1988). The second time around: Adventures in the production of public and private CD-ROMs. Proceedings of the National Online Meeting, 49e52. Cisler, S. (1995). Library web sites. Library Journal, 120(19), 24e26.

38

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Cochenour, J., & Weaver-Meyers, P. (1988). CD-ROM; practical considerations for libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 9(3), 57e67. Competitors ‘Web up’: Elsevier Science and Ovid. (1996). Search (Carlton), 4(9), 49. Cousins, G. (1996). Conceptual indexing for CD-ROMs: Beyond free text searching. LASIE (Library Automated Systems Information Exchange), 27(3), 45e49. Davies, D. H. (1988). The CD-ROM medium. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(1), 34e42. EBSCO subscription services announces EBSCO online electronic journal services. Information Today, 14(8), (1997), 47. Edwards, J. (1997). The world Wide web at university college London library. Case Studies in Web Site Creation and Implementation, 29e37. Elsevier Science announces new approach to journal pricing. Information Today, 16(8), (1999), 22. Elsevier Science announces ScienceDirect, releases final report on TULIP project. Information Today, 13(8), (1996), 2e22. Felt, E. C. (1999). Holland library’s electronic resource librarians: A profile of these positions. The Reference Librarian, 64, 75e113. Fisher, W. (2003). The electronic resources librarian position: A public services phenomenon? Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27(1), 3e17. Fox, D. (1997). U-search. The university of Saskatchewan library web. Case Studies in web site creation and implementation. Greenwood, T. E. (1997). The western Illinois university library world Wide home page. Case Studies in web site creation and implementation. Harry, V., & Oppenheim, C. (1993a). Evaluations of electronic databases. Part 1, criteria for testing CD-ROM products. Online & CD - ROM Review, 17(4), 211e222. Harry, V., & Oppenheim, C. (1993b). Evaluation of electronic databases. Part II: Testing CD-ROM products. Online & CD - ROM Review, 17(6), 339e368. Hunter, K. (1988). Academic librarians and publishers: Customers versus producers or partners in the planning of electronic publishing? Journal of Library Administration, 9(4), 35e48. Jayayilleke, R. (1987). CD-ROM: Implications of the emerging technology for academic information services. In Proceedings of optical publishing & storage ’87, conference on applications of optical information systems in publishing (pp. 93e99). Johnston, S. (1999). An African American Album: Preserving local history on CD-ROM. American Libraries, 30(3), 54e56. Kahn, P. (1988). Making a difference: A review of the user interface features in six CDROM database products. Optical Information Systems, 8(4), 169e183. Karp, N. S. (1988). ABI/Inform on CD-ROM: How does the disk stack up? Proceedings of the National Online Meeting, 141e148. LaGuardia, C. (1995). Desk Set revisited: Reference librarians, reality & research systems’ design. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 7e9. Lewis, N. (2001). Redefining roles: Developing an electronic journals collection at the university of East Anglia. Information Services & Use, 21(3/4), 181e187. Lowe, J. B. (1988). Gambling on CD-ROM. Library Journal, 113(12), 37e39. Martin, K. F., & Rose, R. F. (1996). Collection development: Past and future, part I. Managing the CD-ROM collection development process: Issues and alternatives. Collection Management, 21(2), 77e102. Martin, M. J. (1991). Academic libraries as information consumers: Implications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 17(2), 93e98. Milliot, J. (1996). Wiley stepping up electronic delivery of journals. Publishers Weekly, 243(41), 16. Nelson, N. M. (1990). CD-ROM roundup. Library Journal, 115(2), 45e50.

Digital dawn: libraries experiment and adapt to new technology

39

Nicholls, P. T. (1988). Statistical profile of currently available CD-ROM database products. Laserdisk Professional, 1(4), 38e45. Notess, G. R. (1998). Government metasites: Federal, state, and international. Database Magazine, 21(5), 60. Oder, N. (1996). Online resources emerge. Library Journal, 121(19), S74eS76. Perone, K. (1996). Networking CD-ROMs: A tutorial introduction. Computers in Libraries, 16(2), 71e77. Persons, N. A. (1996). Development of a model for cataloging, circulation, and housing CD-ROMs. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 3(2), 101e113. Rietdyk, R. J. (1988). Creation and distribution of CD-ROM databases for the library reference desk. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(1), 58e62. Salomon, K. (1988). The impact of CD-ROM on reference departments. RQ, 28(2), 203e215. Schipma, P. B. (1988). A CD-ROM database product for oncology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(1), 63e66. Schwerin, J. B. (1988). CD-ROM: Potential markets for information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(1), 54e57. ScienceDirect Updates Its URL Gateway. (1998). Information Today, 15(11), 25. Springer-verlag to provide electronic journals through EBSCO online. Information Today, 15(10), (1998), 56. Still, J. (1992). ABC-CLIO’s history databases on CD-ROM. CD-ROM Professional, 5(3), 83e86. Uricchio, W., & Duffy, M. (1990). From Amoeba to REQUEST: A history and case study of Connecticut’s CD-ROM-based statewide database. Library Hi Tech, 8(2), 7e21. Warren, D. (1989). Supporting CD-ROM in an academic library. Information Services & Use, 9(1/2), 79e84. Wiley launches online journal service. Publishers Weekly, 244(38), (1997), 14. Willet, P. (1998). Building support for a humanities electronic text center: The experience at Indiana university. Library Hi Tech Journal, 16(3/4), 51e56. Zoellick, B. (1988). CD-ROM software architecture to promote interchangeability. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(1), 47e53.

CHAPTER 4

The transition to the hybrid library Libraries and librarians had been closely identified with books in the popular imagination for a very long time, centuries if one considers the historical record before the modern profession developed in the 19th century. The shift from analogue to digital communications continues to change society at large, let alone libraries, and both understanding and adapting to the full ramifications together is an ongoing process. In the 1990s, libraries tended to treat electronic resources as an exotic new format separate from and added to the regular collections which were still defined in traditional terms. As noted in the previous chapter, the first electronic resources librarians (ERLs) were actually public services librarians who specialized in managing CD-ROM technology. To some extent, having to interact directly with patrons forced public services units to recognize that they had to address new technologies, whereas the managers of technical services units were slower to shift personnel toward new technologies. Both public and technical services, however, tended to take a siloed approach by repurposing or creating a few dedicated specialist positions rather than rethink overall organization and professional roles in light of new technology. This chapter discusses changes in traditional library services, changes in user behavior, the emergence of electronic resources management as a separate area of specialization in practice, the creation of new tools such as A to Z lists, and the recognition by librarians that electronic resources required a fundamentally different approach in terms of acquisitions, cataloging, access, management, and assessment. The late 1990s was the time in which the hybrid library that combines traditional print resources with electronic resources was born.

4.1 Changes in traditional library services Andrew Abbott reflected on the question of professional identity of librarians, casting aside the questions of sociologists who have asked is The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00004-0

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

41

42

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

librarianship even a profession in the way that doctors and attorneys are, arguing instead that librarianship like all professions is defined by its work. Since librarianship is constantly changing, its professional fate is contingent on how well it addresses or adapts to larger social and cultural forces, other competing occupations, as well as competing organizations and “commodities” (Abbot, 1998). Scanning the environment, Abbot saw the greatest challenges to librarianship in terms of technological change, competition between librarians and vendors for providing information services directly to users, and the general financial challenge of greater competition for scarce government funding (Abbot, 1998). Interestingly, Abbot saw the intensive centralized commodification of information resources, e.g., online tools and information resources such as Web of Science, spurring greater differentiation within librarianship itself into a core professional elite responsible for maintaining the most complex centralized systems and a larger peripheral group responsible for providing and managing access to these systems for their clients or patrons. Abbot argued that the gap between public, academic, school, and special libraries would also increase (Abbot, 1998). The most valuable insight that Abbot provides, however, is that librarianship is dependent on organizations, specifically libraries. For Abbot, libraries as organizations have constituted an aggregation of specialists doing different work but oriented toward a common mission of information service. Just as many engineers actually have credentials outside their field of work, many librarians actually have degrees in arts and sciences outside librarianship (Abbot, 1998). To be fair, a Master of Library Science (MLS) or equivalent degree is often a prerequisite for professional employment in some libraries, but enough libraries in the 20th and 21st centuries have hired candidates with doctoral degrees who lack MLS degrees to make it a source of ongoing controversy. Nonetheless, understanding librarianship, particularly academic librarianship requires us to study changing organizational structure and culture. Grounded in information services, libraries have been forced to change as the underlying technology of managing information changes. Computerization automated library workflows and reduced the need for some types of paraprofessional labor. CD-ROM in the 1980s required some librarians to develop new areas of specialization, including some IT knowledge and skill sets, but also challenged the fundamental service paradigm of public services librarians. Nonetheless, the traditional printbased library, while still put under considerable risk by CD-ROM, was

The transition to the hybrid library

43

able to absorb the challenges and maintain an organizational structure and sense of identify that would seem familiar to most library users after World War II. The emergence of electronic resources in the 1990s posed a fundamental challenge that continues into the present time with some questions not yet resolved. Opinion Technology published a survey on behalf of the Information Access Company (IAC) in 1993 that documented the dramatic increases in electronic information offered by libraries in the United States. Drawing on a telephone poll of 1,300 librarians, the survey confirmed that 80% of public libraries and 90% of academic libraries offered electronic resources. CD-ROM networks were growing at an estimated rate of 50% per year in public libraries and 65% annually in academic libraries. 90% of American high school libraries provided CD-ROM databases while 75% of junior high schools did as well (Rogers, 1993, p. 28). Some libraries faced global challenges to their organizational structure. Shortly before the time period in question, Stanford University Libraries merged with the University’s Computer Center on September 1st, 1990, partly due to the need to adapt to a 16% budget cut as a result of reorganization and reprioritization at Stanford but also due to concerns about the Libraries’ collection ability to adapt to changing technology. The merger saved the University around $2.25 million and resulted in 16 layoffs of Libraries personnel while second phase of reorganization would save an estimated $557,236 and lead to additional layoffs (Gaughan, 1990, p. 830). The 1990s were a busy time for technical services reorganization in academic libraries in the United States. For Emory University in the early 1990s, library reorganization meant merging the previously separate divisions of Collection Management and Technical Services while expanding the scope and role of Acquisitions and Cataloging Departments (Jasper & Treadwell, 1992). The Acquisitions Department at the University of Iowa Libraries was put under the supervision of the Director of Collection Management as part of a libraries-wide reorganization (Wachel & Shreeves, 1992). The University of Louisville Libraries disbanded their Acquisitions Department and established a Collection Management Office (Niles, 1992). The Technical Services Department at Michigan State University Libraries numbered 14 librarians and 55 support staff in 1993. Four trends forced the Department to rethink their organizational structure: loss of managers through attrition combined with limited support staff turnover, a decline in monographic orders combined with rising serials costs, reorganization and restructuring at the University leveldexacerbated by the

44

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

recession, and the deployment of additional automation of workflows through a more complete implementation of the NOTIS system. Six formerly separate units were reduced to five teams with the establishment of a self-managing original catalogers’ team (Davis & Have, 1993). Rosann Bazirjian of Syracuse University described the four goals of contemporary reorganization of technical services as the streamlining of functions, improved cost-effectiveness in all respects, the need to adapt to the immediate access provided by new technologies, and the reality that the use of an integrate database (integrated library system [ILS]) to manage technical services work required all units to take the impact of their work on their colleagues carrying out other functions fully into account, including the growing interrelationship between technical and public service functions (Bazirjian, 1993). Reference units also faced some additional pressure to reorganize in the 1990s. The Auraria Library at the University of Colorado Denver shifted one-third of library instruction, focusing primarily on how to use the library’s online catalog, to classified or support staff (Turner & Grotzky, 1995). The University of Dayton shifted some reference desk duties to paraprofessionals in 1996, using the WisconsineOhio Reference Evaluation Program (WOREP) to confirm a combined success rate of 62.5% with a score of 60% or more being considered good or excellent (Courtney, 2001, p. 37). Staffing the reference desk with paraprofessionals while referring more complex questions to librarians was not at all uncommon even at special libraries such as UCLA’s Louis Darling Biomedical Library (Deeney, 1990). The impact of CD-ROM services on public services has already been noted as well with many reference librarians struggling to keep up with instruction at the point of use since most libraries did not have facilities to permit group instruction (Whitaker, 1990). Librarians focused on instruction, sometimes organized into separate units rather than being part of larger public service departments, moved away from more traditional methods of bibliographic instruction to a focus on information literacy that empowered the user or patron to use information more wisely and efficiently on their own. Herbert S. White, a faculty member of the School of Library and Information Science at Indiana University, criticized the growing emphasis on group instruction and the abandonment of the role of the librarian as intermediary (White, 1992). A systematic review of library and information science (LIS) literature published in 2001 showed an overwhelming preponderance of acceptance, at least in general terms, of the Association of College and Research Libraries

The transition to the hybrid library

45

(ACRL) standards for information literacy in higher education while also acknowledging a decisive turn by students to the World Wide Web to seek information (Johnson & Rader, 2002). Old Dominion University was an example of an institution that merged its formerly separate government documents department with its reference department, often accompanied by a consolidation of previously separate reference desks into one public service point (Frazer, McCart, Prince, & Rees, 1997). Driven primarily by the change in format from print to electronic collections, government information specialists not only contended with reorganization in the 1990s but also confronted growing fears that the public would lose access to vital government information since the original models for preservation and dissemination were not designed to address the digital age (Peterson, Cowell, & Jacobs, 2001). The American Library Association convened a Forum on Government Information Policy in 1995 as the US Government Printing Office continued to transition to an electronic delivery model (Turock & Henderson, 1996). However, given the use of the US Government as a source of data, especially geospatial data such as the TIGER/line files provided by the Bureau of the Census, some government information units found a new purpose with the emergence of geographic information systems (GISs). Supported by the Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL’s) GIS Literacy Project, Georgetown University developed GIS services using Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI)’s ArcView (Cheverie, 1995). One of the most important developments in the 1990s, that is still unfolding in libraries today, was the exploration of new forms of metadata. Dublin Core, developed at Dublin, Ohio, as the product of an international workshop hosted by Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and the National Center for Supercomputing. Librarians, archivists, information scientists, publishers, IT specialists, and members of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) Working Group crafted the original 15 elements of Dublin Core in March 1995 (Caplan & Guenther, 1996). Designed not just for libraries, but more to address the fundamental need for metadata for online information resources in general, Dublin Core continued to be discussed and refined in the Dublin Core Metadata Workshop Series for several years in the United States and United Kingdom (Weibel & Lagoze, 1997). Important further developments included the Warwick Framework for aggregating multiple sets of metadata (Weibel & Lagoze, 1997, p. 180), multiple efforts and projects worldwide to define and deploy Dublin Core in terms of technical

46

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

standards such as the Z39.50 Profile, indexing Dublin Core meta files in HTML tags, not to mention efforts to relate Dublin Core to library-specific standards and tools such as MARC and LCSH subject headings (Weibel & Lagoze, 1997). Some librarians and other personnel in libraries questioned changes that were affecting nearly all types of libraries in the United States in the last decade of the 20th century, particularly the increasing replacement of print materials by electronic resources. Will Manley, drawing comparisons between 6th-century Irish monks engaged in preserving books in the dark ages, mentioned the work of “guerilla librarians” in the 1990s who tried to resist efforts by their “cybrarian” colleagues to change collections at the San Francisco Public Library (Manley, 1997). Manley wrote, “It’s a historical oddity that World War II is a better documented war than Vietnam. The reason is that Vietnam was a computer-era war, and many of its documents are stored on electronic tapes that can be accessed only by digital equipment that no longer exists” (Manley, 1997, p. 92). This seems to be a fair criticism in this specific case but only up to a point, since there is no way for libraries to shift the clock back to an earlier time. Many communications, including military communications, are born digital. To preserve this information better, librarians need to find better ways to address the preservation of electronic information rather than expect the rest of society to shift back to an earlier format. John Perry Barlow, cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, expressed optimism about the role of libraries in the Information Age, “I think libraries have an invaluable role to play, mainly because librarians are the ones who are getting it. At least some of them are. In my opinion, there are two kinds of librarians: those who believe that their mission is to store books and those who believe their mission is to store information” (Chepesiuk, 1996, p. 51).

4.2 Changes in the user population: the wider adoption of computers A report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics provided a snapshot in the growth in American computer ownership from 1990 to 1997. Only 15.2% of households owned computers in 1990, whereas ownership increased to 34.6% of households in 1997. The numbers were even higher for the more educated in 1997 with 39.9% of households in the “some college” category owning computers, 56.2% of those with college graduates, and 65.6% for those with graduate school education. 36.1% of all white households

The transition to the hybrid library

47

owned computers while 49.1% of all Asian households did as well. Only 17.9% of black households, however, owned computers in 1997 (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999). Access to the Internet, however, trailed somewhat behind computer ownership. A Pew Research Study, Who’s not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on, published in 2000 took a closer look at a still deep digital divide during this transitional period for electronic resources in libraries. The Study showed that the most prominent gap was age. For those aged 65 years or older, 87% had no access to the Internet; 59% of those between ages 50 and 64 years did not use the Internet, yet 65% of those younger than 30 years of age did have Internet access (Lenhart, Rainie, Fox, & Horrigan, 2000, p. 2). Income, gender, race, and ethnicity were also factors in online access. For households earning more than $75,000, 78% of whites, 79% of Hispanics, and 69% of blacks were online. For households earning less than $30,000, 68% of whites, 74% of Hispanics, and 75% of blacks were offline. Overall, 49% of men and 54% of women did not have Internet access (Lenhart et al., 2000, p. 3). Notably, there was also an expected disparity between rural and urban households with 57% of the former and 47% of the latter lacking access to the Internet in 2000 (Lenhart et al., 2000, p. 4). Interestingly, the principle concerns of the “digital have-nots” were that “the Internet is a dangerous thing” for 54%, 51% did “not think they are missing anything,” 39% indicated that the Internet was too expensive, while 36 present found it difficult or confusing to use the Internet (Lenhart et al., 2000, p. 3). Change in information-seeking behavior by users was partly the result of changes in the wider environment such as general advances in information technology and the wider availability of affordable desktop computers, but some changes were also encouraged by librarians. To look at a contemporary example outside of North America, the Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet) provided online access to the Internet for Australian universities and research institutions starting in 1990. Services were limited to e-mail, bulletin boards, discussion groups as well as access to computer files and databases via ftp and telnet. Within a few short years, some patrons were navigating the Internet using gopher, Wide Area Information Server (WAIS), and the World Wide Web (Klobas, 1996). Jane Klobas described seven key roles for librarians in the new online environment: (1) educators for those unfamiliar with new technologies; (2) information managers who build new navigation tools to facilitate discovery; (3) information management consultants for patrons regarding

48

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

their personal information systems; (4) custodians of information; (5) information providers or publishers; (6) change agents particularly in terms of expanding access; (7) and custodians of public library facilities to help bridge the digital divide (Klobas, 1996, p. 61).

4.3 Electronic resources management as a new specialization A casual search of subject indexes for LIS using the phrase “electronic resources” will produce thousands of hits, mostly clustered from the 1990s forward, but a few databases will provide results back to the 1960s. This makes sense given that electronic resources management has a number of important precursors in library automation, reorganization, and rethinking that took place throughout the 20th century. Just as many consumer technologies used today derive from earlier military research and applications, electronic resources would have been impossible without the World Wide Web, the Internet, and desktop computing. Tracing these resources back in time, World War II was decisive in their development in that this war made vast computing power necessary, although there were many different steps between that time and now. Just as in the broader case of computerization, the full impact of the development of electronic resources management is still in development for academic libraries. Thinking in the LIS profession of what an academic library is, how it should work, and what librarians should do will continue to evolve, sometimes according to conscious design but more often by reacting to changing circumstances and external initiatives. Given the differences between libraries, especially the difference between trendsetters and institutions slower to adapt, setting up precise phases for development is not feasible, but one can still make helpful generalizations. If we consider the first phase of electronic resource management to be from 1992 to 2001, we can argue that electronic resources librarianship was just emerging as a separate area of specialization, associated with both technical and public services functions from inception, but initially found in public services in organizational structures. Given that libraries began to introduce electronic resources management into a dynamic and changing system simultaneously with changes to other more established positions and functional areas of specialization, it is difficult to find consistency across all libraries during this period. Most ERLs had varying levels of responsibility for licensing, acquiring, cataloging, and

The transition to the hybrid library

49

troubleshooting access to electronic journals, databases, the limited number of then available eBooks, as well as lingering and ultimately redundant work with CD-ROM databases. Work with electronic resources acquisitions was made particularly more complicated by complex license agreements. Some of these legal documents could number in the tens of pages, especially if detailed entitlements to specific electronic journals or other online content were included. New license agreements specified not only payment terms and products but also access terms, technical requirements, use permissions, and the responsibility of the library for protecting the virtual property of the vendor by limiting access to authorized users and investigating potential breaches. To help make sense of an often confusing and complex new world of licensing electronic resources, the ARL led an effort encompassing representatives of the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association to develop more uniform principles and guidelines (Schottlaender, 1998). The final draft included 15 principles and 2 appendices that addressed the need for the precise definition of the following technical terms in specific contracts: archive, authorized use and user, concurrent use, institution, local access, local area network, remote access, simultaneous use, site, and wide area network (Schottlaender, 1998, p. 53). Kristin Gerhard outlined some of the problems that electronic resources create for technical services operations. The first dilemma was that electronic resources, particularly online-only journals or other resources with no corresponding print component, did not fit existing acquisitions and cataloging workflows that were designed for physical objects such as books, bound periodicals, maps, or even CD-ROM. Another problem was that electronic resources management crossed both departmental and divisional lines, including the broad divide between public and technical services in academic libraries. Detailed license agreements with varying business and access models, as well as unique technical requirements, made it exceedingly difficult to standardize workflows. Recognizing the need for an expert to coordinate all aspects of electronic resources management, already defined as nonlinear in the LIS literature, Iowa State created a Coordinator of Electronic Resources position in the mid-1990s. According to Gerhard, the advantages of creating a single coordinator for all functions ensured continuity in library policies and procedures, a “human face” or point of contact for those outside of technical services, and a person who would

50

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

responsible for maintaining all necessary communication flows between the library administration and other units regarding electronic resources. Gerhard also acknowledged the potential problem of relying on one person with no real backup, not to mention the problem of managing all of the information exchange required, and one assumes the overall workload. (Gerhard, 1998). In some respects, the coordinator role was also a trailblazing role as important cataloging functions were successfully transferred to other personnel after 1 year of developing procedures including the “maintenance of divisional Web pages, maintenance of access to cataloged Internet resources, and coordination of cataloging of electronic titles” (Gerhard, 1998, p. 285). Some libraries took a different approach, either formally assigning responsibility for the entire electronic resource life cycle to a small number of personnel or this happened by default even in libraries whose work was supposedly distributed across different units. To some extent, efforts to integrate electronic resources management with other workflows in public or technical services were more effective in the 1990s due to the fact that some of the specialized tools of electronic resources management, particularly electronic resources management systems (ERMS), would not be developed until early in the next century. Given the need to learn and manage specialized tools in addition to requiring flexible nonlinear workflows, many academic libraries experienced mission creep in which a single ERL or a small electronic resources unit assumed effective responsibility for licensing, acquiring, activating, cataloging, and troubleshooting access to electronic journals, databases, eBooks, and later streaming media as well (Stachokas, 2009).

4.4 Managing electronic resources from A to Z Keeping track of thousands of links to online journals presented new technical problems for libraries. Machine readable cataloging (MARC) records were literally developed in another era using different technologies than what confronted librarians in the 1990s or today. Modifications or adaptations to MARC records were possible, for example, the use of the 856 MARC field for URLs, but these efforts were insufficient since MARC records were and still are themselves computerized adaptations to catalog cards that used limited amounts of highly standardized text. As an example of a partial attempt to adapt to emerging electronic resources, The Library Corporation (TLC) included additional functionality in its Library

The transition to the hybrid library

51

Solution 1.4 system such as “New add or edit 856 field menu” and “New safeguards to batch load record utility,” but the system was still an ILS with no real ERMS functionality with a serials module that emphasized functions such as receiving and bindery (TLC’s Library-Solution 1.4 and Library-Solution-LITE, plus serials, acquisitions products announced, 1998, 51-52). During the 1990s, some aspects of the Internet and World Wide Web that contemporary 21st century users take for granted were still being built. As the rest of the world labored to build other parts of the Web, libraries struggled to manage online journals and databases. For the latter, many libraries early on developed web pages that simply listed, sometimes with better or worse description, the information resources available to patrons on library web pages. Managing hundreds and later thousands of online journals was much more difficult. The knowledge base of electronic resources as we know it today did not yet exist in its complexity, and there were no ERMS when major publishers and content providers such as Elsevier, EBSCO, Springer, and Wiley launched their online journals in the mid- to late-1990s. However, some had successfully developed early types of separate online catalogs such as the California Union List of Periodicals (CULP) through the Bibliographic Retrieval Service (BRS) and maintained by the California Library Authority for Systems and Services (CLASS); this system encompassed 72,000 records representing approximately 70% of available serials in California libraries but also charged $20 per hour for searching for BRS members plus any associated telecommunication fees in 1982 (California serials list goes online with BRS, 1982, p. 133). Herbert Van de Sompel, a librarian and computer scientist, and Patrick Hochstenbach, digital architect, both of Ghent University Library in Belgium, addressed the problem of linking information resources in two articles published in D-Lib Magazine that introduced the first OpenURL link resolver, SFX, to the world in 1999. Their “Reference Linking in a Hybrid Library Environment, Part 1: Frameworks for Linking” (Van de Sompel & Hochstenbach, 1999a) and “Part 2: SFX, a Generic Linking Solution” succinctly describe the need and expectation of users for a hyperlinked environment and their solution (Van de Sompel & Hochstenbach, 1999b). Citing the influence of previous research on dynamic linking by the Multimedia Research Group at the University of Southampton, Van de Sompel and Hochstenbach discussed the need for a linking system that could operate outside of a controlled environment such as the static links of a preconfigured full-text database (Van de Sompel &

52

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Hochstenbach, 1999a). To simplify, SFX permitted just-in-time linking, rather than links computed in advance, and permitted users to link to information resources based on each library’s unique access rights. Open URLs, required for this type of dynamic linking, include metadata that describe the information object or target that one is trying to link to from a source, e.g., a source could be an abstract in a database while the target could be a link to the article associated with the abstract. SFX provided a menu of one or more links to information resources that users could then select (Van de Sompel & Hochstenbach, 1999b). Van de Sompel’s PhD dissertation in Communication Science at Ghent University published in 2000 further addressed his pioneering work in this area. Ex Libris acquired SFX from the University of Ghent in that same year (Ex Libris Acquires SFX Linking Software, 2000). Three brothers, Steve, Mike, and Peter McCracken, founded Serials Solutions to develop tools to manage electronic resources in 1999, formally incorporating in March 2000. While working to manage the new company, Peter McCracken also continued to work as a full-time reference librarian at the University of Washington’s Odegaard Undergraduate Library. Arguably, the single most important product of Serials Solutions was the knowledge base of URLs or links to specific information resources organized in the system as “databases” with links to individual full-text online journals. The interface for searching and managing this system of links to match the library’s unique electronic holdings was called an A-Z list (Oder, 2001). Serials Solutions would also offer its own link resolver, article linker, as well as MARC records for batch loading matched to a library’s selections on their A-Z list. The topic of Serials Solutions will be revisited in the following chapters, but it ceased to be an independent company in 2004 when it was acquired by ProQuest (ProQuest Acquires Serials Solutions, 2004). Other competing e-resource management tools soon emerged. TDNet, a subsidiary of Teldan Information Systems based in Jerusalem, developed its own e-journal management system or A-Z list in 2000 (Hawkins, 2001). Some other examples from the same time period include Journal Web Cite (Emery, 2001) and Gold Rush (Stockton & Machovec, 2001). Most of these systems included both a public interface that permitted searching by patrons such as the “E-Journal Portal” associated with Serials Solutions A-Z list as well as back-end functionality for administration by libraries personnel. EBSCO, one of the largest companies working with libraries for many decades, also continued to improve its EBSCOhost database platform

The transition to the hybrid library

53

and to develop its EBSCO online platform that provided full-text links to electronic journals. By May 2001, EBSCO hosted around 4000 journals from multiple publishers. Division General Manager Tim Allen described the service as follows, “The key to all that is the user doesn’t know where the full text came fromdthey just know that it’s available and seamless. We call that our ‘smart linking’ technology, and it’s central to our mission of integrating our services” (Hane, 2001, p. 68).

4.5 Entering a brave new world: self-directed users, virtual information services, and nonlinear workflows The World Wide Web created the possibility of a truly virtual library but also left some librarians feeling disconnected from their patrons. Users could log in and use information resources at any time, provided they had Internet access, without entering the physical library, asking questions or interacting with any libraries personnel. While it would take some time for libraries to improve their online presence, even early websites were designed to be navigated without directions. Although, one must caution that some of the early library websites were often poorly designed, confusing, or less than user friendly by the standards of the second decade of the 21st century. Electronic resources were truly nonlinear in terms of workflow in that library personnel had to constantly revisit what had already been purchased if there was a loss of access, troubleshoot problems, work with vendors to ensure that their link resolver was functioning properly, activate the journal on an online platform, perhaps reactivating after annual renewal, consider how to manage perpetual access rights in the event of cancellation, and generally consider a much broader range of legal and technical requirements than had been necessary with print materials. Books and bound periodicals, once purchased, would sit on the shelf unless checked out by patrons or shifted to a new location by library staff. Materials could generally be acquired, cataloged, processed, and shelved with no need to revisit previous steps. Oliver Pesch, Chief Product Strategist at EBSCO Information Services, has described the electronic resources life cycle as a circle with five clusters of activities characterized as the following: (1) acquire, (2) provide access, (3) administer, (4) provide support, and (5) monitor, evaluate. Each general category encompasses multiple activities, tools, or processes such as proxy server configuration, entering IP addresses into an administrative website

54

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

for an online platform, or soliciting user feedback (Moore, 2011). Some of these features were not yet apparent in the 1990s to early specialists, but the life cycle is generally representative of the work that electronic resources management requires then and now. Electronic resources management also began to require entirely new forms of work and skill sets that were previously less common in libraries. Some of the newly required skills, e.g., web design or networking, along with new personnel could be integrated into existing Systems or IT Departments that had previously been created to manage ILSs. Other public and technical services units were challenged by the need to provide new forms of instruction or teaching patrons how to use new electronic resources, the review and management of complex license agreements, more extensive and intensive negotiation with library vendors, troubleshooting access problems, and gathering usage statistics or other data for assessment. However, the emerging hybrid library began as a still predominately print library with different stages of transition through the library as an organizational system. Technical services units remained largely focused on still substantial and growing print collections in the late 1990s. Public services units had to be generally conversant with materials in all formats since they worked directly with patrons but were not well equipped to develop their own full-time technical specialists to manage electronic resources even though the first ERL positions were usually found in public service units. Subsequent chapters of this book will discuss how the development of professional roles, reorganization of libraries, changes in the information marketplace, as well as improvements in the technology to manage electronic resources created a period of development as a subset of technical services specialists in academic libraries in the first decade of the 21st century.

References Abbot, A. (1998). Professionalism and the future of librarianship. Library Trends, 46(3), 430. Bazirjian, R. (1993). Automation and technical services organization. Library Acquisitions, 17(1), 73e77. California serials list goes online with BRS. Library Journal, 107(2), (1982), 133. Caplan, P., & Guenther, R. (1996). Metadata for Internet resources. The Dublin core metadata elements set and its mapping to USMARC. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 22(3/4), 43e58. Chepesiuk, R. (1996). Librarians as cyberspace guerrillas. American Libraries, 27(8), 49e51. Cheverie, J. F. (1995). Getting started: Ready, set. get organized! The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(4), 292e296.

The transition to the hybrid library

55

Courtney, N. (2001). Evaluating the use of paraprofessionals at the reference desk. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 8(1), 31e40. Davis, E., & Have, T. (1993). Serials in strategic planning and reorganization. Serials Review, 19(2), 7e12, 48. Deeney, K. (1990). The role of paraprofessionals in the reference desk. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 78(2), 191e193. Emery, J. (2001). A comparative review of three electronic journal management systems: Journal Web Cite, SerialsSolutions, and TDNet. Charleston Advisor, 3(2), 16e19. Ex Libris acquires SFX linking software. Computers in Libraries, 20(4), (2000), 12. Frazer, S. L., McCart, V. A., Prince, T. L., & Rees, A. D. (1997). Merging government information and the reference department: A team-based approach. Journal of Government Information, 24(2), 93e102. Gaughan, T. (1990). Budget-struck Stanford library merged with computer center. American Libraries, 21(9), 830. Gerhard, K. H. (1998). Coordination and collaboration: A model for electronic resources management. The Serials Librarian, 33(3/4), 279e286. Hane, P. J. (2001). EBSCO publishing provides integrated serials solutions. Information Today, 18(5), 1, 68, 70. Hawkins, D. T. (2001). Online information 2000. Information Today, 18(2), 42e43, 1. Jasper, R. P., & Treadwell, J. B. (1992). Reorganizing collections and technical services: Staffing is key. Library Acquisitions, 16(4), 361e366. Johnson, A. M., & Rader, H. B. (2002). Library instruction and information literacy: 2001. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 359e389. Klobas, J. E. (1996). Networked information resources: Electronic opportunities for users and librarians. Internet Research, 6(4), 53e61. Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., Fox, S., & Horrigan, J. (2000). Who’s not online: 57% of those without Internet access say they do not plan to log on. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Manley, W. (1997). Guerrilla librarians. American Libraries, 28(4), 192. Moore, M. (2011). Keeping current with electronic resources and libraries. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8(3), 263e271. Niles, J. (1992). Acquisitions and collection management reorganization: An exercise in crisis management. Library Acquisitions, 16(4), 379e382. Oder, N. (2001). Peter McCracken: Librarian as entrepreneur. Library Journal, 126(13), 44e46. Peterson, K., Cowell, E., & Jacobs, J. (2001). Government documents at the crossroads. American Libraries, 32(8), 52. Proquest acquires serials solutions. Advanced Technology - Libraries, 33(8), (2004), 6. Rogers, M. (1993). Electronic usage rising. Library Journal, 118(15), 28. Schottlaender, B. E. C. (1998). The development of national principles to guide librarians in licensing electronic resources. Library Acquisitions, 22(1), 49e54. Stachokas, G. (2009). Electronic resources and mission creep: Reorganizing the library for the twenty-first century. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 21(3e4), 206e212. Stockton, M., & Machovec, G. (2001). Gold Rush: A digital registry of electronic journals. Technical Services Quarterly, 19(3), 51e59. TLC’s Library-Solution 1.4 and Library-Solution-LITE, plus serials, acquisitions products announced. Information Today, 15(8), (1998), 51e52. Turner, D. J., & Grotzky, M. E. (1995). They teach too: A role for paraprofessionals in library instruction. The Reference Librarian, (51/52), 181. Turock, B. J., & Henderson, C. C. (1996). A model for a new approach to federal government information access and dissemination. Journal of Government Information, 23(3), 227e240.

56

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999). Computer ownership up sharply in the 1990s. Issues in Labor Statistics. Summary 99-4 (March). Van de Sompel, H., & Hochstenbach, P. (1999a). Reference linking in a hybrid library environment: Part 1: Frameworks for linking. D-lib Magazine, 5(4). Van de Sompel, H., & Hochstenbach, P. (1999b). Reference linking in a hybrid library environment: Part 2: SFX, a generic linking solution. D-lib Magazine, 5(4). Wachel, K., & Shreeves, E. (1992). An alliance between acquisitions and collection management. Library Acquisitions, 16(4), 383e390. Weibel, S. L., & Lagoze, C. (1997). An element set to support resource discovery: The state of the Dublin Core: January 1997. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 1(2), 176. Whitaker, C. S. (1990). Pile-up at the reference desk: Teaching users to use CD-ROMs. Laserdisk Professional, 3(2), 30e34. White, H. S. (1992). Bibliographic instruction, information literacy, and information empowerment. Library Journal, 117(1), 76e77.

CHAPTER 5

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development The electronic resources librarian (ERL) position was first documented in 1992, becoming increasingly common in academic libraries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, the position was not well defined with considerable variations in actual responsibilities across libraries. Some ERLs handled only licensing for electronic serials whereas others had responsibility for the entire life cycle of electronic resources. Organizational structures also varied quite a bit with ERLs to be found in so many different departments or units such that an ERL might work in collection development or collection management, acquisitions, technical services, reference, other public services, systems, or even in dedicated electronic resource management units. Finally, some libraries never adopted the title at all.

5.1 The many faces of the electronic resources librarian in the early 21st century William Fisher, a Professor in the School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University, reviewed job ads published in American Libraries from January 1985 through December 2001, first looking for the position title “electronic resources librarian” and then analyzing the content for information regarding the responsibilities and qualifications required (Fisher, 2003, p. 4). Fisher examined 298 job ads in total for the entire period. The first position in the sample was a Reference/Electronic Resources Librarian in July/August 1992. Duties included “identifying and evaluating electronic information resources for possible acquisition, knowledge of stand-alone and networked systems for information retrieval, use of a range of resources from CD-ROMs to the Internet, and the ability to train others how to use these systems and resources” (Fisher, 2003, p. 6). The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00005-2

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

57

58

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Fisher initially looked at 74 skills or attributes in the job ads and then focused on 23 characteristics mentioned more than 50 times in the sample. Reference/Information Services were the most prominently mentioned in the job ads, listed 229 times when all overlap was accounted form. The next highest category appearing in the job ads was with 141 references, and computer applications with 165 references. World Wide Web applications were mentioned 121 times, while CD-ROM applications were referenced 83 times (Fisher, 2003, p. 8). According to Fisher, the bibliographic instruction function was somewhat different in that there was often a focus on training other library personnel rather than patrons, but otherwise the ERLs of the late 20th century were firmly embedded in public services (Fisher, 2003, 7e8). Fisher wondered if the ERL was a distinct specialization or simply the realization of the “automated reference librarian” (Fisher, 2003, pp. 10e11), given the strong similarity between Fisher’s own findings and the six competencies of automated reference cited by Stafford and Serban more than a decade earlier in 1990. These competencies included: (1) user/staff interfacing skills, (2) knowledge of traditional and automated reference sources, (3) data retrieval skills, (4) information technology skills, (5) instructional skills, and (6) organizational skills (Stafford & Serban, 1990). Others described similar observations in a somewhat different way. He and Knee perceived the ERL as a hybrid position between reference and systems librarianship, noting somewhat earlier positions described as “Electronic Services Librarian,” many of which had greater CD-ROM responsibilities (He & Knee, 1995). These positions were not unlike the position of “Social Science Reference and Electronic Resources Librarian” at the University of Washington (Felt, 1999). Reviewing job ads published between January 1989 and December 1998 in American Libraries, Heimer also concluded that the Electronic Resources Librarian and the Electronic Services Librarian were virtually the same position (Heimer, 2002). While the ERL position was usually to be found in public services units in the late 20th century, additional skills and requirements set these positions apart from other Reference Librarians. Job titles from Fisher’s results seem to confirm this characterization as well given the appearance of job titles such as “Electronic Information Services Librarian,” “Reference/Electronic Resources Librarian,” “Network Information Resources Librarian,” and “Electronic Services/Reference Librarian” (Fisher, 2003, pp. 12e13). While the term “electronic” could be used in different ways, it has achieved a relatively stable meaning as a reference to externally hosted online information resources in the library and information science (LIS)

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

59

literature. Digital has tended to refer to internally hosted information resources or content that has been digitized such as online copies of materials held in special collections. Croneis and Henderson undertook a detailed study of position announcements from 1990 to 2000 showing and early and continuously expanding difference between the two. As in the studies by Fisher and others, ERLs tended to have responsibilities in reference, instruction, collection development, and the management of websites, whereas digital resources librarians or digital projects librarians, digitization librarians, etc. tended to have a greater emphasis on project management and other administrative work associated with digitization efforts (Croneis & Henderson, 2006). Whatever an ERL was or is now, it is not a digital services librarian. Becky Albitz, then an Electronic Resources and Copyright Librarian at Pennsylvania State University, noted the impact of changing information resource formats on Reference Departments, citing the emergence of CDROM, networked CD-ROM, and later online electronic resources as decisive in creating the need for a new type of specialized librarian in academic libraries (Albitz, 2002). Her own study of position announcements from 1996 to 2001, while admitting that most positions seemed to straddle public and technical services functions to some extent, revealed 42 positions with primary responsibilities in public service areas, 33 in technical services, and 25 as both or unclear (Albitz, 2002). By excluding some of the early examples found in other studies, Becky Albitz began to document the turn from public to technical services as the professional home of the ERL in academic libraries. Another study of job ads posted from 2001 to 2006 showed a dispersion across both public and technical service units while playing many different roles, essentially showing the transition in progress as libraries seemed to rethink the role of ERLs (Engel & Robbins, 2008). Focusing on position announcements from January 2001 to March 2003, Cuesta acknowledged that this period was one of “restructuring, whether at the position, departmental, or institutional level” (Cuesta, 2005, p. 60). Given all of the different skills required in most job ads, Cuesta also described ERLs as the “ultimate example of librarians as polymaths” (Cuesta, 2005, p. 61). Downes and Rao (2007) stressed the need for ERLs to have broad overall competence in librarianship with the necessary political and communication skills required for working with vendors, handling difficult negotiations, managing complex licensing, while simultaneously identifying and addressing the needs of stakeholders. Given the

60

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

role of technological change and existing library organizational structures in producing the role of the ERL, Downes and Rao were not ready to confirm if the ERL was a temporary adaptation or likely to continue to evolve as a relevant specialization within academic libraries (Downes & Rao, 2007). Bo_zena Bednarek-Michalska, Information Officer at Nicholas Copernicus University Library in Toru n, Poland, offers the helpful insights of an international perspective. Having conducted a study of the ERL position in Europe and the United States, as well as assessing the unique needs of her own institution, Bednarek-Michalska’s library crafted an ERL position of its own. This position was assigned to the Acquisitions Department in the University Library and was generally described as follows, “The librarian acquires, manages (i.e., promotes, selects and determines conditions for storage) and develops the library’s electronic collection (CDs, DVDs, online and other resources)” (Bednarek-Michalska, 2002, 380). Duties were divided into a broad category of “regular duties” encompassing 90% of the overall job and “irregular duties” constituting 10% of the job. The three most prominent duties of the position, listed at 10% of time on within the regular duties category, were “conducting research in the vendor/publisher market, developing lists for purchase,” and “negotiating with vendors/ publishers” (Bednarek-Michalska, 2002, 381). Interactions with other personnel were also clearly defined in terms of respective roles and the subject matter that their communication largely consisted of. The ERL was expected to interact with vendors/publishers regarding “electronic documents purchases,” the immediate supervisor regarding “signing contracts and allocation of funds,” special collections librarians regarding “collection scope,” the systems librarian regarding “storing electronic documents,” the stacks manager regarding “storing electronic documents,” and the Reference Department head regarding “electronic documents promotion” (Bednarek- Michalska, 2002, p. 381). This deviates somewhat from the norm in North American libraries in that it implies that the stacks manager may play some role in providing access to electronic resources, but it is otherwise an interesting map of the basic communication chain required throughout the library to provide electronic resources in practice. Murdock reviewed position announcements in the United States from 2000 to 2008 with results that partly confirmed the general trend toward a licensing and acquisitions focus for ERLs, but also emphasized technology since the study was intended to understand the impact of the development

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

61

of electronic resources management systems (ERMSs) on the ERL position. 62.7% of job ads referenced “e-resource access/troubleshooting,” the highest category in her sample. “E-resource acquisition,” the next highest category, was mentioned 35.8%, while “e-resource licensing” came in third at 35.3% (Murdock, 2010, p. 35). The development of the separate ERMS in the 2000s, often managed by the ERL with or without additional support from other personnel, brought a new set of general technical requirements. Even if other personnel provided IT support for more complex setup and customization, ERLs hired after the deployment of ERM systems had to learn enough about these systems to serve as expert users and take overall responsibility for general data entry and routine maintenance. Whether the perennially busy ERLs were able to do all of this work in practice is another issue. Some libraries, of course, did not have ERLs on staff. A survey of acquisitions librarians in 2009 revealed that 37 of 88 respondents from libraries with materials budgets over $1 million distributed responsibilities for electronic resources management across an e-resource team or committee (Pomerantz, 2010, p. 64). To some extent, however, this still begs the question of how electronic resources management is precisely defined and whether some personnel were essentially functioning as ERLs without the title. It is important to note that some libraries lag behind others in terms of following the most recent technical standards and best practices, let alone in terms of developing robust electronic collections. Susan Simpson, Assistant Director for Information and Outreach Services of the Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, and her colleagues, Jeffrey Coghill and Patricia Greenstein, discusse what theyse call the emerging role of the ERL in the context of health science libraries. Acknowledging elements of both public and technical services, they argue that the closer affiliation of the position is with technical services but from a particular form of technical services. “The Electronic Resources Librarian position has emerged from the Collection Development and Serials Librarian models” Simpson et al., 2005, 36). The precise job title within their library was Collection Development/Electronic Resources Librarian, and their preferred short form for the position and others like it is CD/ERL rather than ERL (Simpson et al., 2005). Simpson surveyed 129 American Association of Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) members in February 2003 receiving 48 responses. 57% of respondents indicated that at least one librarian staff had primary responsibility for electronic resources management while 48% had an ERL as

62

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

a job title within their organization (Simpson et al., 2005, 32). The most common job title was “Electronic Resources/Services Librarian/Coordinator” while the next most common titles were “Collection Development Librarian” or “Serials Librarian” (Simpson et al., 2005, 32). Responsibilities generally clustered around acquisitions and collection development. One of the most important roles of the ERL within the libraries focused on negotiation and communication skills. Simpson does not use the term, but one could almost indicate “business skills,” since the relations to be managed primarily concern vendors, aggregators, external partners such as consortia, as well understanding the requirements and financial resources of the library administration and other internal stakeholders (Simpson et al., 2005). Elguindi & Schmidt (2012) discussed the impact of the development of the ERL position on academic libraries in the 21st century in their book, Electronic Resources Management: Practical Perspectives in a New Technical Services Model. In essence, electronic resources work appeared all across the library and led to a wider array of organizational structures within technical services than there was previously. Some individual libraries perceived electronic resources as being primarily associated with new technology, access, and discoverability; others associated it with back-end responsibilities such as budgeting issues and licensing; and many continued to try to shoehorn the workflows associated with these resources into the existing structure, with the result that the personnel associated with this work have ended up across the spectrum of traditional functions within the library. Local aptitude and interest added to this effect (Elguindi & Schmidt, 2012, p.16e17).

Just before the Great Recession in 2008, electronic resources librarianship seemed to be trending away from public services into technical services, given the growing emphasis on general acquisitions and collection development functions that also included responsibility for other aspects of the e-resource life cycle, including managing some aspects of access, discovery, and systems such as ERMs. However, especially in larger academic libraries, some ERLs were essentially responsible for the technological aspects of the e-resource life cycle such as activating and tracking titles in the knowledge base and troubleshooting access problems without as significant a role in acquisitions or licensing. The historical role of ERLs and associated staff in cataloging electronic resources partly stems from the need for special workflows for electronic resources cataloging. Some examples include 856 fields in Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) records for URLs, the

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

63

association between knowledge bases and automated MARC record services, and the need to protect the virtual property of vendors with a login through EZproxy or other proxy servers that permit remote users to be considered part of an institution’s licensed IP ranges (Rupp & Mobley, 2007). However, it is important to add that most ERLs are not trained catalogers in the author’s experience and may have responsibility primarily for automated processes rather than cataloging standards or other more complex aspects of metadata management. It is helpful to return to Dawn Murdock’s study of positions from 2000 to 2008. A potential weakness of position announcements is that these address new hires only while necessarily discounting existing practices for ERLs already in place, however taken together; position announcements should help to map out new directions. Murdock’s review of 300 position announcements drew on data that are more international since it was based on the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), as well as the Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum (SERIALST) focused primarily on North America. By reviewing the number of times certain skill sets or responsibilities were mentioned each year, Murdock was able to demonstrate several trends including an increase in “e-resource acquisition” referenced in 27.8% of position announcements in 2000 but 53.8% in 2008. “E-resource licensing” also grew from 36.1% in 2008 to 42.3% in 2008. “E-resource evaluation” increased somewhat from 22.2% to 30.7% while responsibility for “e-resource statistics” increased from only 8.3% to 42.3%. “E-resource cataloging” fell from 38.9% in 2000 to 7.7% in 2008, but “e-resource access/troubleshooting” started at 58.3% in 2000 and was represented in 84.6% of job ads in 2008 (Murdock, 2010, p. 35).

5.2 First attempts at defining electronic resources management While electronic resources management has varied in practice across libraries, some relatively attempts were made to define electronic resources management, particularly technical requirements for ERMSs. The Digital Library Federation (DLF) and the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) published a report in July 2001 authored by Timothy Jewell, head of collection management services at the University of Washington since 1998 and former head of that institution’s Electronic Information Program since 1992 (Jewell, 2001).

64

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

The preface of Jewell’s report begins with Daniel Greenstein, Director of the Digital Library Federation, discussing the rationale for Jewell’s report. In January 2000, the DLF launched an informal survey to identify the major challenges confronting research libraries that use information technologies to fulfill their curatorial, scholarly, and cultural missions. With astonishing unanimity of opinion and clarity of voice, respondents pointed to digital collection development as their single greatest challenge. Whether the digital information came from a commercial publisher or from a Digitization Unit within the library, it seemed to exist under a cloud of profound and unsettling uncertainty. Would it be useful and useable in its present or intended form, or require additional work by catalogers, systems staff, or subject bibliographers? What new demands would its availability make on library reference staff? What level of continued investment would be necessary to ensure its accessibility on current hardware and software (Jewell, 2001; iv)?

Despite contending with highly diverse practices and limited models, Jewell’s report was able to provide a set of generally recommended best practices for electronic resources management. A major problem recognized in the report was the question of affordability with the suggestion that either greater emphasis on licensing electronic resources through consortia or promoting scholarly communication initiatives might lead to greater affordability or sustainability. The report also called for greater emphasis on strategic planning for building electronic collections, documentation of workflows and standards, and the need to improve license management. Above all, the report clearly indicated that existing integrated library systems (ILSs) were not adequate to manage electronic resources in libraries, a conclusion that would help to build momentum for the development of separate ERMSs during the next few years (Jewell, 2001, 28e30). The table below summarizes these practices and is derived from the original table in Jewell’s report (Jewell, 2001, 29) (Table 5.1). The Electronic Resource Management report of the DLF ERMI Initiative builds on the previous work of Jewell but is directly focused on the development of ERMSs. The Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI) also grew out of ongoing informal discussions led by Jewell and Adam Chandler of Cornell University Libraries (Fons & Jewell, 2007), as well as a workshop held in May 2002 by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and the DLF. A steering group was formed to guide the project and prepare the report along with two advisory panels drawn from librarians, library-system vendors, and other organizations

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

65

Table 5.1 Topic area

Suggested practices

2.2

Selection policies and Strategic Plans

2.3

Institutional finance and Organization

2.4

Internal Procedures for Initial Evaluation and Purchase

2.5

Licensing Issues and Practices

2.6

Web Presentation strategies

2.7

User Support

2.8

Ongoing Evaluation and Usage Information

Create well-developed selection guidelines and policies Articulate goals and strategic approach for developing e-resources Create broad-based oversight/ coordination committee structures Appoint e-resource coordinators Distribute responsibilities for resource stewardship Create systematic, understandable workflows; use appropriate forms to expedite handling Make it easy to determine the order status of a given e-resource Make standardized information the library (FTEs, IP ranges, site definition, licensing policies) available to vendors Establish a clear system of conducting trials that includes communication of availability and process to staff (and users, if appropriate) Establish process for smooth handling of licenses with clearly stated policies and responsibilities Systematically inform staff and users about general and specific licensing terms Make aggregator database periodical holdings visible to users Link abstracting and indexing database citations to e-journal holdings Present resources and services in a way that meets users needs and that they can personalize (“my gateway") Make general support information readily available to users Create comprehensible problem escalation/triage paths for staff Conduct planned/cyclic reviews to renewal Systematically report usage to staff Continued

66

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Table 5.1 dcont'd Topic area

Suggested practices

2.9

Preservation and archiving

2.10

Toward Integrated Systems for Managing Electronic Resources

Support joint efforts to establish preservation techniques and standards Realistically assess the preservation and access risks of relying on electronic formats, and develop an archive strategy on the basis of local circumstances and risk tolerance Put in place plan e-resource support systems

whose work is relative to LIS. The steering group included Timothy D. Jewell, University of Washington; Ivy Anderson, Harvard University; Adam Chandler, Cornell University; Sharon E. Farb, UCLA; Kimberly Parker, Yale University; Angela Riggio, UCLA; and Nathan D. M. Robertson, The Johns Hopkins University. Together with its appendices, the report numbers some 267 pages and was published in 2004 (Jewel et al., 2004). The underlying reasons for the report as cited by the steering group include the strategic plan of Cornel University Libraries. This plan anticipated a rapid transition from print to electronic resources, changes in user expectations pushed by online tools such as Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, the inadequacy of ILSs to manage online information, and the problem of libraries having to resort to local automated tools to fill the gap. While recognizing the role of A-Z lists and similar tools provided by what were then new vendors such as Serials Solutions, TEDNet, and EBSCO, not to mention SFX offered by Ex Libris, the steering group considered the need to integrate licensing data and other critical information with links tracked in knowledge bases. The group also saw the need to have a system that would help librarians to make sense of information needed for electronic resources management through every stage of the entire life cycle. This information had to be retrievable and easily disseminated to different specialized units and librarians within the overall library system (Jewell et al., 2004). By 2003, around 20 different large academic libraries, consortia and vendors were already working on their ERMSs, including Gold Rush developed by the Colorado Alliance and Pennsylvania State University’s

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

67

ERLIC. Part of the report was spent analyzing how these early systems worked in terms of four basic processes: “(1) Product consideration and trial processes, (2) Acquisitions process, (3) Implementation, and (4) Product maintenance and review” (Jewell et al., 2004, 8e9). Having scanned the environment and reviewed contemporary working examples, the steering group set out to “(a) describe the functions and architecture needed to enable systems to effectively manage large collections of license e-resources, (b) establish lists of appropriate supporting data elements and common definitions, (c) write and publish experimental XML Schemas/DTDs for local testing, (d) identify and promote appropriate best practices, and (e) identify and promote appropriate standards to support data interchange” (Jewell et al., 2004, 28). Two years of work from 2002 to 2004 produced the following deliverables: problem definition and road map, workflow diagram, functional specifications, entityerelationship diagram, data elements and definitions, XML Schema, and of course, the report itself (Jewell et al., 2004, 30e31). The report helped to codify electronic resources management terms, technology, and best practices more than any other document to that point in time, so it is a significant achievement for libraries. For those readers who are familiar with licensing work in libraries, the 12 separate date elements associated with the “Terms Defined Entity Termination Obligations Group” might seem like overkill. However, it would be extremely helpful if academic libraries could pull and store information from complex license agreements that addressed such issues as “licensee notice period for termination” or “termination requirements” (Jewell et al., 2004). However, it is very difficult in practice to capture and store detailed information regarding license agreements, partly because legal documents vary in structure, organization, and language. Completing all the data elements referenced in the ERMI report would require knowledge of electronic resources management in general, as well as knowledge of local acquisitions, business models, technical requirements, and best practices. While automated processes to interpret license agreements and extract information are likely to improve, manual data entry, including customized notes, still seem required for most academic libraries in the second decade of the 21st century, something which many busy library personnel do not have adequate time to do. As Norm Medeiros put it in 2005, “It’s the combination of eresource systems, sufficient and proper allocation of staff, adoption and standardization of the ERMI functional specifications, and an unreferenced but critical issue, agreeable model licensing, that will help libraries

68

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

overcome the challenge presented by today’s digital information environment” (Medeiros, 2005, p. 94). Practical efforts to build new and improved ERM systems based on the DLF ERMI requirements included Verde by Ex Libris designed to work in conjunction with SFX and Metalib, the link resolver and knowledge base maintained by EX Libris, as well as ILS systems. Many of these tools could also be used in conjunction with the systems provided by other vendors through a “web-service (SOAP) layer” (Sadeh & Ellingsen, 2005, p. 216). While Serials Solutions released an ERM module as part of its expanding 360 Suite of tools, established ILS vendors such as Sirsi and Dynix (then separate companies) planned to release ERM modules in 2005 while Innovative Interfaces produced one in 2004 (Duranceau, 2004). The second phase of the DLF’s ERMI project or ERMI II included a revision of the 300-element data dictionary, improvements in license expression, training, and advocacy, but perhaps most importantly, usage data required for assessing electronic resources provided by libraries. Project COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) was formed to develop standards for measuring the use of online journals and databases with Release 1 in 2003. The original COUNTER statistics included only five reports: Journal Report 1, full-text article requests by month and journal, Journal Report 2, Turnaways by month and journal, Database Report 1, Total Searches and Sessions by Month and Database, Database Report 2, Turnaways by month and database, and Database Report 3, searches and sessions by month and service (Pesch, 2006). COUNTER statistics constituted an effort to create a standardized system that would be acceptable to both content providers and libraries. To be recognized as compliant, starting with Release 2 in 2007, content providers would have to be audited by a certified accounting firm or another entity accredited by the COUNTER organization. Release 2 addressed a number of problems including “double clicks” related to the accurate counting of HTML linking requests, clarification of the required layout of the data in the actual reports, consortium requirements, and eBook reports (Pesch, 2006). The next logical step, of course, would be to harvest COUNTER statistics automatically rather than rely on the tedious manual downloading of csv files or manipulating data in Excel. Libraries and publishers, to this day, have not fully implemented automation in gathering COUNTER statistics. SUSHI (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative) has its origins in a discussion between Timothy

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

69

Jewell, Adam Chandler, Ted Fons, and Oliver Pesch, in his capacity as a member of the NISO in 2005. Their efforts later led to the formation of a working group that released the SUSHI standard in 2007, technically a Web service that would send an XML request to a content provider thus receiving an XML response containing COUNTER usage reports (Pesch, 2007). Taken together, the new tools, standards, and requirements for electronic resources management were strikingly different and more complex than similar functions in more traditional print-based libraries. While partly anticipated in the CD-ROM era, complex license agreements with new detailed use permissions, technical requirements, and often long lists of online journals or other electronic resources bundled together could simply not be tracked or stored in ILS systems. An ERM or other tools such as Excel spreadsheets were necessary to document all of the thousands of new details that large academic libraries had to manage. While still early in development, COUNTER statistics provided more accurate usage information for online journals than had previously been possible with print serials with the new data often informing decisions regarding collection development. Use of metrics such as “cost per use” for good or ill soon became commonly used measurements of the value of an online journal subscription along with impact factor and qualitative information.

5.3 Metadata for electronic resources One of the core functions of librarianship has been and will continue to be the conceptual organization and description of information resources with the goal of enabling patrons to discover relevant information for their own purposes. Previously this work was known in the late 19th century and well into the 20th century as cataloging while metadata, broadly defined, is a better description for the work and work product of organizing and describing information in the 21st century. The argument between the use of the terms cataloging and metadata is not simply semantic. It has many layers of meaning informed by changes in information resources from physical to virtual form, the development of new online discovery tools, and the transition to new professional roles for librarians that more highly informed by information technology. Cataloging was born in the print era, but metadata librarians identify with the digital environment. Behind the cataloging work of late 19th century and 20th century librarians lay formidable constructs such as the library of congress subject

70

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

headings (LCSH), a system that was intended to organize, quite literally, all information published on this planet from paperback dime novels to gazetteers to the works of Sir Isaac Newton by author, title, subject heading, and other concise pieces of information that could be easily and quickly reproduced on paper cards according to universal standards. Call numbers assigned to LCSH, but also the formidable Dewey decimal system, enabled patrons to find materials organized on shelves in precise physical locations in even the largest libraries, again according to universal and mostly consistent standards. As the total number of publications grew, even prior to computerization, cataloging rules also grew in complexity to address the full range of possibilities from irregular book series to reprints of classic works in ancient languages published again in modern translation to atlases of the universe derived from photographs taken by viewers in powerful telescopes and space probes. The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) and later ACCR2 were formidable documents that were both encyclopedic and highly detailed in scope. However, as computerization increasingly took hold of human society and the Internet emerged in the late 20th century, the conceptual and practical weaknesses in the “theory” and practice of cataloging were increasingly apparent. Instead of rethinking cataloging to address computerization, librarians as a profession collectively decided to apply the same AACR rules derived from decades of experience in the use of paper cards to computers, essentially creating MARC. Part of this since there was considerable lag time in computing between raw calculating power and usability in that many early computers did not have the keyboards, mice, or most importantly screens that we now expect at minimum. Computers were first used in the 1960 and 1970s in academic libraries to organize information that was still in physical form and finding aids such as the card catalog that were also still in physical form. By the 1980s, the presence of widely available online catalogs in academic libraries led many librarians to question the fundamental principles of cataloging (Hill, 1987). Reliance on “straight description” was increasingly questioned along with a call to emphasize the primary characteristics of an item (Hill, 1987, 323). Online search tools increasingly seemed to permit the discovery of materials without the need for exhaustive or detailed description. While formal access points were generally questioned by the growing emphasis on keyword searching, efforts were undertaken to strengthen authority control in what was increasingly becoming a cooperative cataloging environment given increasing use of Online Computer

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

71

Library Center (OCLC) and Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN) records. The Library of Congress continued to expand its NACO (Name Authority Co-operative) Project (Hill, 1987, 325). Many Cataloging Departments or units had experienced downsizing as processes became more automated and bibliographic records were obtained from external sources, but this was still an era of transition in which considerable local cataloging work was still required. Gaps in high-quality records for some types of materials and backlogs of acquired but not yet cataloged materials were common, particularly in large academic libraries with the resources to continue expanding their collections. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, many catalogers focused on problems of quality versus speed and hence accessibility since the time spent cataloging physical items could delay their availability to users. This is important to remember since an electronic resource is accessible upon activation whether it is readily discoverable through the library’s catalogs or not. Cataloging work was inherently complex in that first librarians had to know the correct standards such as AACR2 rules, then they had to interpret the rules since many standards were vague, overly rigid or infrequently updated, and finally consider ancillary or tertiary standards and best practices for specialized materials such as maps (Carpenter, 1992). One of the most important developments in the 1990s was the development of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) Final Report published by the International IFLA in 1998. “The study has two primary objectives. The first is to provide a clearly defined, structured framework for relating the data that are recorded in bibliographic records to the needs of the users of those records. The second objective is to recommend a basic level of functionality for records created by national bibliographic agencies” (IFLA Study Group on the functional requirements for bibliographic records, 1998, p. 6). The products of intellectual or artistic endeavor, which we can refer to as “information resources” to make things a bit simpler, could be organized into four different aspects of user interest: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The work represented the distinct information which would be realized through a given expression embodied in a manifestation and exemplified by an item. It might be helpful to consider an example to demonstrate the value of FRBR. George Orwell’s 1984 has been published, translated, and republished, as well as adapted to other mediums long after the first publication date of his novel. The original story can best be thought as the work while the text of the novel in English can be considered as an expression of the

72

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

underlying story since there are also Spanish language and Russian language editions, etc. The English text of 1984 exists in many different manifestations, one of which is the first edition published in the United States of America by Harcourt, Brace and Company in 1949. The specific copy that the author owns in his personal library is the item in this example. The Final Report also considered more complex ways of managing the relationships between works, authors, and subjects, as well as mapping attributes. This short review cannot do justice to the importance of this report to LIS. Before FRBR, much library cataloging was rather flat in that it focused on description of the item, quite literally, in the hands of the individual cataloger. FRBR demanded that libraries map complex relationships and understand information resources in their essential context. IFLA’s ambitions extended well beyond bibliographic records and the groundbreaking work of FRBR but also encompassed authority records and other data or metadata associated with library description. The Coordinating Board of the IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control formed a new working group on July 2, 1999, to investigate Functional Requirements and Numbering Authority Records (FRANAR). The purpose of FRANAR was to define the functional requirements of authority records, e.g., the controlled vocabularies for author names, explore the feasibility of an International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN), and to serve as an official liaison between IFLA and other organizations engaged in authority work (Le Boeuf, 2001, pp. 40e41). Part of IFLA’s work was an ongoing effort to fulfill the mission of its Office of University Bibliographic Control, established in the 1970s, to foster best practice that would encourage original documents to be cataloged only once in their country of origin with bibliographic records then used throughout the world. Having systematically reviewed key examples of LIS literature relevant to these efforts, Patrick Le Boeuf expressed caution regarding practical applications and the rate of change in libraries. “Of course, it might seem unwise to suddenly drop ISBDs, AACR and other cataloguing codes, and MARC, which all have required considerable investments from the library community, and we must find the most economical and practical way to shift from our current environment to those new horizons made conceivable by FRBR and XML” (Le Boeuf, 2001, p. 44). Unfortunately, many academic libraries have continued to hold this position for almost 20 years. To some extent, electronic resources were so different from traditional library materials that the cataloging standards for electronic resources

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

73

quickly diverged in theory and practice from cataloging and classification that still assumed information resources existed in physical form. Metadata only came into existence as a concept relevant to academic libraries with the emergence of the World Wide Web. As a student in a highly ranked LIS program in the mid-2000s, the author recalls taking separate metadata and cataloging courses with minimal overlap in curriculum. MARC was recognized as a form of metadata in the metadata course, but the word metadata was used infrequently in the cataloging courses even though the entityerelationship model of FRBR was addressed. Most of the time was spent learning how to apply the cumbersome ACCR2 rules to MARC records, the dominant type of metadata used in libraries for decades. Electronic resources were handled by modifying existing MARC standards, primarily by inserting 856 fields into bibliographic or holdings records, entering different information into other fields and subfields, and adding relevant notes. The practical effect of this very limited adaptation to electronic resources was arguably the development of separate catalogs, separate best practices, and distinct approaches to discovery for physical and electronic resources in most academic libraries. The ongoing changes in libraries and wider society did have considerable impact on the approach to cataloging and classification in libraries. Catalogers increasingly expanded the concept of quality to include not only error-free MARC records but also speed and efficiency in the cataloging work process itself. There was also a growing focus on the customer or library patron and the need for ongoing assessment and continuous improvement as noted by Marsha Starr Paiste in a review of the literature of the late 1990s and early 21st century (Paiste, 2003). Reviewing LIS publications from 2003 to 2004, Shawne Miksa discovered that the “overarching theme of cataloging and classification literature” was change (Miksa, 2007). FRBR did nothing less than “hit the field much like a tsunamidstriking with little mercy and rearranging the landscape, rendering traditional and accepted cataloging concepts as obsolete or illogical in a twenty-first-century information environment” (Miksa, 2007, p. 63). However, Miksa is quick to admit that the acceptance of the new approach in academic libraries could be grudging or effectively limited by circumstances. How to transition away from outdated MARC records to XML was a hot topic of discussion during that time, but still not realized in practice as most libraries continue to rely on MARC records to some extent the late 2010s. One of the most important developments for libraries during

74

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

this time was the emphasis in the literature on Resource Description and Access (RDA) intended to rethink standards and practices rather than simply serve as an AACR3 or update of previous rules. The professional literature of the next 2 years, 2005 and 2006, continued to explore these themes but also emphasized growing reliance on vendor-supplied authority records and the problem of recruiting and training catalogers (El-Sherbini, 2008). As a practical matter, a typical arrangement in academic libraries in North America, in the mid-2000s, might consist of entirely separate workflows, tools, and personnel for cataloging electronic resources versus everything else. An A-Z list or tool such as Serials Solutions 360 Core or Ex Libris SFX would track the activated links for the online journals held by the libraries. Many vendors also provided bundles or loads of MARC records that matched the items selected in the A-Z lists. To catalog these electronic resources, one simply had to load these MARC records into the catalog. The routine work of original or copy cataloging was entirely outsourced in this process apart from editing, correcting, adding, or deleting records. These corrective processes were also generally carried out in bulk. The staff who cataloged electronic resources may or may not have any training or experience in cataloging apart from managing the processes required to handle these record loads. Meanwhile, staff in more traditional technical services units would continue original and copy cataloging as required by the libraries for print books. These titles still outnumbered eBook acquisitions well into the 2000s for most libraries. Libraries replaced print journals with online versions at varying rates in different libraries. These distinct formats coexisted in the form of “print plus online” subscriptions, as well as special collections and other physical materials, not to mention the still lingering CD-ROMs and later collections of DVDROMs and the odd Blu-ray discs. Leaving aside the question of Webscale Discovery Services for the moment, the management of electronic resources also required a separate approach to the management of the front-end, not just the back-end in the early 2000s. Databases, while sometimes represented by MARC records, were primarily discoverable in lists on library web pages, often with some type of textual description to assist patrons in knowing their functionality. The back-end knowledge base or A-Z list of electronic resources had its counterpart on the front-end in the form of portals and web pages that provided simple searching, usually by variations of the title and

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

75

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) that would allow patrons to find an online journal quickly with the display of coverage dates showing the publication years provided by the libraries. Some early ERMs also permitted data entry of detailed license terms, some of which could be displayed to patrons such as the permission to make digital copies, print, share materials with other scholars, or fulfill an interlibrary loan request. While some aspects of cataloging or discovery were simpler to manage for ERLs and staff, some aspects such as licensing data could be very complex and were unheard of problems in traditional cataloging and classification. A gray area of information not necessarily considered as metadata by most librarians but highly important to libraries included detailed information about e-resource acquisitions. Unlike print materials, many electronic resources were not actually owned, but merely leased. Some journal subscriptions included perpetual access rights in the event of cancellation while others did not. Keeping track of all the packages, bundles, and complex business models, as well as license data, not to mention usage data, was arguably more important for most libraries than the finer points of MARC record fields, especially when most electronic resources were usually discovered on the Web rather than in the online catalog. Despite the ongoing problem of the use of MARC records in electronic resources management, libraries and other information professionals have still managed to develop and to use multiple metadata schemas for different purposes. Gail Hodge takes an equally broad view of metadata and its many uses. It supports resource discovery, locates the actual digital resource by inclusion of a digital identifier, organizes electronic resources bringing similar resources together and distinguishing dissimilar resources, provides administrative information for controlling the digital library, and provides technical, preservation, and rights management information needed to support immediate and long-term permanent access (Hodge, 2005, p. 35).

Apart from Dublin Core, Hodge references Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) used to make MARC records interoperable with other types of metadata. He also mentions the Global Information Locater Service (GILS); Encoded Archive Description (EAD) often used to make finding aids for special collections available online; ONIX International used for e-commerce in the publishing industry; the ISO Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata; and technical metadata for still images (Hodge, 2005). Libraries have developed many other new metadata schemas since this early phase of development.

76

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

5.4 Building new organizational structures to manage online Information Services The early 2000s continued to be a period of downsizing and reorganization in technical services but also in public services and other units within academic libraries. However, it is important to consider the fact that downsizing was more of a factor in terms of support staff positions rather than professional positions. Some librarian positions were eliminated in academic libraries during this period, but new types of specialized librarian positions were also created in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Electronic resources management was still a somewhat ill-defined but growing area of specialization. Other new titles that emerged included emerging technology librarians, first-year experience librarians, as well as geographic information system (GIS) librarians and Web services librarians. Sarah Pritchard called for the deconstruction of libraries with an eye toward reorganizing resource, staff, and facilities to suit the requirements of the digital age. The previous print era was passive in nature with libraries enjoying a kind of information monopoly to build collections, but the new era required constant review and rethinking of the user community, content (information resources), and interface (technology but also organizing systems, services, and facilities) to ensure that the library was fulfilling its mission (Pritchard, 2008). Another important factor in the reorganization of libraries in the early 21st century was the increasing emphasis on distance learning on the part of many academic institutions such as DePaul University undertook additional expansion of its digital and electronic collections to support teaching students off campus (Cervone & Brown, 2001). Colorado State University Libraries reorganized its Reference Services in January 1998 to include a separate group for instruction, outreach, and staff training, including an undergraduate instruction librarian (Neely et al., 2000). Brian Mahoney discussed initiatives to share electronic resources, particularly expensive database subscriptions, among community colleges to support distance learning such as the Florida Distance Learning Library Initiative, BadgerLink and Wiscat in Wisconsin, TexShare in Texas, as well as LOUIS and LLN in Louisiana (Mahoney, 2000). Originating mainly in established public services units, the emphasis on higher-quality instruction, including support services for distance education accelerated the process of pulling teaching and training functions away from the early ERLs who still had great responsibility for coordination of

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

77

electronic resources management and communication about electronic resources. New pedagogical approaches such as active learning, and the ongoing need to develop and maintain complex tutorials and training materials on the library’s websites required greater specialization and the emphasis on direct engagement with students outside traditional reference roles further increased the need for more highly focused specialists to address these functions in public services (Dewald, Scholz-Crane, Booth, & Levine, 2000). While the British Library decided not to create a single ERL position per se to manage its growing collection around the turn of the 21st century, the scope of its general reorganization to handle electronic resources management functions is useful to explore to understand the importance of additional specialized work in technical services. The British Library formed an Electronic Working Group of five collection development staff in May 1999. The Group met monthly and each person took over responsibility for selection, technical procedures, licensing and “reader access” while an Electronic Selection Coordinator developed a database system and a License Representative coordinated the work of managing new contracts for electronic resources (Vickery, 2001). While selectors retained primary responsibility for working with vendors, the complexity of the contracts sometimes required input from the Licensing Representative while acquisitions staff were involved in business processes. For some contracts, the British Library’s Contracts and Purchasing Unit sought external legal advice (Vickery, 2001). This relatively early example of complexity in licensing electronic resources is an example of how the growing complexity of license agreements and the need to work continuously with acquisitions staff and sometimes outside legal counsel helped to pull the ERL position into technical services within academic libraries and away from public services. Libraries approached the problem of growing electronic resources collections in different ways. The fact that libraries in the early 21st century decided to build separate ERM systems rather than change existing ILSs to manage electronic resourceserequired library technical services to be at least partly separated or siloed. Many academic libraries, but not all, that had not previously created an ERL position in the late 1990s created such positions in the early 2000s, often supported by one assistant, heavily automated workflows for managing access and cataloging, with some coordinating responsibilities throughout the library. This minimalist siloed model is one that partly inspired the author of this book to discuss the

78

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

problem of mission creep and understaffing for electronic resources management (Stachokas, 2009). The creation of an Electronic Resources/Serials Librarian (ER/SL) position at the College of New Jersey in 2003 centralized a previously distributed budget for electronic resources although the incumbent continued to work with subject specialists and a collection development coordinator. Most electronic resources management functions were brought under the aegis of this new position except for cataloging. However, as was often the case for early ERL positions, the ER/SL also spent some time at the Reference Desk and provided bibliographic instruction (Jia, Sullenger & Loghry, 2006). Many years before the author joined Auburn University, the previously separate Acquisitions Department included a Serials/Electronic Resources Unit began systematically canceling print subscriptions for Elsevier, Springer, Blackwell, and Taylor & Francis journals that duplicated online subscriptions. This enabled Auburn University to eliminate vacant positions in serials check in and bindery, operations previously required for the maintenance of print journals. The remaining work in these areas could be consolidated and redistributed to remaining staff (Jia et al., 2006). Ellen Finnie Duranceau and Cindy Hepfer conducted an informal survey of staffing in academic libraries for electronic resources management published in 2002. While the results need to be treated with caution given the small sample size of roughly 15 libraries, six respondents that addressed growth in electronic electronics provided estimates of between 100 and 1260% in growth from 1997 to 2002. Eight libraries responded to a question about growth in electronic resources staffing. These institutions reported figures of between 100 and 200% during the same period (Duranceau & Hepfer, 2002, p. 317). Focusing primarily on technical services, Duranceau and Hepfer included the following e-resource functions in their survey: acquisition/purchase process, licensing, setting up access, invoicing/payment problem solving, cataloging/OPAC work, record management/maintenance of nonOPAC systems, proxy server management, union listing (referring to union catalogs), troubleshooting access problems, systems support, site monitoring, and setting up/maintaining links to e-journals from I&A databases (Duranceau & Hepfer, 2002, p. 317). The Acquisitions and Licensing Department of the Technical Services Division at the University of Florida consisted of four units: Gifts and Exchange, Monographs, Serials, and Paying prior to reorganization. During the 1990s as the number of electronic resources grew, the Serials Unit took

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

79

primary responsibility for managing them. Most of the work of the Department focused on print materials, including an extensive gift and exchange program. Recognizing the need for a change, the Department was reorganized in 2007 to form five units: E-Resources, Monographs, Serials, Paying, and Technical Support. Given the decreasing scale of gifts in kind and increasing emphasis on electronic acquisitions, the Gift and Exchange Unit was disbanded with Monographs taking responsibility for remaining gifts and Serials taking over remaining exchange materials. The E-Resources Unit was responsible for both online journals and eBooks. Implementing these changes in consultation with consultants from Blackwells, intended to improve automation of print workflows as well as electronic resources management, the University of Florida was able to save the equivalent of 16 days of time annually by streamlining monographic acquisitions (Champieux, Jackson, & Carrico, 2008). The small Electronic Resources Unit worked in coordination with the Acquisitions Department at the University of Alabama. Rather than expanding staffing for electronic resources, the Acquisitions Department and Cataloging Department were reorganized. The previously separate Metadata Department was merged with Cataloging while some functions were transferred from Cataloging to Acquisitions such as the processing of shelf-ready materials. Drawing on the insights of two consultants from Blackwells regarding workflow analysis and conferring with OCLC, the University of Alabama was able to increase efficiency and avoid the need to fill two vacancies in the Cataloging Department while also saving fees through a reduction in the use of OCLC Connexion (Champieux et al., 2008). The University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, located in Dallas, undertook a comprehensive review of their organizational structure based on the following assumptions: “a growing gap between the staffing needs for the new digital environment and adequate allocation of staff, a problematic team approach that challenged traditional workloads, and the absence of a clear vision to unify staff efforts” (Higa et al., 2005, p. 44). Having to serve busy medical professionals, medical libraries often undertook a more rapid transition to electronic resources than other academic libraries. The UT Southwestern Medical Center is no exception as the following statistics indicate: growth in online journals from one in 1995 to over 5000 by 2004; the journal Nature was used 51,000 times in 2003 in online format while only less than 1300 times in print format (Higa et al., 2005, p. 44). The Organizational Efficacy Task Force replaced a relatively

80

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

flat organizational structure of self-managed teams in collection management with four departments with clear responsibilities. Digital Infrastructure Research and Development was responsible for planning and analysis. Digital Access was responsible for facilitating access to information resources through the catalog and library website. Print Resource Management and Optimization addressed book selection and processing as well as management of print serials. Acquisitions and Licensing was responsible for collection development of journals and purchasing (Higa et al., 2005). While three of the original self-managed teams survived the transition in library operations, this is a relatively early example of a format driven reallocation of staffing in technical services that clearly prioritizes electronic over print resources in all aspects of operations. Most of the units or departments focus on electronic resources with only unit, the Print Resource Management Department focused on books. The University of Texas at Dallas, now turning to the main academic library, also was reorganized in the early 21st century. The primary change was the merger of the previously separate Acquisitions and Cataloging Departments, but this also required reorganization and development of a new Electronic Resources Unit. Previously, the Electronic Serials Librarian reported to the Bibliographic Manager who in turn reported to the Associate Director of Technical Services. The new Head of Electronic Resources reported directly to the Associate Director and supervised the Electronic Acquisitions Librarian, the Database Maintenance Library, and two assistants (King, Metcalf, & Larkin, 2007).

5.5 Academic libraries in the information marketplace: from big deals to document delivery Collection development in academic libraries has been a dynamic and changing enterprise for as long as libraries have existed with different challenges in different eras. Successive waves of new technologies and automation in libraries in the late 19th and 20th centuries have required that libraries adapt to changes in the availability of information resources and new business models. Libraries have also faced a long-term increase in the demand for access to information while experiencing constraints in terms of the human, financial, and technological resources. Librarians complained about rising serial costs long before online journals became widely available in the late 1990s. Staff wished for more user-friendly systems to help them acquire, catalog, and analyze information resources.

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

81

Users faced various limits on access, whether for materials already checked out or the long wait times for some interlibrary loan materials. Part of this book addresses some of the earlier changes that occurred in academic libraries and their dramatic impact on services including such examples as the ILS, a great innovation when first developed, or the development of interlibrary loan networks. Given its enduring influence, particularly in setting the stage for the future development of electronic resources management, this book has also reviewed CD-ROM in depth. While no longer an important technology, CD-ROM helped to define the path of development for the ERL position and many functions of electronic resources management. CD-ROM also altered the overall development of academic libraries, including changes to library materials budgets, increased computerization in libraries for delivering information resources, the reorganization of personnel, and changes to public services. Electronic resources, however, challenge the identity and purpose of libraries in fundamental ways that previous changes have not. Historically, most librarians and patrons have defined libraries in terms of collections. These were entirely physical collections whether books, maps, gazetteers, music scores, or journals. Information was stored within the library, owned by the library, and available for use on site or for users to check out, but always remaining under the library’s overall control. Electronic resources are stored externally on servers controlled by other organizations, often leased rather than owned, accessed by the user via computer or other electronic devicedincreasingly offsite, and only sometimes discovered through the library’s websites, catalogs, or discovery tools. Libraries still subsidize online access by leasing or purchasing electronic resources. Libraries continue to make information resources discoverable through metadata and with online searching tools, and answer questions from users about information. However, libraries have also actively sought to expand into other types of professional work to help ensure their long-term viability such as an increasing focus on information literacy and teaching, as well as various kinds of technology support services ranging from GIS to research data management. Nonetheless, a lot of administrative time and a very large proportion of the total budget of academic libraries were and still are spent on information resources or library materials. For fiscal year 2002e03, Boston College Libraries spent $7,261,122 on library materials out of a total budget of $16,409,345 while Florida State University Libraries spent $6,903,905 on library materials out of a total budget of $14,017,488 (Kyrillidou & Young,

82

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

2004, pp. 34e35). For Fiscal Year 2016e17, Boston College Libraries spent $13,685,231 on library materials out of a total budget of $25,509,659 while Florida State University Libraries spent $10,246,013 on library materials out of a total budget of $19,975,277 (Morris & Roebuck, 2018, pp. 15e16). ARL libraries across the board spent 47.38% on average of their total budgets on library materials with a median of 47.92% in Fiscal Year 2016e17 (Morris & Roebuck, 2018, p. 34). It is important to remember that the transition from print to electronic journals was far from instantaneous, and it took many years for serials to transition to online format in most academic libraries in the United States. While the rising cost of serials seems like a perennial problem, the Faxon Company reported that 49% of all journals that it tracked were freely available or freely available with print subscriptions in 2001 (Geller & Riley, 2001, p. 83). While it is less common in the 2010s, many early online journals in the 1990 and 2000s were restricted to one workstation or one simultaneous user rather than unlimited users. Some publishers sold multiple levels of access for online journals as well. Finally, some online journals did not include all the content available in the print version (Geller & Riley, 2001). By 2001, major academic publishers had made most of their STEM journals available in online format. As a general strategy, publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer seemed to encourage libraries to cancel their print subscriptions to pay for the online versions, partly by pulling recently published content from aggregators or full-text databases. Publishers and libraries also began to explore pay-per-view models for acquiring online journal articles. Archival rights became an important issue (Born & Van Orsdel, 2001). The average costs of journals in the sciences ranged from $2011.13 for a journal in physics to $682.29 in geography (Born & Van Orsdel, 2001, p. 53). Medium-sized publishers such as Cambridge University Press, Oxford University, and Sage moved into the online market in the early 21st century with third-party platforms such as Ingenta and Highwire Press helping smaller publishers to post their content online (Born & Van Orsdel, 2001). Cost increases were highly problematic for academic libraries and not restricted to the physical sciences. The cost of journals in military and naval science rose by 85.25% from 1997 to 2001 while journals in political science rose to 54.34% in the same period (Born & Van Orsdel, 2001, p. 54). Taking a closer look at annual cost increases, Brenda Dingley discussed the review of pricing for 3914 journals included in the US Periodical Price Index sponsored by the Library Materials Price

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

83

Index Committee (LMPIC) of American Library Association’s (ALA’s) Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS). Annual cost increases 1994 to 2003 generally exceeded inflation across multiple disciplines. For Engineering titles, the lowest annual increase was 7.9% in 2002 with the highest annual increase of 12.2% in 1998 (Dingley, 2003, p. 197). Psychology journals ranged from a low annual increase of 8.3% in 2003 with the highest annual change in 2001 with an 11.3% annual cost increase (Dingley, 2003, p. 196). Henk Plasmeijer of the University of Groningen explained the global “serials crisis” as resulting from the monopoly power of publishers, especially when they assume copyright for unique scientific publications, combined with the explosion of scientific research and the publish or perish regime of contemporary academics. Rising prices derive from the fact that libraries that are willing and able to pay for content, continue to do so, partly because the actual consumer or the library patron is unaware of the real cost and the possibility of cheaper alternatives (Plasmeijer, 2002). According Plasmeijer, writing shortly before the open-access movement emerged in Europe and North America, pricing is set by what libraries are willing to pay, particularly for the most prestigious journals, and the only remedy is negotiating better rates or persuading academics to publisher their research in less expensive journals (Plasmeijer, 2002). The critical function of negotiating the best possible pricing for electronic resources was one of the driving factors that shifted the ERL position from public to technical services in the 21st century. Negotiating with vendors in practice is time consuming, in terms of not only the actual discussion, but also preparation, tracking the marketplace, maintaining working business relationships, and participating in consortia or buying groups. While the overall upward trajectory of pricing for online journals from the late 1990s to 2008 is clear, having increased across the board, there was considerable experimentation with business models. John Cox provides readers with a summary of serial pricing models in 2002. The Academic Press developed an APPEAL license for online journals in which libraries paid the subscription fees charged for print from the previous year plus a premium for online access. This inflexible model, however, made no allowances for changes in the title list. It is no longer common or relevant in most cases. The previously independent company Blackwell’s charged 90% of the cost of a print subscription, providing volume discounts, and negotiated flat rates for comprehensive packages or big deals with libraries. Ingenta provided a base discount of 60% off for library consortia with

84

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

additional discounts for the higher number of participating libraries in buying groups. At the time of writing, Cox noted that Wiley charged a 90% base fee, essentially 90% of what a full subscription to a journal would cost, but would then add 10% for one print copy, 20% for two copies, 5% for a single online site plus a “sliding scale for multiple sites” (Cox, 2002, p. 172). Some of the earliest prices or fees for online journals were based on the cost of the print subscription with a multiplier effect based on the publishers’ anticipation of reduced print sales when the library offered online access to unlimited simultaneous users. The assumption was that individual subscriptions would go down as patrons could conveniently share access to one online subscription. Publishers also addressed population-based models drawing on the Carnegie Classification of academic institutions, the type of academic institution, and the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students, faculty or specific types of users. Cox noted BJM Publishing’s use of FTE based on institution type such as the “total number of medical faculty, researchers, and students” for academic institutions or “the total number of professional qualified employees” for government agencies (Cox, 2002, p. 173). For academic libraries in 2019 in North America, providing the student FTE will usually be enough to obtain a price quote from most vendors. However, given changes in business models over time, most electronic resources have a cost that is based on the unique pricing history between the publisher or content provider and the libraries that purchase from them. Regardless of differences in formal business models, some academic libraries in North America that are otherwise similar in population, usage, or other characteristics can pay widely different pricing for the same electronic resources, particularly journal packages. Given the decline in public funding for higher education, particularly in the United States of America, and the need for academic libraries to stretch shrinking materials budgets, librarians began to push for new solutions to the problem of rising costs for serials in the early 21st century. To some extent, the problem was more obvious and acute in the emerging era of online access than it was in previous eras since libraries could now buy unlimited quantities of electronic resources, at least in theory. Print collections or other physical materials were limited by the size of the overall library facility, not just cost, as well as the staff power required to manage books, maps, and special collections as physical materials. The rising cost of materials was also partly mitigated in the 20th century by savings in time and money through automation and the reduction of support staff positions

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

85

as libraries became more automated. Libraries in North America were also used to highly developed networks and rules for sharing physical resources via interlibrary loan to cover gaps in their collections, whereas license agreements for electronic resources were initially all over the map regarding resource sharing. Even now, it is still problematic to share electronic resources, particularly eBooks. The first decade of the 21st century gave witness to many efforts by libraries, consortia, and other organizations to experiment with business models and find ways to control costs. Simon Tanner, senior consultant with Higher Education Digitization Services at the University of Hertfordshire (UK), argued that pay-per-view or pay-per-use options, particularly those based on some type of micropayment scheme, could be used to make the cost of electronic resources sustainable for libraries (Duranceau, 2003). Most pay-per-view services by major publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley, or Taylor & Francis charged fees upwards of $20 or more for single articles, so the author of this book is not aware of any large-scale efforts to adopt micropayments for electronic resources, but it is an interesting concept. The closest example would be a lower cost pay-per-view alternative launched in 2011, the ReadCube service developed by Labtiva and supported by Digital Science that provides access to research articles published by publishers such as Nature for $10.99 via a dedicated online reader (England & Anderson, 2013). Library consortia previously developed as extensions of interlibrary loan networks and in support of shared ILSs, but by the 1990s, many old and new consortia began to pursue group licensing for electronic resources. Some prominent examples include the Northeast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL) organized by Ann Shumelda Okerson, founding member of the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC), while she was at Yale University in 1996. Okerson also launched LIBLICENSE, to help educate librarians about licensing issues and provide a forum for discussing related topics. Tom Sanville, former Executive Director of OhioLink and founding member of the founding member of ICOLC, cautioned librarians not to expect cost reductions from library consortia but rather greater value for money. Acknowledging the need for libraries to provide access to ever greater amounts of information as an inherent dilemma of the information age, Sanville stated that the primary objective of OhioLink was to expand access at the lowest possible cost while conceding that overall costs for libraries were unlikely to be substantially reduced. As Sanville put it, “Our primary objective is to provide

86

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

more information to our patrons. If you think your primary objective is simply to reduce costs, then licensing is not for you. Licensing is first and foremost, a tool to better use costs” (Sanville, 1999). Chad Schatzle, applying game theory to scholarly publishing, argued that library consortia were the only viable alternative for cost control by libraries, apart from removing commercial publishers from the process entirely (Schatzle, 2006). Perhaps, the single most important challenge to business as usual by publishers and other content providers is the open-access movement. Much of the early initiative came from the sciences, specifically the development of preprint servers of scientific literature such as arXiv at Cornell University that was created in 1991, well before most publishers offered online journals (Mine, 2009). The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) developed the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) in 1998 with Richard Johnson as the first director to explore ways to reduce journal costs (Saunders, 1998). The Public Library of Science was formed in 2000 to promote open science and later launched its first open-access journal, PLOS Biology, in 2003 (Twyman, 2004). Critical meetings involving multiple interested organizations and individuals that defined open access were held in Budapest (February 2002), Bethesda (June 2003), and Berlin (October 2003), together known as the BBB definition. According to Peter Suber, these sessions defined open access (OA) as requiring the copyright holder to consent in advance to the unrestricted copy, use, distribution, transmission, and display of his or her work in public, as well as to allow others to make and distribute derivative works for any “responsible purpose” provided that the author received attribution (Suber, 2012, pp. 7e8). Concerns about the rising costs of journals even affected editorial boards. The editor and the entire board of the Journal of Algorithms, an Elsevier journal, left in January 2004 to form the board of the Association of Computing Machinery’s competing ACM Transactions on Algorithms (Van Orsdel & Born, 2004, p. 47). Open access is a complex and interesting topic that cannot be fully explored in depth in this book, but it is further testament to the many aspects of librarianship that ERLs must address in their work. However, acquiring electronic resources that require payment remained the better part of most libraries’ electronic collections throughout most of this period (Boissy, Feick, & Knapp, 2007). Some of the important consequences of the open-access movement, ongoing changes in other business models, and more recent developments will be further explored in the following chapters.

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

87

References Albiz, R. S. (2002). Electronic resource librarians in academic libraries: A position announcement analysis, 1996-2001. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2(4), 589. Bednarek-Michalsk, B. (2002). Creating a job description for an electronic resources librarian. Library Management, 23(8/9), 378e393. Boissy, R., Feick, T., & Knapp, L. (2007). Journal pricing ten years later. The Serials Librarian, 52(1e2), 167e182. Born, K., & Orsdel, L. V. (2001). Searching for serials utopia. Library Journal, 126(7), 53. Carpenter, M. (1992). The narrow, rugged uninteresting path finally becomes interesting: A review of work in descriptive cataloging in 1991 with trail marks for further research. Library Resources & Technical Services, 36(3), 291e315. Cervone, F., & Brown, D. (2001). Transforming library services to support distance learning. College & Research Libraries News, 62(2), 147. Champieux, R., Jackson, M., & Carrico, S. (2008). Implementing change and reorganization in the acquisitions departments at the University of Alabama’ and the University of Florida. Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 21(4), 113e121. Cox, J. (2002). Pricing electronic information: A snapshot of new serials pricing models. Serials Review, 28(3), 171. Croneis, K. S., & Henderson, P. (2006). Electronic and digital librarian positions: A content analysis of announcements from 1990 to 2000. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 232e237. Cuesta, E. M. (2005). The electronic librarian. The Acquisitions Librarian, 17(33e34), 53e62. Dewald, N., Scholz-Crane, A., Booth, A., & Levine, C. (2000). Information literacy at a distance: Instructional design issues. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(1), 33e44. Dingley, B. (2003). U.S. Periodical prices– 2003. Library Resources & Technical Services, 47(4), 192e207. Downes, K. A., & Rao, P. V. (2007). Preferred political, social, and technological characteristics of electronic resources (ER) librarians. Collection Management, 32(1e2), 3e14. Duranceau, E. F. (2003). Pricing of digital resources: An interview with simon tanner. Serials Review, 29(2), 121e126. Duranceau, E. F. (2004). Electronic resource management systems from ILS vendors. Against the Grain, 16(4), 91e94. Duranceau, E. F., & Hepfer, C. (2002). Staffing for electronic resource management: The results of a survey. Serials Review, 28(4), 316e320. El-Sherbini, M. A. (2008). Cataloging and classification: Review of the literature 2005-06. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(3), 148e163. Elguindi, A., & Schmidt, K. (2012). Electronic resource management: Practical perspectives in a new technical services model. Chandos Publishing. Engel, D., & Robbins, S. (2008). Evolving roles for electronic resources librarians. In H. Yu, & S. Breivold (Eds.), Electronic resources management in libraries: Research and practice (pp. 105e120). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. England, M., & Anderson, R. (2013). Patron-driven acquisition of journal articles using ReadCube at the University of Utah. Insights. The UKSG Journal, 26(3), 267e271. Felt, E. C. (1999). Holland library’s electronic resources librarians: A profile of these positions. The Reference Librarian, 30(64), 75e113. Fisher, W. (2003). The electronic resources librarian position: A public services phenomenon? Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, (1), 3e17. Fons, T. A., & Jewell, T. D. (2007). Envisioning the future of ERM systems. The Serials Librarian, 52(1e2), 151e166. Geller, M., & Riley, J. (2001). Serials pricing update: The real cost and price of ejournals. Against the Grain, 13(3), 82e84.

88

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Heimer, G. (2002). Defining electronic resources librarianship. Public Services Quarterly, 1(1), 27e43. He, P. W., & Knee, M. (1995). The challenge of electronic services librarianship. Reference Services Review, 23(4), 7e12. Higa, M. L., Bunnett, B., Maina, B., Perkins, J., Ramos, T., Thompson, L., et al. (2005). Redesigning a library’s organizational structure. College & Research Libraries, 66(1), 41e58. Hill, J. S. (1987). The cataloging half of cataloging and classification, 1986. Library Resources & Technical Services, 31(4), 321e332. Hodge, G. (2005). Metadata for electronic information resources: From variety to interoperability. Information Services & Use, 25(1), 35e45. IFLA Study Group on the functional requirements for bibliographic records. (1998). Functional requirements for bibliographic records: Final report. Munich, Germany: K. G. Saur. Jewell, T. (2001). Selection and presentation of commercially available electronic resources: Issues and practices. Washington, D.C.: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. Jewell, T., Anderson, I., Chandler, A., Farb, S. E., Parker, K., Riggio, A., et al. (2004). Electronic resources management: Report of the DLF electronic resource management initiative. Washington, D.C.: Digital Library Federation. Jia, M., Sullenger, P., & Loghry, P. (2006). Examining workflows and redefining roles: Auburn university and the college of New Jersey. The Serials Librarian, 50(3e4), 279e283. King, S., Metcalf, M., & Larkin, M. (2007). Tackling the reorganization chart. The Serials Librarian, 52(3e4), 311e316. Kyrillidou, M., & Young, M. (2004). ARL statistics, 2002-2003: A compilation of statistics from the one hundred and twenty-three members of the association of research libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Le Boeuf, P. (2001). FRBR and further. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 32(4), 15e52. Mahoney, B. D. (2000). Electronic resource sharing in community colleges: A snapshot of Florida, Wisconsin, Texas and Louisiana. Community & Junior College Libraries, 9(2), 31e35. Medeiros, N. (2005). On the Dublin core front: Electronic resources management: An update. OCLC Systems and Services, 21(2), 92e94. Miksa, S. D. (2007). The challenges of change. Library Resources & Technical Services, 51(1), 51e68. Mine, S. (2009). The roles and place of arXiv in scholarly communication. Library and Information Science, (61), 25e58. Morris, S., & Roebuck, G. (2018). ARL statistics 2015-2016. Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries. Murdock, D. (2010). Relevance of electronic resource management systems to hiring practices for electronic resources personnel. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 34(1), 25e42. Neely, T. Y., Lederer, N., Reyes, A., Thistlethwaite, P., Wess, L., & Winkler, J. (2000). Instruction and outreach at Colorado state university libraries. The Reference Librarian, 32(67/68), 273e287. Paiste, M. S. (2003). Defining and achieving quality in cataloging in academic libraries: A literature review. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27(3), 327e338. Pesch, O. (2006). Ensuring consistent usage statistics, Part 1: Project COUNTER. The Serials Librarian, 50(1e2), 147e161. Pesch, O. (2007). SUSHI: What it is and why you should care. (cover story). Computers in Libraries, 27(4), 6e48.

Early trends and transformation: ERMI, ERMS, and separate development

89

Plasmeijer, H. W. (2002). Pricing the serials library: In defence of a market economy. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(3), 337e357. Pomerantz, S. (2010). The role of the acquisitions librarian in electronic resources management. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 22(1/2), 40e48. Pritchard, S. (2008). Deconstructing the library: Reconceptualizing collections, spaces and services. Journal of Library Administration, 48(2), 219e233. Rupp, N., & Mobley, L. (2007). Use of technology in managing electronic resource workflow. Against the Grain, 19(1), 18e22. Sadeh, T., & Ellingsen, M. (2005). Electronic resources management systems: The need and the realization. New Library World, 106(5/6), 208e218. Sanville, T. (1999). A license to deal. Library Journal, 124(3), 122e124. Saunders, L. (1998). ARL’s SPARC alliance bears fruit: ARL/ACS electronic publishing venture. Information Today, 15(8), 25. Schatzle, C. (2006). A proposed solution to the scholarly communications crisis. Journal of Access Services, 3(3), 37e47. Simpson, S. N., Coghill, J. G., & Greenstein, P. C. (2005). Electronic resources librarian in the health sciences library: An emerging role. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 2(1), 27e39. Stachokas, G. (2009). Electronic resources and mission creep: Reorganizing the library for the twenty-first century. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 21(3e4), 206e212. Stafford, C. D., & Serban, W. M. (1990). Core competencies: Recruiting, training, and evaluating in the automated reference environment. Journal of Library Administration, 13(1/2), 81e97. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Twyman, N. (2004). Launching PLoS Biology – six months in the open. Serials, 17(2), 127e131. Van Orsdel, L., & Born, K. (2004). Closing in on open access. Library Journal, 129(7), 45e50. Vickery, J. (2001). Reorganization in the British Library to acquire electronic resources. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 25(3), 299e305.

CHAPTER 6

The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries

6.1 The budgetary crisis and its impact on higher education and academic libraries The Great Recession of 2008 had a significant impact on academic libraries throughout the United States of America. Most states faced a marked loss of tax revenue which forced reductions in overall spending on higher educations, cuts at colleges and universities, and often the slashing of funding for libraries. Even eminent private institutions such as Harvard University and Yale University were affected by the overall state of the economy. Many academic libraries were forced to find ways to economize both in terms of spending on collections and personnel. Libraries were forced to reorganize their departmental structures, rethink collections and services, and prioritize cost-effective operations. This chapter will offer a high-level map of the financial crisis in American higher education, discuss some of the changes in libraries in more detail, consider the impact of promotion and tenure for librarians and the ongoing costs and benefits of the alignment with books that still captures the professional identity of librarians in the popular imagination. Higher education in the United States arguably still suffers from the consequences of the economic crisis that shook the entire world at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. More of the cost of supporting the entire educational system has been shifted to students in the form of higher tuition costs and student debt in the United States as public funding and revenue from gifts and endowments declined. Colleges and universities have been forced to cut costs, putting further pressure on any services or programs that did not provide an obvious return on financial investment. Academic libraries require considerable investment but do not generate any revenue the way some other academic units do. The Great Recession may also have changed the trajectory or pattern of development of academic The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00006-4

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

91

92

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

libraries in the United States, accelerating ongoing changes in collections such as the shift from print to electronic resources, the reduction in the overall number of support staff positions and the reorganization of technical services to manage electronic resources, but the lack of financial resources may have reduced the ability of libraries to acquire leading-edge technologies and develop or acquire better systems for managing their collections and systems. David Nicholas, Ian Rowlands, Michael Jubb, and Hamid R. Jamali conducted a study of the impact of the economic downturn on libraries, including a global survey in 2009 supported in part by Elsevier, ebrary, Baker & Taylor, and the Charleston Conference (Nicholas, Rowlands, Jubb, & Jamali, 2010). A total of 835 institutions responded with 62.3% from the United States, 12.7% from the United Kingdom, 20.7% from the rest of Europe, and 12.3% from other parts of the world (Nicholas et al., 2010, p. 377). Compared to the previous fiscal year, 27% of academic libraries reported budget cuts greater than 10%, while 16.8% experienced cuts up to 10 percent. Only 13% of academic libraries received increases up to 10 percent, while 3.6% received even larger increases. 39.4% of academic libraries had flat budgets (Nicholas et al., 2010, p. 377). For the subsequent fiscal year, 47.5% of academic libraries reported flat budgets with 18.1% confirming budget cuts greater than 10% and 21.6% of academic libraries experiencing budget cuts up to 10% (Nicholas et al., 2010, p. 378). As those who manage library collections well know, a flat budget or a zero increase in available funding is effectively still a cut for libraries since most annual subscription fees increase over time. Interestingly, the overall situation in the United Kingdom was somewhat better than that of the United States (Nicholas et al., 2010, p. 377) at least during the earliest months of the Great Recession. This may partly have been due to ongoing significant support by the UK government for higher education at over £7bn annually (Venkatraman, 2009, p. 8) and the delayed impact of global economic problems. However, a survey of UK libraries in mid-2009 showed that a majority of respondents expected staff reductions, journal cancellations, and other budget reductions (Harper & Corrall, 2011). A survey of the 123 members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) during fiscal year 2008e09 revealed a number of grim findings: (1) confirmation that for most of the leading research universities in North American, primary sources of revenue such as tax income and endowment earnings were down, (2) libraries adapted in the first year by cutting back on operations and staff whereas the second year of the Great Recession led to

The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries

93

varying reductions in acquisitions, and (3) no recovery in income for universities that could be distributed in turn to academic libraries was foreseen in the near term (Lowry, 2011). In 2009e10, 77% of ARL libraries faced budget cuts, whereas only 23% received increases ranging from 0.45% to 6.90% (Lowry, 2011, p. 42). While most librarians would have been grateful for any budgetary increase during that fiscal year, the actual increases were usually only adequate to maintain existing subscriptions but not to expand collections, invest in new types of positions such as research data management librarians, or improve fundamental infrastructure in terms of systems or library buildings. Charles Lowry identified a number of responses that were more or less typical among ARL libraries to the Great Recession. More routine work was outsourced in technical services, such as the copy cataloging of commonly held materials. Collection development in libraries shed inertia and frills with a tighter focus on highly used information resources that more closely matched local research and teaching needs. Human resources were also redirected toward points of demonstrable need with an acceleration of the trend to reduce the staffing of reference desks by professional librarians as well as refocusing the work of technical services on special collections and the digitization of local collections. ARL libraries also looked to changing their physical infrastructure by shifting low-use physical collections to offsite storage, consolidating or reducing branch libraries, and generally reexamining service points (Lowry, 2011). As discussed in previous chapters of this book, librarians in academic libraries have been complaining about budgetary constraints for decades, long before electronic resources began to replace print journals. However, a study by John Regazzi using publicly available National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data showed results for the funding of academic libraries from 1998 to 2008 that may differ in some ways from the rhetoric and historical memory of many librarians. It is worth quoting at length: Academic librarians and administrators as a group may indeed feel constrained by budget; but, over the study period, academic libraries have grown in real dollars by nearly 12% above inflation; their professional staffs have grown by nearly 15%, and funding for these staffs have increased by over 23% in current dollar funding, and serial and ebook collections have delivered dramatic value as indicated by reductions in per unit costs. In fact, few other educational institutions can point to such progress. Regazzi (2012b pp. 445e446).

94

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

According to Regazzi, academic libraries also witnessed sharp declines in the use of traditional library services based on physical information resources while the use of electronic resources greatly increased, again with much higher use per dollar spent than for print resources. While the overall number of support staff positions began to decline and the number of librarians held relatively steady, nonlibrarian professionals increased by 60% at academic libraries that served doctoral institutions and by 50% in private academic institutions (Regazzi, 2012b, p. 466). Finally, Regazzi speculated that part of the strain on library budgets was the awkward attempt to continue managing increasingly obsolete traditional services while trying to also invest in new services based on electronic resources and other forms of information technology (Regazzi, 2012b, p. 467). Regazzi’s finding points to an identity crisis for academic libraries in the United States. While the Great Recession certainly posed a serious external threat to libraries, the greater threat was perhaps internal. Libraries in the 19th and 20th centuries, partly since most librarians assumed that collections were physical and interlibrary loan services were never as fast as using materials already available on-site, tended to take a more “universalist” approach. Librarians focused on building the ideal collection of physical materials, one that might be weeded periodically out of practical necessity, but nonetheless was valued as a thing in itself that somehow represented the best possible information available. Libraries in the 21st century, both public and academic, are more narrowly focused on the needs of specific local constituencies only, often as precisely defined in license agreements for electronic resources. The precise nature of the collection, what is considered optimal, and how it is discovered and delivered to users are always in flux based on changing circumstances. Michael Germano wrote how contemporary libraries face a “value deficit” in the 21st century that can only be overcome through careful analysis of unique user populations with astute marketing to those populations and delivery of appropriate information services. Unlike earlier eras, goodwill for libraries can no longer be taken as a given (Germano, 2011). The Great Recession also revealed and accelerated the growing divergence between public and academic libraries. Yet another study by John Regazzi compared spending in different types of libraries from 1998 through 2008 using NCES data but also Public Library Service (PLS) data gathered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the biennial Census of State and Government Finance (Regazzi, 2012a). Overall spending grew faster in all library types than academic libraries.

The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries

95

Adjusted for 2008 dollars, spending on academic libraries grew by 13% while spending on public libraries grew by 31% (Regazzi, 2012a, p. 206). Most of the increase in academic libraries went to fund collections while collections remained largely static in public libraries with most new spending going to new personnel and services, often new types of community programs. Perhaps not surprisingly, increases in funding for hospitals, K-12 education, and other units within higher education exceeded libraries overall, perhaps accounting for part of the perception among librarians that they were failing to keep up (Regazzi, 2012a). The financial challenges posed by the Great Recession lingered for many years and arguably still do for most academic libraries in the United States. Writing in 2013, Charles Lowry noted in survey of ARL libraries with 88 respondents, 68 libraries or 77% of respondents received budgetary increases less than inflation, were flat, or in decline in terms of funding for Fiscal Years 2011e12 and 2012e13 (Lowry, 2013, p. 9). Lowry worried that this systematic defunding of libraries, as well as higher education in general, would negatively impact scholarly communications worldwide (Lowry, 2013, p. 12). However, during the same time period, scholarly output increased considerably in China and continued to increase in the United States as well. It would seem that what is most needed in academic libraries, in addition to more funding, is a better sense of how our services directly affect users, promote successful learning, and encourage growth in the research enterprise.

6.2 Reclassification, reorganization, and redundancy Taking a closer look at staffing in academic libraries, John Regazzi noted that expenditures on staffing increased by 21% from 1998 to 2008 even as the overall number of staffing decreased by 7% in large academic libraries (Regazzi, 2013, p. 219). Looking further at large academic libraries, librarians increased by 22%, other professional staff by 81%, while support staff positions increased by only 2% and the number of student assistants declined by 9% from 1998 to 2008 (Regazzi, 2013, p. 219). However, from 2008 to 2010, the number of librarians increased only by 1% while other paid staff decreased by 5% and total staffing decreased by 3% overall (Regazzi, 2013, p. 219). Patterns were roughly similar for all academic libraries in that the number of other professionals and librarians tended to increase before the Great Recession, while the number of other paid staff tended to decrease confirming the ongoing transition toward greater use of

96

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

information technology, the replacement of physical collections with electronic resources, and work that required more advanced skill sets as previously documented in earlier chapters of this book. Regazzi concluded his study by noting three important trends: (1) a widening gap between large academic libraries and all other library types, (2) key operational shifts from print to electronic materials, from labor-intensive to capital-intensive programs, and from physical to virtual library space, and (3) evidence of increased productivity in libraries (Regazzi, 2013, p. 220). The Great Recession also forced academic libraries to shed redundant positions and workflows as well as take practical steps to make the most of existing full-time employee (FTE). The emergence of electronic resources librarian positions, as well as new metadata librarian positions, digitization librarians, and the work of cataloging in special collections expanded the work of metadata creation beyond machine-readable cataloging (MARC) cataloging. As referenced in previous chapters, different metadata schemas were used in libraries for describing different types of content such as enhanced archival description (EAD) in special collections or Dublin Core for digital collections. A survey of 129 academic libraries with 46 responses conducted in 2007 revealed that non-MARC metadata creation was roughly split between technical and nontechnical services with 27 institutions using librarians and 25 institutions using paraprofessional staff in cataloging/technical services to create non-MARC metadata, while 29 institutions used librarians and paraprofessional staff outside of cataloging/technical services units (Fleming, Mering & Wolfe, 2008, 6). The authors of the study also noted an increase in the use of the term “metadata” in job titles with the most common titles in the sample being “Metadata/Cataloger” or “Cataloging/Metadata” represented 10 times, “Metadata Librarian” referenced 8 times, “Metadata Coordinator” used 4 times, and “Metadata Specialist” used 4 times (Fleming et al., 2008, 8). While more research is needed, there is some evidence that metadata librarians are somewhat more likely to be found in technical services units at the time of writing than in first decade of the 21st century given more recent efforts to reorganize and improve technical services to manage electronic and digital resources. While the process of integration may have been slowed down by the Great Recession to some extent, technology continued to increasingly overlap with library services. The Research Computing Lab at the Charles L. Brown Science and Engineering Library of the University of Virginia developed an active collaboration starting in 2005 between reference and information services personnel and the Department of Information

The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries

97

Technology and Communication to ensure that students’ questions regarding research methodology and the use of technology were promptly addressed in real time without having to resort to contacting separate units regarding different types of problems (Hunter, Lake, Lee, & Sallans, 2010). The electronic resources librarian position and other staff positions that support electronic resources management originally emerged separately from existing serials management staff in some academic libraries, most notably in cases in which electronic resources librarian positions first began in public services. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, separate serials management units, mostly focused on print resources, coexisted with other units dedicated to managing electronic resources in large academic libraries. The process of consolidating, replacing, or repurposing serials units to focus more on electronic resources seemed to be gathering momentum prior to the Great Recession, and the process of change may have occurred even more quickly in some cases due to the Great Recession. Indiana University Bloomington, a large research university with other 38,000 students, merged previously separate serials and electronic resources units into one Serials and Electronic Resources Acquisitions (SERA) unit in July 2008 partly based on the recommendations of R2 consultants in 2007 (Clendenning, Duggan, & Smith, 2010). The new unit was responsible for managing relationships between Technical Services, Public Services, Collections and Library Information Technology, including formal meetings to coordinate work that affected the entire library system and foster communication. SERA was responsible for licensing, title management, ordering electronic resources, activating titles, communicating announcements about electronic resources, automated cataloging for electronic resources, managing the e-journal portal and link resolver, and also troubleshooting access problems. Previously troubleshooting was handled by IT, but now SERA would only rely on external assistance for the most complex problems (Clendenning et al., 2010). The transition from print to electronic resources management was difficult for some personnel. Sarah Glasser of Hofstra University conducted a survey to explore staffing implications in 2010. Responding institutions reported significant reductions in print serials workflows including serials binding at 31%, 26% for claiming, and 22% for check-in. Some institutions eliminated binding altogether (Glasser & Arthur, 2011, p. 110). Libraries reported that the underlying reasons for changing print serials management were either proactive decisions to cease these tasks or the impact of dwindling print collections. Responding institutions varied by size, but

98

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

most reported some type of reorganization after reducing print serials management with two-thirds of respondents indicating that only one or two employees were affected while five or more employees were affected as reported by 15% of respondents. The majority of staff members were retrained and continued to work in the library but less than half were working with electronic resources (Glasser & Arthur, 2011, p. 111). During a presentation given by Glasser at the NASIG Conference, many librarians in the audience complained of the problem of retraining staff with limited skill sets, interest, or aptitude to work with electronic resources or metadata (Glasser & Arthur, 2011, p. 111).

6.3 Promotion and tenure for librarians during the Great Recession A detailed and comprehensive study of the impact on information science of promotion and tenure for librarians is well outside the scope of this book, but it is necessary to consider how tenure affected academic libraries during the Great Recession. While not directly addressed in the literature, tenure for librarians protected employment for both individual librarians and overall professional staffing levels for academic libraries since colleges and universities could not easily remove tenured librarians. Other professional staff and library associates could be and sometimes were reassigned or laid off as personnel budgets were cut during the economic downturn. Tenure for academic librarians has helped to preserve a core group of professionals in most institutions despite multiple competing pressures on library budgets. Nonetheless, tenure for academic librarians was increasingly under assault in the United States after the financial crisis in 2009. Part of the problem was a general misunderstanding by some university administrations of the knowledge and skills required to manage a 21st century library based on electronic resources. Tenure for librarians, including monies set aside for travel and other professional development, was expensive. Others doubted the ability of librarians to keep up with the demands of scholarly production, given that their terminal degree is a master’s degree rather than a doctorate. Some also questioned the need for defending academic freedom for librarians (Coker, van Duinkerken, & Bales, 2010). To protect their faculty status and tenure, academic librarians were encouraged to be politically active in organizations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), engage in constant educational efforts, and participate actively as faculty on campus, including shared governance (Coker et al., 2010).

The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries

99

Kelly Blessinger and Gina Costello surveyed 43 ARL libraries in 2010 to find out more about the impact of the Great Recession on support for tenure for academic librarians. Overall, 44% of the 25 responding institutions had budget cuts of less than 5%, while 40% reported reductions between 5% and 10% with 16% reporting cuts over 10% (Blessinger & Costello, 2011, p. 309). While respondents ranked academic publications as the single most important activity for awarding promotion and tenure, service on “national organizations committees” and presentations were ranked second and third, respectively (Blessinger & Costello, 2011, p. 309). Around 52% of respondents confirmed cuts in support for travel and attending conferences, while 44% continued to require service and professional development activities despite reduced support for travel. Overall, the impact of the recession significantly changed the work of tenure-track librarians with 62% reporting an increase in job duties. Furthermore, 28% of respondents strongly agreed and 28% somewhat agreed with the statement that tenure-track librarians had or would have to assume duties usually performed by other types of personnel due to layoffs or vacant positions (Blessinger & Costello, 2011, p. 309). Some have argued that faculty status and the benefits often associated with that status such as promotion and tenure promote greater interaction between librarians and teaching faculty on campus, improve the overall quality of professional literature in library and information science (LIS), and provide fringe benefits that attract stronger candidates to the profession of librarianship (Gillum, 2010). Others, however, see promotion and tenure as a distraction from the routine work that most librarians actually do in practice such as daily problem solving, creating metadata, or answering questions about information resources. The additional costs and cultural requirements associated with promotion and tenure might serve as additional barriers of entry for librarians from underrepresented minorities or those from less privileged economic backgrounds. A survey of library faculty of color produced some important criticism regarding how systems of promotion and tenure might be viewed from different perspectives. Here is just one example, “In my library I’m viewed and treated as a second class citizen. My skills, knowledge and abilities are not valued in their own right. They are treated as commodities to be used to serve others” (Damasco & Hodges, 2012, p. 294). Given ongoing changes in LIS as a professional field, the arguable need for more advanced training for academic librarians to address 21st century requirements, and the problems of adapting to an increasingly diverse

100

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

society, the system of promotion and tenure in academic libraries may require improvement. However, the protection of tenure for at least part of the professional workforce and the ability to participate in shared governance as faculty helped to protect vulnerable academic libraries during the Great Recession. Faculty librarians were sometimes better equipped to defend their budgets and unique prerogatives at the most vulnerable institutions at the height of the economic crisis.

6.4 The endurance of the book as brand: for good or evil Part of the problem of transforming academic libraries to meet 21st century requirements is that many users, and some librarians, continue to think of the library as a primarily physical space that houses books in a more or less traditional setting. A study commissioned by Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and conducted by Harris Interactive, Inc. in 2005 of Internet users all over the world included the following bottom-line summary of results, “Books is the library brand. There is no runner-up” (Tennant, 2006, p. 38). OCLC confirmed these results in 2010 except that the number of respondents associating libraries with “books” increased to 75% whereas only 69% had associated libraries primarily with “books” in 2005 (De Rosa et al., 2011, 38). Most users began with online search engines rather than library websites or discovery tools and tended to consider their own findings as reliable as the information provided by libraries (De Rosa et al., 2011). A related but distinct problem has been the popular image of librarians themselves. Some of the LIS literature tends to focus on the overall problem, at least perceived by some, that the dominant stereotype of the librarian in American popular culture is that of the spinster, an elderly unmarried woman. A recent study conducted in California that asked students to create avatars for different professional groups such as librarians, nurses, and software engineers revealed that most of the negative attributes assigned to librarians were actually absent. Apart from usually creating a woman with glasses, most students did not characterize librarians as “old, unsmiling, and frumpy with hair in a bun” (Borchard et al, 2018, 45). Eric Jennings’ advice to ignore concerns that seem driven more by professional status anxiety or personal sensitivity seems highly warranted (Jennings, 2016). To secure funding and investment in an increasingly challenging environment, librarians will need to address the problem of the book as

The Great Recession and its impact on academic libraries

101

brand, however, while carefully continuing to explain changes in librarianship itself, particularly in terms of new and expanding skill sets such as research data management. This will require astute marketing on the part of libraries, both in terms of education of users, but also the careful targeting of services to their specific identified needs (Germano, 2011). The profession of LIS will also have to navigate the ongoing transition from physical to virtual information resources in order to remain sustainable by providing convenient and responsive service regardless of how library materials are procured, discovered, or delivered (Wilson, 2012). Librarians need to commit to providing the best possible information services in the digital world. If librarians succeed in doing this in reality, the perceptions of informed users should also change.

References Blessinger, K., & Costello, G. (2011). The effect of economic recession on institutional support for tenure-track librarians in ARL institutions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(4), 307e311. Borchard, L., Wimberley, L., Eng-Ziskin, S., & Fidgeon, A. (2018). Should we shush about the stereotype? Examining student-generated images of librarians. Practical Academic Librarianship: The International Journal of the SLA, 8(1), 28e53. Clendenning, L., Duggan, L., & Smith, K. (2010). Navigating a course for serials staffing into the new millennium. The Serials Librarian, 58(1e4), 224e231. Coker, C., van Duinkerken, W., & Bales, S. (2010). Seeking full citizenship: A defense of tenure faculty status for librarians. College & Research Libraries, 71(5), 406e420. Damasco, I. T., & Hodges, D. (2012). Tenure and promotion experiences of academic librarians of color. College & Research Libraries, 73(3), 279e301. De Rosa, Cathy, Cantrell, J., Carlson, M., Gallagher, P., Hawk, J., et al. (2011). Perceptions of libraries, 2010: Context and community. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. Fleming, A., Mering, M., & Wolfe, J. A. (2008). Library personnel’s role in the creation of metadata: A survey of academic libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 25(4), 1e15. Germano, M. (2011). The library value deficit. Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 24(2), 100e106. Gillum, S. (2010). The true benefit of faculty status for academic reference librarians. The Reference Librarian, 51(4), 321e328. Glasser, S., & Arthur, M. (2011). When jobs disappear: The staffing implications of the elimination of print serials management tasks. The Serials Librarian, 60(1e4), 109e113. Harper, R., & Corrall, S. (2011). Effects of the economic downturn on academic libraries in the UK: Positions and projections in mid-2009. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 17(1), 96e128. Hunter, C., Lake, S., Lee, C., & Sallans, A. (2010). A case study in the evolution of digital services for science and engineering libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 50(4), 335e347. Jennings, E. (2016). The librarian stereotype: How librarians are damaging their image and profession. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 23(1), 93e100. Lowry, C. (2011). Year 2 of the “Great recession”: Surviving the present by building the future. Journal of Library Administration, 51(1), 37e53.

102

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Lowry, C. (2013). ARL library budgets after the Great recession, 2011-13. Research Library Issues, (283), 2e12. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Jubb, M., & Jamali, H. R. (2010). The impact of the economic downturn on libraries: With special reference to university libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(5), 376e382. Regazzi, J. J. (2012a). Comparing academic library spending with public libraries, public K12 schools, higher education public institutions, and public hospitals between 1998e2008. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(4), 205e216. Regazzi, J. J. (2012b). Constrained? An analysis of U.S. Academic library shifts in spending, staffing, and utilization, 1998-2008. College & Research Libraries, 73(5), 449e468. Regazzi, J. J. (2013). U.S. Academic library spending, staffing and utilization during the Great recession 2008e2010. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 217e222. Tennant, R. (2006). The library brand. Library Journal, 131(1), 38. Venkatraman, A. (2009). Minister puts intellectual property at heart of UK economic recovery. Information World Review, (260), 07e08. Wilson, L. (2012). Creating sustainable futures for academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 52(1), 78e93.

CHAPTER 7

Reimagining technical services Much like the electronic resources librarian position itself, electronic resources management (ERM) began as a specialized type of public service, later transitioning to a siloed form of technical services with its own staff, workflows, and separate systems. The level of separate development for ERM and the rest of technical services in the late 1990 and 2000s varied across libraries, but the requirement to provide online services in real time and the use of distinctive tools such as knowledge bases, link resolvers, and ERM systems to support these efforts tended to make integration impractical. However, siloed development did not last for long. Given the overall decline in the usage of print materials in the 21st century, the emphasis on distance education, the ongoing growth of electronic resources, the emergence of discovery, and overall improvements in technology and automation, many librarians began to realize that ERM had become the core function of technical services. Efforts to create technical integration by removing the silo between ERM functions and more traditional integrated library system (ILS) functions into a single library services platform (LSP) coexisted with efforts to reorganize staff into new technical services departments redesigned and reorganized to meet new requirements.

7.1 The growth of electronic resources from eBooks to streaming media Electronic resources have a long tail of development that extends well back into the 20th century if one considers CD-ROM, dial-up information resources, and the general trend toward more intensive use of information technology and automation in society at large that sets the stage for online information resources. However, the development of information resources that can be shared worldwide through the Internet is a fundamental change that has many more implications for libraries and information science than previous types of digital information resources. For example, CD-ROMs were still housed as physical items, albeit as disks encoded with digital The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00007-6

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

103

104

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

information, within physical libraries, whereas electronic resources exist on external servers and the very existence of databases, online journals, and eBooks that can be accessed without visiting the physical library puts the existence of the physical library into question. Using the mid-1990s as the starting time for electronic resources in libraries, online information resources have replaced physical information resources relatively quickly but at somewhat different rates and in an ongoing process that is still taking decades to complete. Databases and some major reference titles quickly replaced their analog counterparts, partly due to the early inroads of CD-ROM. The transition from print serials to online journals has also occurred relatively quickly but with noticeable differences among libraries in the rate of change. Due to the Great Recession and other factors related to access and cost, some libraries have occasionally reversed the online transition while the overall trend has remained clear. Adoption of eBooks and streaming media has been more complicated and somewhat less pronounced, but use of these information resources has greatly increased as well. It is important to add that when the first eBook was created is somewhat controversial, but if one takes 1971 as a starting point, then it has already taken much longer for academic libraries to transition from print books to eBooks than it has for serials. Used with caution given changes in statistical measures and potential problems in gathering accurate data, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) continues to serve as a useful measure of overall changes in large research libraries in North America, given its annual gathering of statistics. For a considerable part of the 21st century, ARL provided detailed statistics for expenditures for electronic resources that are reobequite useful in documenting the transition from print to electronic information in libraries, at least in terms of financial expenditures. In fiscal year 2004e05, the University of Chicago spent 27.84% of their library materials budget on electronic resources while figures were 61.21% for the University of Delaware, 30.44% for Duke University, and 15.85% for Harvard University (Kyrillidou & Young, 2006, p. 44). By the publication of the ARL Statistics, 2007e08, ARL was reporting that the average ARL library was spending 51% of their materials budgets on electronic resources while 68 members, well over half of the total membership, reported spending more than 50% of their materials budgets on electronic resources (Kyrillidou & Bland, 2009, p. 18). Part of the issue of ARL Statistics, 2007e08, was spent charting the massive growth in spending on electronic resources in the first decade of the

Reimagining technical services

105

21st century. With 111 libraries reporting, ARL members spent a median of 22.01% of their materials budget on electronic resources in fiscal year 2002e03, while the median expenditure had increased to 53.06% by fiscal year 2007e08 (Kyrillidou & Bland, 2009, p. 21). Spending on electronic resources at the University of Chicago increased to 32.58% of their materials budget in fiscal year 2007e08, 63.0% for the University of Delaware, 48.47% for Duke University, and 24.20% for Harvard University (Kyrillidou & Bland, 2009, p. 48). By fiscal year 2010e11, after the Great Recession, the University of Chicago spent 56.06% of their materials budget while the numbers of the University of Delaware, Duke University, and Harvard University were 66.01%, 52.03%, and 41.90%, respectively (Kyrillidou, Morris, & Roebuck, 2012, pp. 46e48). The transition in spending coincided in many academic libraries with the shift from public to technical services for the electronic resources librarian (ERL) position, suggesting that part of the reason for the change was based on the sheer increase in the number of orders and complex license agreements. This necessitated more routine interaction with other technical services units within the library while also requiring additional interaction with university business offices and legal counsel in the case of some institutions. Writing in 2010, Diana Kichuk, Electronic Collections Librarian at the University of Saskatchewan Library, showed that even as the total share of electronic resources in the library’s materials budget increased from the 2000e01 fiscal year through 2007e08 fiscal year, the share of new electronic resources in comparison to net electronic resources actually declined from 31% to 16% (Kichuk, 2010, p. 61). Interestingly, the overall electronic collection of the University of Saskatchewan as represented on the A-Z list or knowledge base of electronic resources was relatively stable from fiscal year 1996e97 through 2007e08. Rather than being initiated by changes in acquisitions strategy by the Library, Kichuk reported that most of the changes were the result of actions taken by publishers such as mergers, expansions (acquisitions of other companies), and changes in the status of specific publications (Kichuk, 2010). Diana Kichuk cited the economic downturn, finite acquisitions budgets, and “limits to economic dominance” or ongoing preferences for print or other material types among some library users as potential limits on further growth in electronic resources (Kichuk, 2010, pp. 63e64). Trying to estimate how much electronic resources collections might need to grow in order to meet patron needs and the related question of how much money, staff time, and library space to commit to more

106

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

traditional formats are certainly important strategic problems for academic libraries. However, for academic research libraries, a better question might be is the electronic collection of a size and quality that is necessary to provide the optimum level of support for actual research, teaching, and the overall development of faculty, staff, and students on campus. Furthermore, even if some users continue to prefer print materials, what should an academic library do when there are limits on scarce financial and staffing resources with overall indications in a growth of the demand of electronic resources? Studies of the transition from print to electronic resources require more than just materials budgets or expenditures in order to understand what is going on. One also has to look at the growth in the number of citations as the overall size and scope of scientific literature expand, the emergence of new academic disciplines and entire new disciplines, not to mention a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary research on many campuses. Finally, one has to measure the growth in the usage of electronic resources and the decline in the usage of print resources. Overall, one might able to assume a greater stability in databases in most library collections over time, particularly given the emphasis on subject indexes for specific disciplines, with more changes in online journals. However, the growth of electronic resources also needs to be understood in terms of eBooks and formats developed as part of society’s general transition to digital information such as streaming media. While Project Gutenberg arguably deserves credit for launching the first freely available eBook in 1971, one of the first commercial options widely available to academic libraries was netlLibrary emerging in the late 1990s (Hilts, 1999). Baker & Taylor developed their eBook service not long after while ebrary received investments from Pearson, Random House, and McGraw-Hill (Digital Publishing Technologies, 2000). The Association of Academic Research Libraries (ACRL) announced the addition of the first eBook to their publications in 2001 (Davis, 2001). Howard Falk described a long list of new eBook sites in 2002, some of which may no longer be highly used or have been eclipsed by other services ranging from the Avalon Project to No Spine (Falk, 2002). Almost from the beginning, some librarians questioned the emergence of eBooks, perhaps with greater intensity than other electronic resources. Steve Grant questioned whether eBooks were friend or foe? (Grant, 2002). Writing about the relatively new phenomenon of eBooks in Against the Grain, Ron Chepesiuk argued that eBooks bring greater change to libraries than microfilms and other new formats had done. Given the popularity of

Reimagining technical services

107

eBooks provided by major publishers such as Simon and Schuster directly to consumers, Chepesiuk did not see eBooks as a trend that most libraries could ignore and called for libraries to experiment with eBooks (Chepesiuk, 2003). A survey of health science librarians in 2002 indicated that 99% of their libraries provided access to eBooks (Kubilius, 2005). While not occurring as quickly or as thoroughly as the transition from print to online journals in academic libraries, there is accumulating evidence of intensive growth in eBooks in ARL libraries during the past 2 decades. However, these data are not as easy to measure since most of them are only included in the footnotes of the annual statistics as reported by individual libraries in earlier editions of the ARL Statistics rather than in statistical tables. During fiscal year 2001e02, Florida State University spent $366,010.00 on eBooks (Kyrillidou & Young, 2003, p. 92). During fiscal year 2006e07, Brown University reported the addition of 79,033 eBooks, while the University of California San Diego reported 142,804 eBooks out of a total monographic volume count of 3,279,739 in their holdings (Kyrillidou & Bland, 2008, pp. 107e108). By fiscal year 2016e17, the University of Chicago reported 1,730,794 eBooks in their collection while the University of Delaware reported 564,218 eBooks. Duke University held 2,029,014 eBooks, and finally, Florida State University held 1,929,123 eBooks (Morris & Roebuck, 2019, pp. 3e4). While some might counter that many of these titles could be represented in special online collections such as those offered by HathiTrust, the number of content providers has greatly proliferated over time. For example, in a footnote of the ARL Statistics, 2016e17, the University of Cincinnati lists most, if not all, of its major eBook packages and platforms totaling well over 1.2 million titles. Some of the providers include Alexander Street Press, Cambridge Books Online, Credo Reference, Engineering Village, GeoScienceWorld, IEEE, Rand Publications, Sage, and Springer (Morris & Roebuck, 2019, pp. 78e81). Streaming media in various forms has been available almost as long as the World Wide Web. Just as in the case of eBooks, major aggregators such as ProQuest and EBSCO sell streaming videos. Alexander Street Press, now part of ProQuest, offers its Academic Video Online (AVON) service with different business models. Various publishers have made streaming video online, and some companies such as Kanopy and Swank also try to bridge the gap between more academic and popular titles, offering single-year, 3-year, or other multiyear licenses for titles that enable simultaneous classroom viewing as well as unlimited streaming via IP authentication for

108

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

academic libraries. While it is more difficult to obtain statistical measures of growth across library collections for streaming videos, the topic has been of significant interest at major library and information science (LIS) conferences such as the American Library Association (ALA), NASIG, and Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L). The University of Houston spent $90,000 on Kanopy streaming videos alone in fiscal year 2016e17 (Morris & Roebuck, 2019, p. 88). For most libraries, large packages of streaming videos from established vendors can be handled much like other electronic resources, including the application of automated processing of resource records for cataloging and discovery, but title-by-title orders, different business models including varying lease terms and access rights, as well as the time required to investigate options for smaller vendors or more obscure content, can be more problematic (Chua, 2015). The growth of electronic resources, including extensions of the collection into formats beyond online journals, has made all of the component functions, skills, and workflows of electronic resources management (ERM) into critical functions of contemporary academic libraries. The majority of spending, the majority of new acquisitions in terms of individual titles, as well as the majority of time spent solving more complex problems in acquisitions, licensing, and metadata management, are now focused on electronic resources as opposed to analog information resources such as print books, CD-ROMs, DVDs, or microfilms. While some may continue to write about the further development or refinement of hybrid libraries in the early 21st century, perhaps it is better to think of contemporary academic libraries as being predominately electronic libraries with significant legacy print collections and spaces in transition. Apart from special collections and some special libraries, this already seems to be the direction that most ARL libraries are headed toward in practice. However, one must caution that predominately electronic or the prioritization of electronic resources does not require that all print or physical materials be removed from contemporary collections.

7.2 The impact of webscale discovery services and other changes in the online information environment Apart from licensing and acquisitions, ERLs often had responsibility for other aspects of the electronic resource life cycle including activating electronic resources, usually through selecting links in a knowledge base provided by companies such as Serials Solutions, EBSCO, or Ex Libris,

Reimagining technical services

109

while also cataloging or providing metadata, and troubleshooting access problems. Access to electronic resources was often provided via the online public access catalog (OPAC), library webpages, or specialized portals. However, many patrons in the 21st century were increasingly used to powerful search engines such as Google and Yahoo. This created expectations that helped to lead libraries and the vendors that supplied them with technology to develop new discovery tools purposefully designed for libraries. Given the complexity of the broad topic of discovery and its impact on the development of academic libraries, only a high-level review and discussion is possible in this book. Federated search tools, at least in purpose, are arguably the ancestor of discovery layers and contemporary Webscale Discovery Services (WSDS), although the technology of the latter is more sophisticated. One of the earliest federated search tools was created in the 1990s as the Digital Libraries Initiative (DLI) project at the University of Illinois UrbanaeChampaign to help scientists find technical documents on the Internet. DLI was a joint project of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and NASA (Schatz, Mischo, Cole, & Bishop, 2000). The Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (PMH) of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) is a relatively early example of the kind of infrastructure required to permit robust federated search capabilities, although it is more relevant to digital resources rather than electronic resources. As Marshall Breeding notes, “This protocol provides the basis for an information discovery environment that relies on transferring metadata en masse from one server to another in a network of information systems” (Breeding, 2002, p. 24). Designed to permit the searching of information repositories, any provider could become an OAI data provider by simply installing software that would allow its metadata to be harvested. Michael Rogers noted that the World Wide Web permitted considerable improvements to the existing OPAC with the addition of book covers, reviews, tables of contents, sample chapters, and other information related to library materials through tools such as iBistro and YouSeeMore as provided by Sirsi and the Library Corporation (Rogers, 2001, p. 27). Taking advantage of the Z39.50 protocol in 2001, WebFeat allowed users to search the library’s OPAC along with other information resources, including databases, through their WebFeat Prism (Rogers, 2001). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) partnered with WebFeat in 2002 to enable users to search Web of Science and other tools through Prism

110

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

(Shigo, 2002). Further developments included the launch of WebFeat 2 that allowed libraries to gather usage statistics for federated searches (Information Today, 2003). Later, WebFeat 3 included personalization features in My WebFeat that would allow users to select their preferred databases, print or send search results to email, and in theory, make federated search more customizable for the needs of specific subject disciplines (Public Libraries, 2004). The Library Corporation collaborated with MediaLab Solutions in 2004 to offer Aquabrowser Library, which advanced keyword searching, including offering suggestions, spelling variations, and other associations (Advanced Technology Libraries, 2004). Bowker created Fiction Connection, an enhancement for its Books In Print database that relied on Aquabrowser technology to enhance the discovery of books by location, topic, genre, time-frame, and other characteristics that enhanced discovery (Library Hi Tech News, 2006). One of the principle goals of discovery tools, however, was to provide a search experience more similar to popular Internet search engines such as Google that took advantage of algorithms to find relevant results while searching the broadest possible range of resources. Many of the integrated library system (ILS) providers that had also sought to develop electronic resources management systems (ERMSs) attempted to enter the market for discovery tools. Innovative Interfaces, Inc. offered Encore, having collaborated with three different libraries including the Yale University Law Library to conduct testing, in 2006 (Advanced Technology Libraries, 2006). Ex Libris launched MetaLib. Discovery tools such as VuFind developed at Villanova University and Project Blacklight at the University of Virginia gave libraries open source alternatives to improve discovery (Lee Eden, 2009). Some of these tools are used in conjunction in replacement for OPACs or in conjunction with WSDS. No simple or concise definition exists for what discovery is, let alone the more advanced and complex WSDS, which brings us to the present. Having reviewed a considerable body of literature, Nadine Ellero summarized “the salient features of WSDDs are that they preharvest a broad variety and large volume of resources both paid and free, index full-text and various types and quality of metadata, employ faceted browsing, and depend on agreements and alliances between publishers and WSDSs” (Ellero, 2013, pp. 314e315). Partly due to mergers, alliances, and the acquisitions of the largest players in the marketplace, OCLC’s WorldCat Local, EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS), as well as Summon and Primo offered by Ex Libris (ProQuest), are the only real commercial options. As

Reimagining technical services

111

reported by Marshall Breeding, the market share for each service among Doctoral/Research Universitiesdextensive is 24% for EDS, 48% for Primo, 19% for Summon, 6% for WorldCat Local, and 3% for none of the above (Breeding, 2018, p. 23). For all academic libraries reviewed by Breeding, including all Carnegie classifications, the percentage shares are somewhat different but all but 16% use of these four services (Breeding, 2018, p. 23). Essentially, for commercial options, Webscale Discovery is controlled by just three of the largest companies that service academic libraries: ProQuest, EBSCO, and OCLC. For ERLs, managing WSDS is sometimes an additional responsibility as Tonia Graves described in the implementation of WorldCat Local in 2010 at Old Dominion University. Part of this work was in coordinating the work of others, initially with the formation of an eight-person Electronic Services Team to implement WorldCat Local, and later with additional formal and informal teams to address problems in local metadata, systems integration, and to modify information literacy and instruction for users (Graves & Dresselhaus, 2012). However, discovery librarianship is arguably a growing area of specialization all of its own. While not finding a single consistent pattern in terms of the organizational structure of libraries, Ellero’s review of discovery librarian position advertisements revealed that “manage, analyze, map metadata” was the most frequently referenced attribute while “foster user experience” came next (Ellero, 2014, p. 341). The overlap with ERM is most clearly demonstrated in job titles such as “Electronic Resources & Discovery Services Librarian,” “Electronic Resources and Discovery Librarian,” and “Electronic Resources Metadata and Discovery Librarian” (Ellero, 2014, p. 340). Although, it is important to add that there seem to be as many associations with “metadata” as with “electronic resources” in the list of referenced job titles, and electronic resources is by no means the most common reference. Research of the author suggests that some large academic libraries with more than one ERL position often designate one of the positions to focus on metadata and often discovery services as well (Stachokas, 2018).

7.3 The expansion of discovery, interoperability, and system integration: from KBART, RDA to APIs Academic libraries are moving toward predominately electronic collections, arguably part of a larger transition in society from analog to digital communications. However, progress has been uneven and change in specific

112

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

areas of specialization has not always occurred in tandem or coordination with the library’s overall mission. Some of the problems may be semantic as different libraries have created different labels for similar concepts, processes, and even new types of professional roles, but there is also some ongoing confusion and disintegration that makes it difficult for libraries to make the most of their scarce resources. Leaving aside questions of professional identity, mission, and values for the moment, many steps have been taken in recent years to improve how librarians manage metadata and electronic resources, deploy discovery tools, and integrate different systems for optimum functionality. The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and the United Kingdom Serials Group (UKSG) formed the Knowledge Base and Related Tools (KBART) working group in 2008 composed of representatives from libraries, publishers, subscription agents, relevant vendors, and other interested parties (Library Hi Tech News, 2008). Originally formed to help education of online content providers about the need to be OpenURL compliant, the later NISO KBART Automation Working Group is currently working on ways to automate the process of updating knowledge bases with accurate holdings data, a highly time-consuming process in most academic libraries (Serials Review, 2018) as defined in NISO RP-26-2019 released in June 2019. The work of KBART is also informed by the NISO RP-24-2015 Transfer Code of Practice 3.0 that defines procedures and policies for transferring journals between publishers, ANSI-NISO Z39.71e2006 (R2011) Holdings Statements for Bibliographic Items, the ANSI/NISO Z39.88e2004 (R0201) The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services, and to some extent, ANSI/ NISO Z39.78e2000 (R2010) Library Binding. Behind the seemingly simple organization of online platforms and associated journals lay many years of work on technical standards, technology, and experience in routine operations. While the implementation of WSDS and the ongoing use of separate knowledge bases for electronic resources could make cataloging work seem less important, the creation or enhancement of bibliographic records remains one of the more important means for libraries to enhance metadata for improving discovery and description of their collections. Resource Description and Access (RDA), published in July 2010, and previously mentioned in this book as the successor to the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, second ed. (AACR2). RDA, originally based on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) but more recently drawing

Reimagining technical services

113

on the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Library Reference Model, a high-level conceptual framework that incorporates FRBR, requires catalogers or metadata specialists to consider how to treat a given information resource in terms of works, expressions, manifestations, and items (WEMI). A given journal would be considered a unique work whereas the publication in different languages of the journal would constitute different expressions. Applying these relationships to machine-readable cataloging (MARC) records requires different approaches with somewhat different tags than how AACR2 records have been created in the past (Shadle & Zirpoli, 2019). RDA is intended to support the Semantic Web and linked data. It is far superior to the ACCR2 rules in terms of defining the relationships between different types of information resources using a controlled vocabulary of relationship designators. Some have criticized RDA for fall short in terms of mapping the real-world complexity of relationships between information resources. Wallheim draws on Gerard Genette’s taxonomy of intertextual relationships to criticize how RDA treats parodies, imitative works, and other complex multifaceted cases (Wallheim, 2016). However, this kind of criticism strikes the author of this book as both impractical and unfair. RDA is not perfect by any means and metadata are commonly applied in academic libraries require considerable ongoing improvement, but it is a major step forward in comparison to what has been done previously. A more serious problem in terms of implementation, particularly linked data, is that libraries tend to treat changes in journal titles as requirements for creating different records whereas nonlibrary metadata may represent the myriad titles in a single record. Edgar Jones cites the example of how DBpedia treats the journal Annales with a single record versus how this journal is cataloged in the library world as an example (Jones, 2018. 142). Jones further discusses the problems that serials raise for RDA, particularly the relationships between works and manifestations (Jones, 2018). RDA is also only partly compatible with BIBFRAME since the latter does not include a class corresponding to expression and some RDA elements do not map to BIBFRAME properties. To address this problem, Taniguchi recommends using RDA to create metadata and then convert the metadata using a modified BIBFRAME vocabulary to accommodate RDA elements (Taniguchi, 2017). During the first month of RDA implementation by OCLC in 2013, researchers found only limited buy-in for mapping complex relationships even in program for cooperative cataloging (PCC) records with only 57.4%

114

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

showing work-to-work bibliographic relationships, 8.3% including expression-to-expression, and 34.4% for manifestation-to-manifestation (Park & Morrison, 2017, p. 361). Changing from AACR2 to RDA also left large numbers of legacy records to deal with. Seeking to add RDA elements to their existing MARC records to improve overall quality, the database maintenance librarian at Kent State University in overall charge of the project spent 15e20 h per week for 1 year, not to mention other staff time in making these changes (Park & Panchyshyn, 2016). Updating records often requires extensive work with external entities. The University of Houston worked closely with MARCIVE to pursue RDA enrichment and authority conversion (Wu, Guajardo, & Rodriguez, 2016). As libraries increasingly rely on software as service and cloud-based systems, another important development in the broader world of online information services is the increasing use of application programming interfaces (APIs) to connect important resources and tools together. APIs are essentially defined methods of communication between different types of systems but could include definitions for routines, data structures, object classes, variables, or remote procedure calls. As a practical matter, many library databases, catalogs, discovery tools, and special services such as ORCID-ID can work together, sharing critical information or combining functionality in different ways, using APIs. Some have called for librarians to become more knowledgeable and active in the use of APIs (Adams, 2018) while admitting that the literature is highly technical.

7.4 Changes in technical services While not always obvious to contemporary observers, technical services in libraries has been changing throughout the 20th and 21st centuries as libraries implemented new technologies or were driven to find ways to adapt to changes in business models, staffing, and financial support. Writing in 2006, Zhang and Williams considered how many libraries continued to maintain paper-based records as a backup while shifting many of their orders for packages or other bulk acquisitions to electronic data interchange (EDI). They recognized the ongoing maintenance of paper records as an intermediate stage of development rather than being an ideal base practice (Zhang & Williams, 2006). ERM, as embodied in the ERL position, began in public services rather than technical services but began to transition to technical services as academic libraries also transitioned from CD-ROM to online information

Reimagining technical services

115

resources in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Given the predominance of electronic resources in library acquisitions after the Great Recession, most strategic planners in large academic libraries realized that they had no choice but to reorganize and prioritize electronic collections over other resources and functions. For most academic libraries, the reorganization of technical services to manage electronic resources seems to have followed the following patterns. An early and more limited form of reorganization in the 2000s involved formal changes in duties for library staff or associate positions. This was partly due to the circumstance that the first ERLs, even in large academic libraries, tended to function as the only individual tasked with primary responsibility for ERM. They were usually at least partly responsible for coordinating the work of other staff, many of whom managed what were originally small electronic collections as only part of their duties, but much of the responsibility fell on the shoulders of the single ERL. For example, some cataloging staff might be trained to perform copy cataloging of eBooks while continuing to catalog print titles as their primary task. IT staff who normally managed the ILS might set up the proxy server or help troubleshoot the occasional online access problem. Reassigning or dedicating staff to ERM beyond one or two personnel was a big step for libraries. Later phases of technical services reorganization, again usually after the Great Recession, would create or repurpose dedicated units, reconsider problems of cataloging automation or metadata more systematically, while also rethinking how to expand or repurpose some professional librarian positions as well. Part of the reorganization of technical services is driven directly by changes in underlying systems, tools, and technology. Many libraries have shifted staff positions away from physical processing and into collecting COUNTER usage statistics, data entry into ERM systems (usually housed on external servers, not in-house like earlier ILS), or compiling spreadsheets of e-resource acquisitions information. Troubleshooting online access problems has been a growth area for staffing in ERM since the beginning of online resources, but tackling problems involving WSDS requires additional knowledge and skill sets (Carter & Traill, 2017). Reorganization to manage electronic resources could follow different patterns, some of that emphasized the creation of centralized units while others simply altered existing positions without changing the overall organizational chart quite as much. At American University, the Bender Library chose to build a centralized Electronic Resources Unit while the

116

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Pence Law Library stuck to a distributed model. In the centralized case, part of the transformation required building on a core unit of ERM specialists while transforming the rest of Technical Services by introducing an eBook patron-driven acquisition (PDA) program and some e-preferred approval plans to help introduce monographic acquisitions to e-resource workflows while improving access to patrons. The distributed model required staff to become comfortable in juggling the management of both print and electronic resource workflows (Schmidt & Dulaney, 2014). Given the ongoing gap between technical services functions and routine work in public service units, some institutions such as Duke University, Ohio State University, Harvard University, and Yale University have moved their technical services to remote locations away from the main library entirely (McGurr, 2011). Rather than pursue a format-based approach, the University of Northern Colorado considered time or rather the processes occurring at different times to manage information resources, regardless of format. Technical services was reorganized into three units, Resource Procurement Services, Resource Processing and Description, and Resource Maintenance Services (Leffler & Newberg, 2010). Taking the position that technical services ultimately served users as much as any other unit, the University of Nevada Reno created a new Knowledge Access and Discovery Librarian position and reorganized existing technical services staff into the Design and Discovery Department (Yue & Beisler, 2014). Given ongoing changes in academic libraries in the past 10 years, many technical services units have taken on new names, administrative structures or adjusted their functions. However, it is not possible to address all possible variations in this book, e.g., the management of digital resources or the existence or nonexistence of a digital preservation unit. Focusing on electronic resources, one of the more recent drivers of reorganization has been the use of the Core Competencies of Electronic Resources Librarianship developed by NASIG in 2013. The Electronic Resources and Serials Department used the Competencies as an assessment tool to redistribute work and to determine goals for training for both professional librarians and staff in the department (Sullenger, Aladebumoye, Ellero, & Wishnetsky, 2015). The University of Texas at Arlington used Competencies to help select members of a new e-resources team (Chamberlain & Reece, 2014). Colorado State University Libraries used this important tool to assess and reclassify paraprofessional positions (Erb, 2015). The Core Competencies as developed by NASIG encompass the e-resource life cycle, technology,

Reimagining technical services

117

research and assessment, effective communication, supervising and management, trends and professional development, and personal qualities (Sutton & Davis, 2011). The Competencies are included as an appendix in this book for further reference.

7.5 Changes in LIS education, professional development, and training ERM when one considers the entire e-resource life cycle requires considerable knowledge. Regardless of the formal level of responsibility in ERL positions and the fact that at least part of the work has to be performed by other types of specialists in medium or large academic libraries, most ERLs have to handle multiple functions. Some of the most important skill sets include negotiation skills, understanding of business practices in general, familiarity with the specific business models of library vendors, familiarity with copyright law, issues in intellectual property, and knowledge of license language (particularly what is useful to borrow from license agreements used in the IT world). Most ERLs also benefit from a general knowledge of collection development, particularly how to work with collection development officers, administrators, and subject specialists. They also need a general knowledge of best practices in cataloging and metadata management, understanding of how discovery works, general knowledge of troubleshooting access problems, familiarity with assessment tools such as COUNTER usage statistics, and a working knowledge of most of the electronic resources actually acquired such as subject indexes, other databases, online journals, eBooks, and streaming media. One could go on, but there has been a tendency in academic libraries to funnel all of the complexity of this dramatic and enduring change in format from physical to digital resources into this one professional position, at least in the early stages of the transition to the predominately electronic library. How did academic libraries get away with this state of affairs for so long? Partly by holding on to anachronistic standards and technologies such as MARC records. While libraries have made some use of Dublin Core and other metadata schemas for digital resources, the cataloging and discovery of electronic resources have been made somewhat easier and less laborintensive by relying on vendor-supplied knowledge bases, webpages and discovery tools also mostly supplied by vendors, and the automation of what cataloging remains, again often outsourced to vendors. Most early ERLs were essentially specialized acquisitions librarians who required

118

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

additional skills in business and licensing while coordinating the outsourcing of metadata management to third parties with limited input from library staff. Providing metadata of the highest quality arguably requires at least one more ERL focused primarily on these complex functions, as some large academic libraries have and continue to maintain on their organizational roster. To be fair, most LIS schools have not directly addressed the cataloging or application of metadata to electronic resources in great depth. Much more time has been spent on materials created in house, such as digital collections produced through the digitization of special collections or archives. Mark Jacobs, Electronic Resources/Serials Cataloging Librarian, Washington State University, interviewed Kathryn Luther Henderson in 2001 upon her retirement from the faculty of the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign (UIUC). Henderson called for greater involvement in ERM by catalogers given the need to stay up to date with ever-changing platforms and standards, the fact that electronic resources are usually leased rather than purchased, and the general need to rethink bibliographic control entirely (Jacobs, 2001). Prof. Sarah Sutton, who played a leading role in the development of NASIG’s Core Competencies of ERLs, has noted that acquisitions, serials, and ERM have not been as well addressed in LIS programs as cataloging and metadata have been (Hill, 2016). Most LIS programs continue to address ERM as a standalone course as further noted by Sutton with the example of Emporia State University offering the course once every three or four semesters (Hill, 2016, p. 267). Adjunct professors or instructors currently serving ERLs often teach similar courses at institutions such as Indiana University and the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Much of the training of ERLs continues to be on the job, sometimes supplemented by conference programs, workshops, or webinars provided by professional organizations such as the Library Information Technology Association (LITA) or the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ACLTS). LIS coursework that addresses important topics such as negotiations with vendors, practical tips for reviewing complex license agreements, how to handle freely available electronic resources are rare. However, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information (iSchool) partnered with the University of Toronto Libraries to develop the Toronto Academic Libraries Internship (TALint) program to offer workplaceintegrated learning that combined classroom study with workplace experiences. One of the TALint cohort’s focused on NASIG Core

Reimagining technical services

119

Competencies in their training program with some students noting how the Competencies reinforced their understanding of routine work and how to fit different aspects of their training together into a more cohesive body of knowledge (van Ballegooie & Browning, 2019).

References Adams, R. M., Jr. (2018). Overcoming disintermediation: A call for librarians to learn to use web service APIs. Library Hi Tech, 36(1), 180e190. van Ballegooie, M., & Browning, J. (2019). Cultivating TALint: Using the core Competencies as a framework for training future E-resource professionals. The Serials Librarian, 76(1e4), 89e95. Bowker and aquabrowser team up for fiction connection. Library Hi Tech News, 23(3), (2006), 24. Breeding, M. (2002). Understanding the protocol for metadata harvesting of the open Archives initiative. Computers in Libraries, 22(8), 24e29. Breeding, M. (2018). Index-based discovery services: Current market positions and trends. Library Technology Reports, 54(8), 1e33. Carter, S., & Traill, S. (2017). Essential skills and knowledge for troubleshooting e-resources access issues in a web-scale discovery environment. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(1), 1e15. Chamberlain, C., & Reece, D. (2014). Library reorganization, chaos, and using the core Competencies as a guide. The Serials Librarian, 66(1e4), 248e252. Chepesiuk, R. (2003). eBooks and the future of libraries. Against the Grain, 15(2), 50. Chua, H. H. (2015). 2014 charleston conference report: The devil is in the details: Managing the growth of streaming media in library collections. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 27(1), 50e51. Davis, M. E. (2001). ACRL to introduce E-Books. College & Research Libraries News, 62(1), 5. Ellero, N. (2013). Integration or disintegration: Where is discovery headed? Journal of Library Metadata, 13(4), 311e329. Ellero, N. (2014). Exploring library discovery positions: Are they emerging or converging? Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(4), 331e348. Erb, R. A. (2015). The impact of reorganization of staff using the core Competencies as a framework for staff training and development. The Serials Librarian, 68(1e4), 92e105. Falk, H. (2002). New e-book sites. The Electronic Library, 20(4), 331e334. Grant, S. (2002). Ebooks: Friend or foe? The Book Report, 21(1), 50. Graves, T., & Dresselhaus, A. (2012). One academic librarydone year of web-scale discovery. The Serials Librarian, 62(1e4), 169e175. Hill, K. M. (2016). The state of serials and E-resource education: An interview with professor Sarah Sutton. Serials Review, 42(3), 266e271. Hilts, P. (1999). NetLibrary offers secure digital books to libraries. Publishers Weekly, 246(15), 12. Innovative announces Encore Parters. (cover story). Advanced Technology Libraries, 35(12), (2006), 1e12. Jacobs, M. (2001). Cataloging and classification standards and practices, library and information science education, and a student legacy: An interview with Kathryn Luther Henderson. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 33(1), 3e16. Jones, E. (2018). The evolution of the serial work, the FRBR conceptual model, and RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(2/3), 128e145.

120

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Kichuk, D. (2010). Electronic collection growth: An academic library case study. Collection Building, 29(2), 55e64. Kubilius, R. (2005). eBooks in the health sciences: Trends and challenges. Against the Grain, 17(1), 36e40. Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L. (2008). ARL statistics. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Kyrillidou, M., & Bland, L. (2009). ARL statistics, 2007e2008. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Kyrillidou, M., & Young, M. (2003). ARL statistics, 2001-2002: A compilation of the statistics from the one hundred and twenty-four members of the association of research libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Kyrillidou, M., & Young, M. (2006). ARL statistics, 2004-2005: A compilation of statistics from the one hundred and twenty-three members of the association of research libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Kyrillidou, M., Morris, S., & Roebuck, G. (2012). ARL statistics, 2010e2011. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. Lee Eden, B. (2009). Introduction. Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 11e12. Leffler, J. J., & Newberg, P. (2010). Re-visioning technical services: A unique opportunity to examine the past, access the present, and create a better future. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 48(6/7), 561e571. McGurr, M. J. (2011). Remote locations for technical services: An exploratory survey. Technical Services Quarterly, 28(3), 283e300. Morris, S., & Roebuck, G. (2019). ARL statistics, 2016-2017. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. NISO and UKSG launch KBART working group. Library Hi Tech News, 25(2/3), (2008), 30. Park, T. K., & Morrison, A. M. (2017). The nature and characteristics of bibliographic relationships in RDA cataloging records in OCLC at the beginning of RDA implementation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(6), 361e386. Park, A. L., & Panchyshyn, R. S. (2016). The path to an RDA hybridized catalog: Lessons from the kent state university libraries’ RDA enrichment project. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(1), 39e59. Publishers and library suppliers commit to e-book services. Digital Publishing Technologies, 5(10), (2000), 1. Rogers, M. (2001). WebFeat offers simultaneous search of OPAC/databases. Library Journal, 126(6), 27. Schatz, B., Mischo, W., Cole, T., & Bishop, A. (2000). Federated search of scientific literature: A retrospective on the Illinois digital library project. Successes and Failures of digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 35th annual clinic on library applications of data processing (pp. 41e57). Schmidt, K., & Dulaney, C. K. (2014). From print to online: Revamping technical services with centralized and distributed workflow models. The Serials Librarian, 66(1e4), 65e75. Serials Review. (2018). The NISO KBART automation working group: Modernizing knowledgebase communications. 44(3), 251e252. Shadle, S., & Zirpoli, A. (2019). Introduction to serials cataloging with resource description and accss (RDA). The Serials Librarian, 76(1e4), 9e15. Shigo, K. (2002). ISI makes partnership with WebFeat, Inc. Computers in Libraries, 22(9), 58. Stachokas, G. (2018). The electronic resources librarian: From public service generalist to technical services specialist. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(1), 1e27.

Reimagining technical services

121

Sullenger, P., Aladebumoye, S., Ellero, N., & Wishnetsky, S. (2015). Core Competencies to the rescue: Taking stock and protecting institutional knowledge. The Serials Librarian, 68(1e4), 223e229. Sutton, S., & Davis, S. (2011). Core Competencies for electronic resources librarians. The Serials Librarian, 60(1e4), 147e152. Taniguchi, S. (2017). Examining BIBFRAME 2.0 from the viewpoint of RDA metadata schema. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(6), 387e412. TLC offers aquabrowser library. Advanced Technology Libraries, 33(11), (2004), 2. Wallheim, H. (2016). From complex reality to formal description: Bibliographic relationships and problems of operationalization in RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(7), 483e503. WebFeat announces new technology, Program. Information Today, 20(3), (2003), 48. WebFeat 3 personalizes federated searching with MyWebFeat. Public Libraries, 43(6), (2004), 365. Wu, A., Guajardo, R., & Rodriguez, S. (2016). Large-scale RDA enrichment of legacy data at the university of Houston system libraries. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 54(3), 159e178. Yue, P. W., & Beisler, A. K. (2014). Designing user-centered discovery and access services for enhanced virtual user experience. The Serials Librarian, 66(1e4), 268e277. Zhang, S., & Williams, J. (2006). Electronic data interchange and vendors: Enhancement of library acquisitions services. In T. W. Leonhardt (Ed.), Handbook of Electronic and digital acquisitions (pp. 143e155). New York: Haworth Press.

CHAPTER 8

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians Having begun as a public services generalist the early 1990s, the electronic resources librarian position is most likely to be found in technical services units in the late 2010s (Stachokas, 2018). Even as contemporary academic libraries are redefined through the addition of new services, questions around electronic resources management are of ongoing importance, particularly in the deployment of personnel, tools and best practices to provide increasingly electronic collections to users, but also in terms of the professional identity and skills of librarians. Since electronic resources account for the majority of scarce financial resources spent on collections and many academic libraries continue to spend roughly half of their budgets on collections, how these questions are resolved is of paramount importance to the survival and value of libraries. Improvements in analytics tools and techniques of assessment, as well as the broad conversation within the profession of library and information science, and between librarians, patrons, and stakeholders will help guide libraries to make positive changes, but it is important to consider where we have been as well as where we are going.

8.1 The electronic resources librarian in technical services Rather than relying on surveys that sometimes produce skewed or more limited results, the author systematically reviewed the websites of large academic libraries of North America to determine if each institution had an electronic resources librarian (ERL) position, and to the extent possible using publicly available information, where that the position existed in terms of the organizational structure. The author used online staff directories, organizational charts, and other web pages to find references to positions that referenced the term “electronic resources librarian” or close variants. Serials librarians or positions in licensing and acquisitions that The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian ISBN 978-0-08-102925-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102925-1.00008-8

Copyright © 2020 George Stachokas. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

123

124

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

might have similar functions were not included since their precise duties, including any management of print materials, could not be easily confirmed using available information. Positions that referenced continuing resources, digital resources, or simply resources were also deemed insufficient to be included. Association of Research Libraries (ARL) academic libraries were included in this study, numbering 114 in total, as well as all member institutions of the Association of the College and Research Libraries (ACRL) that had materials budgets exceeding $4.4 million in 2014. This added another 52 libraries to the study making the sample encompass 166 libraries in all (Stachokas, 2018, pp. 6e7). Cross-referencing the results of the study of library websites with research on position announcements previously conducted by others (Albitz, 2002; Bednarek-Michalska, 2002; Engel & Robbins, 2008; Fisher, 2003; Hartnett, 2014; Heimer, 2002) suggested that the ERL as a standalone position responsible for the entire life cycle of electronic resources throughout the library was increasingly anachronistic. Part of this was due to the reorganization of technical services to manage electronic resources with multiple positions involved rather than continuing to manage electronic resources as a separate silo with limited numbers of personnel. Another factor was that for positions with the electronic resources librarian (ERL) job title, or some variant thereof, there seemed to be an increasing divergence between librarians whose primary role was focused on licensing and acquisitions and other ERLs whose primary focus was on metadata or discovery (Stachokas, 2018). For both the ARL academic libraries included in the sample and the 52 ACRL academic libraries not included in ARL, most libraries had some type of ERL position with the larger academic libraries sometimes having two or more such positions (Stachokas, 2018). When one considers the differences between libraries with or without ERL positions, the former generally had larger library materials budgets and more professional staff. For the ARL academic libraries with ERLs, the average number of professional staff was 110 while libraries without ERLs had an average number of 87 professional staff. Library materials budgets for the former were an average of $14,243,882 in fiscal year 2013e14 while only $11,914,530 for the latter (Stachokas, 2018, p. 8). Interestingly, the number of support staff was nearly identical for both groups with an average of 113 and 112, respectively. Regarding other measures such as the number of e-books held on average, libraries with ERLs actually held a slightly smaller number of

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

125

eBooks at 992,289 while ARL academic libraries without ERLs held slightly more with an average number of 1,012,246 (Stachokas, 2018, p. 8). However, electronic resources management (ERM) continues to drive considerable organizational change in academic libraries. Taking another look at ARL academic libraries in July 2019, the author discovered considerable differences from data gathered in 2016 and 2017. Since ARL statistics for two of the newest ARL members, Simon Fraser University Library and Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries, have not yet been published, these two institutions were left out of the study. Looking at the original 114 academic libraries included in the original study, 74 now have an ERL position or 65% of the total. Part of this larger number may be accounted for in terms of greater accuracy in that fewer institutions are listed as “unknown” in this second round of review in 2019 in comparison to earlier review in 2016 and 2017, but there does seem to be significant growth in the use of “e-resource” job titles. For academic libraries with ERLs, the average number of professional staff has increased slightly from 110 to 111 while the overall number of staff, particularly support staff have declined somewhat. For libraries without ERLs, overall staff numbers are also down but the average number of support staff still slightly outnumbers professional staff by 97 to 95, respectively. Overall, the ARL academic libraries with ERLs have an average higher library materials expenditure over $15 million while institutions without ERLs have a lower average materials expenditure under $13 million (Table 8.1). Finally, adoption of some type of Webscale Discovery Service has become almost universal. The departmental home of ERLs has also shifted somewhat in comparison to the results from just a few years ago. While it is difficult to ascertain precise departmental functions and responsibilities, not to mention local distinctions between different types of professional or support staff positions, a great deal of information is publicly available online. While the specific responsibilities of individual ERLs still seem to be clustered in acquisitions and licensing work, ERLs in ARL academic libraries as of July 2019 are to be found in technical services units or departments that address not only acquisitions, but also discovery, metadata, and other back-end operations more than any other type of unit with 36.3% of positions identified in the study. Interestingly, units or departments focused explicitly on ERM with references to e-resources, e-serials, or similar nomenclature in their titles are now the second largest category followed by collection development. The few ERLs found in public services units are almost exclusively associated with branch or special libraries. Thirty-three

Table 8.1 Summary Comparison of ARL Academic Libraries with Electronic Resources Librarians vs. ARL Academic Libraries without Electronic Resource Librarians Number of ARL Academic Libraries that have an Electronic Resources Librarian Position or Close Variant

Electronic Resources Librarian

Without Electronic Resources Librarian

Unknown

74 Average Average Number of Total Number of Staff Professional Staff 268 111 Does NOT have Webscale Discovery Service?

65% Average Number of Support Staff 105

37 Average Average Number Number of of Total Staff Professional Staff 238 95 Does NOT have Webscale Discovery Service?

32% Average Number of Support Staff 97

0

0%

2

5%

Average Number of eBooks Held

Average Number of eBooks Held

1,346,099

1,239,111

Average Library Materials Expenditure

Average Ongoing Resource Purchases

Average Library Materials Expenditure

Average Ongoing Resource Purchases

$115,128,747

$10,688,966

$12,739,617

$9,850,184

3

Note. Average numbers of total staff, professional staff, support staff, eBook holdings and library materials expenditures were calculated using statistics from Morris, S. & Roebuck, G. (2019). ARL Statistics 2016-2017. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. The author compiled all other statistics using information gathered from library websites between July 17th, 2019 and July 25th, 2019.

3%

Departments in ARL academic librarians that have an electronic resources librarian position or close variant Acquisitions

18

14.9%

Cataloging or metadata

4

3.3%

Electronic resources

31

25.6%

Other technical services

44

36.3%

Collection development

19

15.7%

Public services

5

4.1%

ARL, Association of Research Libraries. Note. The author compiled all statistics using information gathered from library websites between July 17th and July 25th, 2019.

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

Table 8.2 Departmental/unit designation of electronic resources librarians in ARL academic libraries.

127

128

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

academic libraries have more than one ERL. Additional information, including job titles and department names, is listed in the appendixes following this chapter. Overall, these results speak to the ongoing transition within technical services to focus predominately on ERM as library collections, at least the active use of library collections, become predominately electronic (Table 8.2). Of course, academic libraries without ERL positions, if other trends hold, still have to manage electronic resources. A recent survey of academic librarians reveals that professional librarians who work with electronic collections tend to have broadly similar responsibilities whether they have ERL in their job title or not, although some tasks seem to be more routinely assigned to positions with the ERL title. Most importantly, ERM in most academic libraries tends to be a group effort, not within the responsibility of a single librarian. For some examples, usage statistics were reported as an ERM responsibility by 91% of ERLs, but only 63% of nonERLs while the numbers were 82% and 59%, respectively for the configuration of electronic resources (Maculay, 2018, p. 266). Regarding the sharing of ERM responsibilities, 63% of ERLs worked with other librarians to troubleshoot access problems, manage trials, and conduct assessment of electronic resources. The management of holdings records and Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) records was shared between ERLs and paraprofessional staff by 57 and 51% of respondents, respectively (Macaulay, 2018, p. 267). Overall, the respondents to the survey indicated that the specific responsibilities of the ERL were focused on “complex communication tasks involving licensing, price negotiation for ER products, and liaison with library consortia” (Macaulay, 2018, p. 271), while responsibilities that Macaulay defines as “technical tasks” or collection development were more routinely shared with other personnel, professional, or paraprofessional (Macaulay, 2018). Anna Hulseberg has discussed technical communicator as a new role for the ERL, partly because the ERL must often serve as a bridge between the library and external groups such as vendors and library consortia. ERLs must also work in intensive and ongoing collaboration with subject specialists, library personnel responsible for metadata management, university counsel or institutional attorneys, as well as other units within and outside libraries (Hulseberg, 2016). Monica Moore stresses how the work of the ERL is fundamentally interdepartmental and collaborative within academic libraries, partly due to the nature of digital content itself, but she also cites the impact of new uses of electronic resources such as text and data mining.

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

129

According to Moore, the work of the ERL “has begun to evolve from a workflow to a project, from coordination of an acquisition to collaboration in order to create something new” (Moore, 2018, p. 31). While the roles of a technical communicator and “project collaborator” are new areas of emphasis, these still fit well with the growing emphasis on licensing and acquisitions work for most ERLs. The fact that metadata management and discovery are often seen as separate functions from typical ERM is highlighted by the fact that some libraries with multiple ERL positions make this kind of distinction. For example, one ARL library in the author’s study had the following three positions: Electronic Resources Librarian, Electronic Resources Metadata Librarian, and Electronic Resources Management Librarian (Stachokas, 2018, p. 25). Some larger academic librarians also distinguish between the licensing, acquisitions, communication cluster, and the back-end management cluster by providing positions such as “Electronic Resources Support Librarian” in addition to the ERL (Stachokas, 2018, p. 26). To some extent, the emerging role or roles, if one considers the secondary metadata/discovery variant of the ERL, exist in tension with more recent and formal definitions of electronic resources librarianship. The development of the Core Competencies for E-Resources Librarians has its origins in the previous work of the American Library Association (ALA) in developing and publishing the Core Competencies of Librarianship in 2009 (Sutton, 2018, p. 170). Since ERL positions were not included, Prof. Sarah Sutton embarked on a course of professional study that began with her own dissertation and led to her serving as chair of the North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG) Task Force charged with developing such competencies. The seven competencies, greatly simplified, include (1) knowledge of the e-resource life cycle greater than that of a generalist librarian; (2) practical and theoretical knowledge of the structures, hardware, and software of ERM; (3) knowledge of research and assessment; (4) communication with a broad range of stakeholders; (5) supervision/ management; (6) keeping up with relevant trends with library and information science (LIS) and related fields relevant to technology, scholarly communication, licensing best practices, and the law; and (7) a wide range of personal qualities that include adaptability, intellectual curiosity and the ability to handle complexity, flexibility, and tolerance for ambiguity (Sutton, 2018, pp. 172e173). As a practical matter, no single individual serving as an ERL likely fulfills all of the Core Competencies as written, but this important cluster

130

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

of skills and characteristics speaks to the overall complexity of the challenge-facing libraries in their transition to predominately electronic collections. Any work that an ERL performs has to consider potential library-wide impacts, however, and that is the great value of the Competencies. Most ERLs exist in a web of complex communication chains based on a circular, not linear, life cycle of acquisition and ongoing management of electronic resources from activation and metadata to troubleshooting. While primary or specific responsibilities may vary, ERLs have to understand how any particular task might affect another, even if they themselves do not perform or manage that task. Depending on the overall size and resources of the academic library in question, successful ERM will require careful coordination of complex, overlapping, and ambiguous work increasingly performed by librarians, nonlibrarian professionals, support staff, automated tools, as well as the work of vendors and contributions from other external sources.

8.2 The role of professional organizations Apart from LIS higher education and the work of individual academic libraries in defining and supporting ERM, professional associations, including many Divisions of the ALA, have played a prominent role in helping to educate and train ERLs. Apart from the Competencies developed by NASIG and later endorsed by ALA, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) has been particularly active through its support of such interest groups as the Electronic Resources Interest Group, the Collection Management Electronic Resources Interest Group, and the Electronic Resources Management Interest Group, with the latter being cosponsored by the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA). Created to sponsor discussions, these Interest Groups (IGs), as well as others that do not focus exclusively on electronic resources, have provided forums and programming that have addressed licensing, business models, negotiation strategies, troubleshooting, ERM systems, and many other topics relevant to ERM. ALCTS has also provided webinars and supported e-resource management topics in the ALCTS E-Forum, 2-day sessions in which librarians discuss questions and common problems via email. The Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L) Conference organized by Bonnie Tijerina was first held in Atlanta, Georgia at the Georgia Institute of Technology on March 23e25, 2006 with Robert H.

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

131

McDonald and Bonnie MacEwan as keynote speakers (Agnew et al., 2006). Intended to address gaps in programming at other contemporary library conferences, the first ER&L was reported to be a great success by multiple participants. Shantel Agnew, a new librarian, commented “that it is amazing how much I had learned over the course of three days. I participated in two sessions on usage data” (Agnew et al., 2006, 197). Christine E. Ryan reported that “well-constructed sessions dealt with federated searching, developing Web database applications, usage statistics, along with several sessions involving workflow, organizational structure, and communications” (Agnew et al., 2006, 199). The NASIG 2006 Conference in the same year dealt with many issues relevant to electronic resources as well such as the reorganization of technical services (King, Metcalf, & Larkin, 2007). The Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), Library Leadership and Management Association (LLAMA), and the Charleston Conference organized by Katina Strauch have also provided programming relevant to ERM. Specialized conferences and resources for continuing education were also provided by regional and national library consortia. As previously mentioned, the ALA, like many of the most prominent professional associations, continues to help define what librarianship is through development of professional competencies, guidelines, and standards, advocate on behalf of librarians, as well as provide opportunities for leadership and networking. Apart from learning on the job, the lack of formal coursework in ERM in most LIS programs has meant that many ERLs have arguably been more dependent on these types of opportunities than other specialists. Given the need to stay connected, to track important trends, network with peers and library vendors, academic libraries that continue to provide travel funding for ERLs likely realize a greater benefit than those institutions that do not support these types of activities. While professional associations have provided great support over the years, the ALA is undergoing more change, arguably, than it has in many decades. The Steering Committee on Organizational Effectiveness (SCOE) with support from consultants from Tecker International is currently reviewing every aspect of the organizational and legal structures, governance, membership, activities, and benefits of ALA. Much of the driving force behind SCOE and other “streams of change” discussed at recent national conferences is changes in membership and the need to reorganize, rebrand, and rethink ALA in order to remain a relevant and sustainable organization (What’s the Buzz about SCOE, 2019). Particularly important

132

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

to ERLs and others who work in ERM is the proposed merger of three ALA Divisions, the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS), the LITA, and the LLAMA. ALCTS and LITA, in particular, have served as a professional home for three electronic resources IGs as well as other committees, IGs, forums, and programs that have greatly furthered the development of ERM in American libraries. The new Division that may emerge from these three formerly separate units could serve as a great opportunity for furthering the ongoing process or reform and reorganization within libraries, as well as ALA itself.

8.3 Measuring our success: electronic resources management and assessment of information services The development of COUNTER usage statistics, previously mentioned in other chapters, SUSHI harvesting, and other types of usage statistics for electronic resources is a giant step forward from the previous statistics available to measure the usage of print resources, but meaningful assessment of electronic resources must be undertaken as part of a larger library-wide strategy of assessment that addresses multiple services and functions in order to serve the institutional mission of the academic library. The code of practice for the fifth release of COUNTER usage statistics, COUNTER R5, was originally developed in 2016 with subsequent revisions. COUNTER R5 replaces the 24 reports of COUNTER R4 with four master reports: platform, database, title, and item around which all other reports are grouped together (Pesch, 2017). Overall, R5 improves gathering of eBook statistics and the overall ability of libraries to measure usage by year of publication. SUSHI harvesting is much improved with the switch to the Representational State Transfer (REST) approach to web service rather than the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) use for COUNTER R4. Other improvements include additional documentation provided by Project COUNTER for SUSHI implementation, including an OpenAPI specification, as well as more filters to use that enable ad hoc reports (Pesch, 2017, p. 203). Furthermore, R5 dispenses with optional versus mandatory reports, is format-agnostic, and enables some flexibility by combining metric types with attributes (Bull & Beh, 2018). ERM, particularly in collection analysis, overlaps considerably with collection development since electronic collections are the primary object of analysis. Eugene Garfield’s journal impact factor (IF or JIF), based on the annual average of number of citations to recent articles published in a

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

133

journal, is intended to serve as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal in the scientific literature with a higher number being better. Some have criticized IF for its lack of granularity such as devaluing a highly cited or highly valuable scientific paper published in a low IF journal (Balaban, 2012). The Eigenfactor score developed by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington takes a very different approach in providing additional weight for citations in highly ranked journals (Bergstrom, 2007). Fisher and Steiger have measured change in IF over time, reviewing data from 1961 through 2016 while looking most intently at data from 1997 through 2016. Noting an almost continuous increase in the mean IF from 1.1 to 2.2, Fischer and Steiger anticipate a plateau in the IF, partly due the biological and practical limits on increasing the overall number of citations in journals (Fischer & Steiger, 2018). The Journal Usage Factor (JUF) developed by the UKSG essentially consists of the total usage over a given period multiplied by the number of items published during a given period divided by the total number of items published during that period. Oliver Pesch, Chief Strategist of EBSCO, while recognizing the potential value, this general type of usage-based metric noted that it was not possible to compare JUF across disciplines, outliers such as unusually highly used articles and adjusting the time period for calculations could skew results, and more infrastructure and rules were needed such as a code of practice, subject classification scheme, and audit procedures were needed to make JUF more useful to libraries (Pesch, 2012). Of course, beyond more traditional bibliometrics or measurements of the relative importance of a journal or academic publication are altmetrics, including the presence or lack thereof, for a given publication in social media. The altmetrics manifesto published online in 2010 argued for crowdsourcing peer review and relying on a diverse group of web-based online metrics that were arguably more thorough, comprehensive, and altogether faster than traditional metrics such as IF (Priem et al., 2010). Given the proliferation of new tools and metrics, ERLs and other academic librarians need to be aware of the potential value of such resources as Google Scholar, Mendeley, SciMago, VIVO, and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) among others (Roemer & Borchadt, 2012). However, despite ongoing changes in scholarly communications and the proliferation of new types of information resources online, academic libraries need to make sure that their collections also align with practical considerations such as providing access to electronic resources that directly support identifiable institutional priorities, including how the parent

134

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

institution measures the value of academic journals and other information resources in terms of research and teaching. For many ERLs working in ERM, the careful management of acquisitions data, licensing data, particularly use permissions, and COUNTER usage data are the most important priorities in terms of providing data for the academic library’s assessment requirements. Some metrics are actually proprietary and can only be reliably obtained through tools licensed by specific vendors. Making sure that basic data types are routinely harvested, available to stakeholders, and subject to analysis for both new and existing acquisitions is extremely important to academic libraries, given ongoing cost increases and limited funding. Given the complexity of choices and varying circumstances, there is likely no single set of best practices that will fit all academic libraries. However, knowing how much is paid for a given information resource, how the resource can be used, how the resource actually is used, and the general applicability in terms of current academic programs could be considered bare minimum requirements in all academic libraries.

8.4 Consideration of ongoing problems, opportunities, and future possibilities Contemporary academic libraries in 2019 are still hybrid libraries that provide both electronic/digital and physical information resources, but there is arguably an ongoing shift toward predominately electronic collections in that the majority of financial resources of the libraries, the time of users, and increasingly the time of library staff are focused on virtual information, not books. Just as most of the time of public services librarians is spent teaching information literacy about online information resources rather than physical items, answering reference questions about databases, eBooks, and online journals, or otherwise engaged with the online information universe, technical services units are now mostly engaged with the work of ERM. One of the ongoing problems and opportunities for libraries is the fact that unlike the print era in which the role of publishers was over after materials were shipped to the library, the role of the vendor in ERM is persistent and nonlinear. Working relationships with vendors are required to ensure ongoing online access, troubleshoot problems, coordinate upgrades to software and systems, and help keep the libraries informed regarding important changes in the services and content provided by vendors. The library also faces direct competition from alternative

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

135

information service providers, including vendors who also sell content directly to users. The need for ongoing and direct work with vendors is one of the key aspects of contemporary electronic resources librarianship. However, constructive and successful engagement requires good communication and is arguably best handled by a group of specialists within the libraries who coordinate their communication with the vendors rather than a single librarian. While the library is best served in speaking with one voice regarding contract negotiations and pricing, communication about metadata, complex legal questions, usability, and the value of content requires input or communication from metadata and discovery experts, attorneys, usability experts, IT specialists, and subject matter experts within the library. Based on the author’s own experience, this would mean that business communication, including everything from price quotes to negotiating license terms, is best handled by a single librarian or one closely coordinated team in a single department just as vendors usually designate one sales representative or closely coordinated sales team to manage their respective sales territories, but other issues require more careful thought and coordination of communication, with specific strategies dependent on the overall size, personnel, and distribution of knowledge and skill sets within the library. Concerns about rising costs and the ongoing mergers and reorganization of vendors in ways that tend to further increase costs continue to raise problems for libraries. Open-access journals and other freely available electronic resources have helped to expand access and reduce costs, but most academic research libraries continue to invest in very expensive big deal journal packages and databases because the needs of their users leave little practical choice. This may change in the future, but since publishing is not free, there will be ongoing discussion of how to transition paid information resources to open access and how manage the costs of online publishing. Leaving aside some of the other complex questions in scholarly communications for the moment, as a practical matter, ERLs and the libraries that they serve will continue to have to develop good negotiation skills, closely track the ever-changing information marketplace, and develop modern collection strategies that are carefully tailored to fit the unique needs of local user populations. Some information can be gathered in person, via email, social media, and by other online methods, but investment in analytics tools that help to measure usage and better understand all aspects of information needs will be even more important over time.

136

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

As part of a larger transformation of technical services in academic libraries, improvements in ERM intersect with changes in metadata management. Finding a way to escape the increasingly antiquated machinereadable cataloging (MARC) record, essentially a machine readable form of the card catalogs of the 20th century, is critical. BIBFRAME 2.0, including its Linked Data model, holds considerable promise. The Library of Congress (LC) has mapped around 2000 MARC elements in its BIBFRAME 2.0 conversion tools. Librarians who reviewed LC’s conversion tools found some issues in 2.0, including Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) formation, as well as ongoing problems with converting local MARC elements, but overall, noted considerable improvement versus 1.0 (Xu, Hess, & Akerman, 2018). Knowledge bases continue to be the single most important tool for managing electronic resource collections. Some of the most commonly used commercial knowledge bases, as reviewed by Kristen Wilson in 2016, include the EBSCO Integrated Knowledge base with around 4200 customers (Wilson, 2016, p. 28), the ProQuest knowledge base with 2800 users (Wilson, 2016, p. 30), and the WorldCat knowledge base with 4700 libraries (Wilson, 2016, p. 30). Open knowledge bases that do not require payment to use also exist such as the Global Open Knowledgebase (GOKb) supported by the Kuali Foundation and Jisc, as well as the Knowledge Base Plus (KBþ, also supported by Jisc (Wilson, 2016). Most of the commercial providers of knowledge bases are also active in developing or have developed library service platforms (LSPs) that are intended to replace integrated library systems (ILSs). Having acquired Ex Libris, ProQuest is now investing its resources in further development of Alma while continuing to support existing customers still using legacy 360 products originally developed by Serials Solutions, as well as Intota. EBSCO is playing a key role in the development of a new open source library services platform (LSP) based on microservice architecture as part of the FOLIO project. FOLIO, standing for the Future of Libraries is Open, is intended to create a modular system, effectively an environment rather than a single system that would enable libraries, software developers, and other service providers to develop unique apps that could be updated quickly or swapped out as needed due to changes in technology or the desire for new functionality (Breeding, 2017). The electronic resources life cycle is relatively complex, but an important attempt to synthesize and standardize general best practices of ERM across institutions has been the Techniques in E-Resource Management (TERMS) project. TERMS 1.0, as described by Jill Emery and

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

137

Graham Stone in 2013, consisted of six general steps, (1) Investigating new content for purchase or addition; (2) Acquiring new content; (3) Implementation; (4) Ongoing evaluation and access; (5) Annual review; and (6) Cancellation and replacement review (Rinck, 2017, p. 54). Working together with Peter McCracken on Terms 2.0, as well as in consultation with others such as Liam Emery at Jisc, Emery and Stone, will collapse the fourth and fifth categories in the original so that the new steps will include (1) Investigating new content for purchase or addition; (2) Acquiring new content; (3) Implementation; (4) Ongoing evaluation, and access and annual review; (5) Cancellation and replacement review; and (6) Preservation (Rinck, 2017, p. 54). Other anticipated changes include the expansion of each section to include basic and advanced materials, as well as an additional subsection to address differences in handling open-access materials (Rinck, 2017). COUNTER Release 5 has the potential to improve how electronic resources usage statistics are gathered and analyzed by academic libraries. Release 5 requires greater consistency from vendors than previous versions of COUNTER in order to be compliant which should reduce discrepancies, at least to some extent, in how user activities are measured. SUSHI harvesting, an important tool for the automated gathering of usage statistics, is also better integrated with the rest of the online world, given the use of a RESTful interface and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)-formatted reports. The less complicated version of SUSHI or SUSHI-Lite is no longer needed as well (Liebst & Stachokas, 2018). ERLs will need to understand the specific improvements that COUNTER Release 5 brings to usage statistics and how best to make use of them, but also need to consider how electronic resource usage contributes to overall improvements in digital analytics as used for assessment in libraries. As Tabatha Farney notes, Overall, there is much to be gained by embracing a digital analytics culture. It is more than just understanding the library user journey; it is about answering those big, seemingly unanswerable questions about how the library’s online presence contributes to the organization’s purpose and mission Farney (2018, p. 13).

For ERLs in practice, this might mean not only combining COUNTER statistics with acquisitions cost data, but also considering web analytics, statistics provided by Discovery services, and the increasing use of authentication tools such as Open Athens that permit identifying who is using what, not just that a resource has been used. Of course, libraries must

138

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

also be careful to observe privacy rights when handling data, but it is of great interest whether a given information resource is more useful to faculty or students and how the library supports particular research goals and projects. As technical services departments become ever more focused on ERM, change management will be an increasing problem for academic libraries. Many librarians and staff fear change, both in terms of the consequences for their daily work and also their personal status, comfort, and anxiety regarding the need to learn new skills, adopt new best practices, or even in some cases, take a fundamentally different approach to their work. Some ERL positions that previously worked alone or in coordinating roles have transitioned to leadership or managerial roles within libraries during the past 5 to 10 years in academic libraries. Listening, sensitivity, and respect for their ideas and feelings of others are indispensable to positive leadership, but one must also be prepared to move forward after having exercised all due diligence and analysis in charting the best path forward for the library and on behalf of users (Thompson, Maringanti, Anderson, Soehner, Comer, 2019). As Angie Ohler puts it, “Library missions must change, libraries must do a better job of identifying what their core services should be, and they must stop maintaining services that are longer core to their new mission” (Ohler, 2018, 113). The ERL has helped to bring academic libraries into the 21st century and the use of the job title or close variants seems to be growing, at least at the time of writing, in academic libraries in North America. Having begun as a type of specialized reference librarian, often a CD-ROM manager, in academic libraries in the 1990s, the ERL has become an expert in licensing and acquiring online information resources in the 2000s. Situated at the organizational nexus of communication between libraries and vendors, as well as between in-house and outsourced services, contemporary ERLs spend a great of their time in business communication, as well as negotiating business terms and complex license agreements that address online access, other use permissions such as text and data mining rights, and intellectual property rights. Having originally emerged as a separate area of specialization, ERLs retain the need to be at least conversant with the entire life cycle of ERM, but tasks requiring highly specialized skills outside the business management, acquisitions, and licensing framework are increasingly handled by reorganized and repurposed technical services departments. For institutions with more than one ERL, a professional emphasis on metadata management, discovery, updating knowledge bases,

At the crossroads: ongoing efforts to transform libraries and librarians

139

troubleshooting, and other more technical functions seems to be increasingly common. Questions to be answered for academic libraries include how to handle the transition to library service platforms (LSPs), the consequences of which continue to impact technical services, as well as how ERLs relate to the overall process of collection development and the library’s online web presence, metadata, and discovery strategies. Issues in the transition toward open access, which may or may not be linear or complete, as well as broader changes in scholarly communication and higher education, will continue to affect the development of the ERL and all other positions in academic libraries.

References Agnew, S., Gray, L., Blocker, L., Ryan, C. E., Smith, K. A., & Johnson, K. (2006). The balance point: Experiencing the electronic resources and libraries conference. Serials Review, 32(3), 195e203. Albitz, R. S. (2002). Electronic resource librarians in academic libraries: A position announcement analysis, 1996-2001 (Vol. 2, p. 589). Portal: Libraries & the Academy (4). Balaban, A. (2012). Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 92(2), 241e247. Bednarek-Michalska, B. (2002). Creating a job description for an electronic resources librarian. Library Management, 23(8/9), 378e383. Bergstrom, C. (2007). Eigenfactor. College & Research Libraries News, 68(5), 314e316. Breeding, M. (2017). Chapter 5: Folio: A new open source initiative. Library Technology Reports, 53(6), 27e31. Bull, S., & Beh, E. (2018). Release 5 of the COUNTER code of practice. The Serials Librarian, 74(1e4), 179e186. Engel, D., & Robbins, S. (2008). Evolving roles for electronic resources librarians. In H. Yu, & S. Breivold (Eds.), Electronic resources management in libraries: Research and practice (pp. 105e120). Hershey, PA: information Science Reference. Farney, T. (2018). Understanding digital analytics. In T. Farney (Ed.), Using digital Analytics for smart assessment (pp. 3e14). Chicago: ALA Editions. Fischer, I., & Steiger, H.-J. (2018). Dynamics of journal impact factors and limits to their inflation. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 26e36. Fisher, W. (2003). The electronic resources librarian position: A public services phenomenon? Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27, 3e17. Hartnett, E. (2014). NASIG’s core competencies for electronic resources librarians revisited: An analysis of job advertisement trends, 2000-2012. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3/4), 247e258. Heimer, G. (2002). Defining electronic resources librarianship. Public Services Quarterly, 1(1), 27e43. Hulseberg, A. (2016). Technical communicator: A new model for the electronic resources librarian? Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 28(2), 84e92. King, S., Metcalf, M., & Larkin, M. (2007). Tackling the reorganization chart. The Serials Librarian, 52(3e4), 311e316. Liebst, A., & Stachokas, G. (2018). Report of the ALCTS electronic resources interest group meeting. In American library association midwinter meeting, Denver, february 2018 (Vol. 35, pp. 387e389). Technical Services Quarterly (4).

140

The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian

Macaulay, D. (2018). Sharing the load: Distribution of electronic resources management responsibilities among U.S. Academic librarians. Serials Review, 44(4), 259e274. Moore, M. (2018). “Oh, the places you’ll go!” Managing electronic resources across the institution. In G. Stachokas (Ed.), Reengineering the library: Issues in electronic resources management (pp. 13e34). Chicago: ALA Editions. Ohler, A. (2018). From electronic resources management to library services platforms. In G. Stachokas (Ed.), Reengineering the library: Issues in electronic resources management (pp. 91e117). Chicago: ALA Editions. Pesch, O. (2012). Usage factor for journals: A new measure for scholarly impact. The Serials Librarian, 63(3e4), 261e268. Pesch, O. (2017). COUNTER release 5: What’s new and what it means to libraries. The Serials Librarian, 73(3/4), 195e207. Priem, J., Taraborelli, P., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (October 26, 2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org.manifesto. Rinck, E. M. (2017). Coming to TERMS with electronic resource management: An interview with Jill Emery, Graham Stone, and peter McCracken. Serials Review, 43(1), 51e54. Roemer, R. C., & Borchadt, R. (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics. College & Research Libraries News, 73(10), 596e600. Stachokas, G. (2018). The electronic resources librarian: From public service generalist to technical services specialist. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(1), 1e27. Sutton, S. (2018). Core competencies for electronic resources librarianship. In G. Stachokas (Ed.), Reengineering the library: Issues in electronic resources management (pp. 169e180). Chicago: ALA Editions. Thompson, G. C., Maringanti, H., Anderson, R., Soehner, C. B., & Comer, A. (2019). Strategic planning for academic libraries: A step-by step guide. Chicago: ALA Editions. What’s the Buzz about SCOE?.(June 6, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.acrl.ala.org/ acrlinsider/archives/17814. Wilson, K. (2016). The knowledge base at the center of the universe. Library Technology Reports, 52(6), 1e35. Xu, A., Hess, K., & Akerman, L. (2018). From MARC to BIBFRAME 2.0: Crosswalks. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 56(2/3), 224e250.

Appendix A

Core competencies for electronic resources librarians* Introduction The Core Competencies for Electronic Resources Librarians are based on research completed by the NASIG Core Competencies Task Force (NCCTF) and by its members individually. They are intentionally broad in scope in order to encompass work with electronic resources throughout the ER life cycle as it is encountered in various information organizations. These competencies are intended to be used in combination with the American Library Association’s Core Competences of Librarianship and, in most cases, to build on them. The Core Competencies for Electronic Resources Librarians do not lend themselves well to organization on a scale of increasing experience. Experience is important because electronic resources librarian (ERL) jobs are often not entry level positions, and employers tend to associate years of experience with the competencies they identify in job ads (Sutton, 2011). However, the competencies required for ERL positions vary greatly based on the type of institution in which the work is done and on the workflows within the organization. For example, an ERL in a small academic library might be responsible for the entire life cycle of electronic resources in that institution, while in a large research library, an ERL might be responsible for ER acquisitions alone, while others are responsible for access, administration, support, and evaluation. Therefore, the competencies required of an ERL will encompass a subset of the following:

1. Life cycle of electronic resources The ERL has extensive knowledge of the concepts and issues related to the life cycle of recorded knowledge and information from creation through * Final version approved and adopted by the NASIG Executive Board, July 22, 2013, revised with minor edits by CEC, January 26, 2016

141

142

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

Figure 1 Electronic Resource Life Cycle (Pesch, 2009)

various stages of use to disposition1 beyond that required of a generalist. The ERL understands the life cycle of electronic resources (see Fig. 1) in its ongoing complexity of multiple stages and processes. This broader understanding is essential as a foundation in order for anyone to be prepared to work with and act as a bridge across the multiple units/departments involved in electronic resources management in information organizations. The ERL has 1.1 Thorough knowledge of electronic resource acquisitions, particularly managing electronic resources budgets, encumbrances, integrated library system (ILS) acquisition module functions, split funds and other accounting situations particular to acquisition of journal packages that may not have a single discipline in common, service and lock in charges, and adjusting for discrepancy between fiscal and calendar year accounting. 1.2 Thorough knowledge of electronic resource licensing and the legal framework in which it takes place. Since licenses govern the use of 1

From ALA’s Core Competences for Librarianship

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

143

most library electronic resources and have conditions that cannot knowingly be violated, an ERL with responsibilities related to licensing must demonstrate familiarity with how and for whom an organization licenses content, as well as the concepts, implications, and contract language pertaining to such issues as archival rights, perpetual access, and interlibrary loan. A practical working understanding of issues such as copyright and fair use will allow ERLs to obtain the least restrictive, most library-friendly licensing terms during publisher/ vendor license negotiations. The ability to apply the principles involved in the organization and representation of recorded knowledge and information1 to the organization of electronic resources in order to select and provide access points that are useful to the communities they serve. In particular, an extensive knowledge of metadata, particularly the systems of cataloging, indexing, and classification used to organize recorded knowledge and information (descriptive metadata) but also structural metadata and administrative metadata (including rights management and preservation metadata). Experience with bibliographic and other utilities used to record that metadata, standards such as CONSER, and continuing resource cataloging principles; awareness of emerging best practices related to RDA/FRBR. A thorough understanding of records management necessary for actively coordinating and managing the often-complicated records needed to track electronic purchases, subscriptions, access setup and maintenance, and licenses. A commitment to maintain awareness of trends and ongoing developments in areas related to the entire life cycle of electronic resources.

2. Technology Providing and maintaining access to electronic resources is a primary responsibility of ERLs. It requires theoretical and practical knowledge of the structures, hardware, and software underlying the provision of access to electronic resources and their interrelatedness. This includes but is not limited to information, communication, assistive, and related technologies as they affect the resources, service delivery, and uses of ERs in libraries and other information agencies.1 The ERL’s depth of knowledge far surpasses the generalists’ depth of knowledge of technology.

144

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

The ERL should have conceptual and practical knowledge of 2.1 Computing hardware and mobile devices used to access electronic information and their operating systems. 2.2 Networking technologies (both wired and wireless). 2.3 Standards, protocols, and structures such as • Internet protocols (IPs) and file transfer protocols (FTPs), • OpenURL/z39.50, • Central authentication services (Shibboleth), • Electronic data interchange (EDI), • Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAIPMH). 2.4 Database design. 2.5 Markup languages (e.g. HTML, XML, wiki). 2.6 Preservation tools. 2.7 Software such as • Link resolver software, • Metasearch software, • Data collection software, • Discovery services, • Electronic resources management software (ERMS), • The administrative functions of proprietary databases, • Bibliographic utilities. 2.8 As digital scholarship becomes the norm, future ERLs may also need a thorough understanding of • Emerging digital preservation techniques and technology, • Data visualization, • Cloud computing, • Text mining. 2.9 In addition, ERLs should have an understanding of the complex range of data generated by and related to electronic resources from the sources above, as well as vendor websites and proprietary products, and how these data are interconnected or distinct.

3. Research and assessment The ERL 3.1 Understands the complex range of data generated by and related to electronic resources from the sources in #1, as well as vendor websites

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

3.2 3.3

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

3.8

145

and proprietary products, and how these data are interconnected or distinct. Has the ability to collect, analyze, manipulate, and provide meaningful interpretation of data using relational databases, spreadsheet and word processing programs, and other online tools. Possesses a broad understanding (or ability to acquire such understanding) of the electronic resources subscribed to by the organization and the ability to examine and evaluate current and potential purchases in objective and user-centered ways (assessment). Understands and uses established research methods including bibliometrics (for collection assessment) and systems analysis (for troubleshooting). Understands and uses methods of assessing and evaluating the specifications, efficacy, and cost efficiency of technology-based products and services.1 Is able to identify the principles and techniques necessary to identify and analyze emerging technologies and innovations in order to recognize and implement relevant technological improvements.1 Is able to apply principles of data collection, analysis, and reporting by 3.7.1 Gathering usage data, tracking the relative cost per use, recommending cancellations and additions in response to curricular needs and budgetary constraints. 3.7.2 Monitoring publishers’ and other vendors’ pricing policies and package deals to identify possible alternatives to current subscriptions. 3.7.3 Writing reports as needed detailing the strengths and weaknesses of the local serials collection for disciplines’ accreditation or program reviews. Demonstrates problem-solving, organization, and analytical skills and has an aptitude for detail-oriented work.

4. Effective communication The ERL demonstrates effective communication by 4.1 Communicating effectively, promptly, and consistently, verbally and in writing, with a broad range of internal and external audiences: users, colleagues and staff, subscription agents, and vendors; the ERL must be able to tailor the message(s) to the circumstances and to the audience, as needed.

146

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

4.2 Synthesizing easy-to-understand summaries of complex and ambiguous phenomena. ERLs often serve as the library’s liaison with external stakeholders such as vendors or institutional information technology staff. 4.3 Explaining and instructing clearly and concisely, when and as needed; rising above personal feelings and frustrations in order to provide the best possible services and resources to end users. 4.4 Demonstrating the ability to work collaboratively with other units and staff, establishing and maintaining effective working relationships. 4.5 Demonstrating the ability to frame situations according to others’ perspectives to recruit assistance with troubleshooting from vendors, agents, consortium partners, IT support, student/faculty users, etc. 4.6 Recognizing the need for data, selecting appropriate data analysis methods, and utilizing data (e.g. resource usage statistics) persuasively to inform decision-making. 4.7 Making presentations that are clear and comprehensive.

5. Supervising and management The ERL 5.1 Demonstrates the capability to effectively supervise, train, and motivate staff. 5.2 Demonstrates skillful project management, particularly the ability to initiate and complete projects in a timely and independent manner. 5.3 Evaluates existing procedures and workflows, revising or replacing them as needed to maximize efficiency and job performance; implements and manages workflows utilizing appropriate personnel. 5.4 Synthesizes concrete policy statements based on an awareness of local resources and best practices in electronic resource acquisition, collection development and systems. 5.5 Establishes and maintains effective working relationships. 5.6 Is familiar with systems administration through 5.6.1 Knowledge of system architectures, capabilities, support options, etc. for library systems involved in access and preservation of electronic resources. 5.6.2 Knowledge of best practices for account and data management (e.g. setting user permissions, performing regular backups, etc.). 5.6.3 Utilizing options for technical support as needed (e.g. vendor support, product-specific or librarian-related online bulletin

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

147

boards/listservs, campus IT department, knowledgeable colleagues and student assistants, etc.).

6. Trends and professional development The ERL works with concepts and methods that are very much in flux and so has an abiding commitment to ongoing professional development through continuing education, attendance at professional conferences, webinars, following related professional literature, blogs and listservs, and other learning venues. The ERL is 6.1 Committed to maintaining knowledge of current issues and trends in scholarly communication and the library’s dual role as content access provider and content generator. 6.2 Committed to maintaining knowledge of current issues and trends related to licensing. 6.3 Knowledgeable about the legal framework within which libraries and information agencies operate. That framework includes laws relating to copyright, privacy, freedom of expression, equal rights (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act), and intellectual property. 6.4 Recognizes when standards (e.g. KBART holdings files) or best practices (e.g. SERU as a model for a new license agreement) are relevant to decisions about everyday workflows. 6.5 Educates colleagues and advocates for use of these agreed-upon conventions as needed. 6.6 Maintains extensive knowledge of the systems of cataloging, metadata, indexing, and classification standards and methods used to organize recorded knowledge and information1 beyond that of a generalist. 6.7 Has extensive knowledge of digital tools, standards and initiatives, such as ONIX, SUSHI, OpenURL, and COUNTER.

7. Personal qualities The ERL demonstrates 7.1 Flexibility, open-mindedness and the ability to function in a dynamic, rapidly changing environment. Flexibility is a crucial cognitive and affective attribute that operates on multiple levels. Within a single day, an ERL may prioritize between various shifting tasks. Over the course of several years, the ERL needs to be responsive to changing systems

148

Appendix A: Core competencies for electronic resources librarians

and user needs (and their technical expertise often gives them the ability to influence the library’s strategy for responding to these factors). 7.2 A high level of tolerance for complexity and ambiguity. Many aspects of ER work require the ability to recognize familiar patterns and also identify exceptions to the pattern (e.g. selecting the correct holding in an e-resource knowledgebase or troubleshooting an access outage). 7.3 Unrelenting customer service focus and dogged persistence in the service of users. 7.4 Skillful time management. Much electronic resource work is very time-sensitive. An ERL must demonstrate the ability to plan and manage their own time and work assignments, and that of supervised staff, in order to make and meet deadlines consistently.

References Pesch, O. (2009). ERMs and the e-resource life-cycle [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http:// tinyurl.com/ERLifeCycle. Sutton, S. (2011). Core competencies for electronic resources librarians in the 21st century. Denton TX: Texas Woman’s University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

This document was prepared by the members of the NASIG Core Competencies Task Force: Sarah Sutton, chair (Emporia State University) Eugenia Beh, member (Texas A&M University) Steve Black, member (College of Saint Rose) Clint Chamberlain, board liaison 2011-12 (University of Texas at Arlington) Susan Davis, member (State University of New York, Buffalo) Katy Ginanni, board liaison 2010-11 (Western Carolina University) Selden Lamoureux, board liaison 2012-13 (North Carolina State University) Sanjeet Mann, member (University of Redlands) Cynthia Porter, member (A.T. Still University)

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

Appendix B*

* Note. The author compiled information gathered from library websites in 2019 with statistics from Morris, Shaneka, and Gary Roebuck, comps. and eds. ARL Statistics 2016e2017. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2019.

149

Electronic resources librarian?

ARL-LIB-1 ARL-LIB-2 ARL-LIB-3 ARL-LIB-4 ARL-LIB-5 ARL-LIB-6 ARL-LIB-7 ARL-LIB-8 ARL-LIB-9 ARL-LIB-10 ARL-LIB-11 ARL-LIB-12 ARL-LIB-13 ARL-LIB-14 ARL-LIB-15 ARL-LIB-16 ARL-LIB-17 ARL-LIB-18 ARL-LIB-19 ARL-LIB-20 ARL-LIB-21 ARL-LIB-22 ARL-LIB-23 ARL-LIB-24

Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Unknown Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

WebScale discovery?

Library materials expenditures

Ongoing resource purchases

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

$11,963,593 $20,430,018 $15,626,245 $11,801,642 $7,847,041 $12,207,469 $13,685,251 $12,518,292 $13,809,319 $12,807,524 $9,582,453 $23,507,027 $9,480,994 $9,456,970 $18,609,500 $5,279,450 $9,348,229 $5,912,912 $7,954,896 $17,645,787 $11,268,057 $12,461,070 $8,879,151 $32,991,725

$10,428,605 $14,433,702 $11,408,373 $9,952,181 $7,082,833 $9,963,331 $10,062,704 $10,183,768 $11,232,648 $7,981,826 $7,298,364 $13,665,716 $7,441,265 $7,664,314 $9,399,802 $4,210,118 $7,788,309 $4,417,254 $5,968,226 $12,514,200 $9,961,500 $9,118,867 $7,095,566 $19,283,674

Electronic books

Total number of staff (FTE)

Professional staff (FTE)

Support staff (FTE)

1519422 1319142 1940138 1195479 1040925 2095186 844984 1125611 2244866 1952983 1046206 1480889 939706 1319794 2239961 1082615 1262361 1066989 1349070 1730794 1526730 709197 542994 2542350

165 221 240 197 100 283 188 404 313 174 204 505 160 188 507 125 287 208 118 225 166 208 195 534

71 70 89 57 46 104 85 110 134 75 63 265 60 56 165 43 116 45 60 70 95 89 71 290

58 118 121 140 25 89 63 65 136 68 124 121 66 103 213 56 119 122 30 129 35 75 80 183

Appendix B

ARL academic library

150

Table 1 ARL Academic Library Data

Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

$12,600,298 $21,293,171 $11,678,940 $12,175,481 $22,440,853 $20,233,075 $13,871,850 $10,246,013 $12,440,327 $12,443,465 $13,891,733 $8,241,935 $5,994,335 $49,369,948 $9,652,450 $13,063,136 $5,301,742 $7,726,849 $19,349,049 $19,061,228 $20,106,312 $10,993,673 $21,539,830 $9,834,957 $5,201,050 $10,683,117

$10,813,452 . $9,861,564 $8,281,118 $13,063,441 $13,786,687 $12,015,524 $8,975,208 $8,526,148 $9,492,938 $11,150,525 $7,588,763 $4,344,036 $20,639,601 $8,749,407 $10,540,511 $4,389,538 $7,186,022 $13,931,586 $11,317,619 $15,529,184 $9,538,623 $17,463,934 $7,547,209 $4,125,750 $8,943,477

950972 1603930 880374 564218 2029014 1023662 1486204 1929123 1558939 1920641 775780 1018900 675629 1389361 367192 891555 442553 671614 1302422 2025135 2181048 447689 1669365 1035808 1169173 1646584

198 426 193 157 340 340 326 262 258 235 294 103 120 734 184 165 83 168 439 420 240 149 262 227 99 222

55 203 68 72 212 198 87 108 121 99 95 47 54 438 59 72 28 60 197 187 117 58 132 65 61 94

56 175 98 67 96 74 193 74 88 95 148 52 53 296 87 55 33 78 164 120 83 69 96 104 8 87

151

Continued

Appendix B

ARL-LIB-25 ARL-LIB-26 ARL-LIB-27 ARL-LIB-28 ARL-LIB-29 ARL-LIB-30 ARL-LIB-31 ARL-LIB-32 ARL-LIB-33 ARL-LIB-34 ARL-LIB-35 ARL-LIB-36 ARL-LIB-37 ARL-LIB-38 ARL-LIB-39 ARL-LIB-40 ARL-LIB-41 ARL-LIB-42 ARL-LIB-43 ARL-LIB-44 ARL-LIB-45 ARL-LIB-46 ARL-LIB-47 ARL-LIB-48 ARL-LIB-49 ARL-LIB-50

152

Table 1 ARL Academic Library Datadcont'd Electronic resources librarian?

ARL-LIB-51 ARL-LIB-52 ARL-LIB-53 ARL-LIB-54 ARL-LIB-55 ARL-LIB-56 ARL-LIB-57 ARL-LIB-58 ARL-LIB-59 ARL-LIB-60 ARL-LIB-61 ARL-LIB-62 ARL-LIB-63 ARL-LIB-64 ARL-LIB-65 ARL-LIB-66 ARL-LIB-67 ARL-LIB-68 ARL-LIB-69 ARL-LIB-70 ARL-LIB-71 ARL-LIB-72

Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

WebScale discovery?

Library materials expenditures

Ongoing resource purchases

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

$9,127,284 $8,545,822 $11,018,116 $17,133,894 $9,232,460 $10,103,861 $11,619,039 $8,471,965 $11,390,802 $14,515,547 $27,683,326 $19,377,006 $20,077,324 $9,801,494 $8,663,907 $8,482,011 $31,990,058 $15,928,696 $12,052,814 $17,616,218 $15,008,233 $5,771,620

$7,717,690 $7,033,150 $9,017,516 $12,727,310 $8,012,880 $8,696,156 $9,655,704 $6,850,587 $9,417,823 $11,795,819 $18,084,571 $14,126,190 $14,500,176 $8,836,779 $7,943,863 $6,473,467 $18,288,762 $11,521,373 $8,482,536 $12,487,979 $8,628,717 $4,884,311

Electronic books

Total number of staff (FTE)

Professional staff (FTE)

Support staff (FTE)

329717 1325159 183386 2311938 611882 1497160 2587917 1576713 700997 1031162 3531232 2186240 1208741 1176054 738095 884805 2595717 1732249 1133987 1857928 1403358 1069244

191 143 142 190 134 141 260 166 184 238 646 292 319 159 172 197 479 390 260 339 236 120

67 62 47 90 59 52 143 60 100 85 214 93 128 53 46 65 276 139 134 150 115 46

124 57 63 82 59 89 70 69 68 97 334 129 125 82 86 92 129 173 81 128 98 46

Appendix B

ARL academic library

Yes Yes No Yes Unknown Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

$19,294,065 $14,618,298 $8,281,997 $6,958,779 $11,607,399 $20,438,509 $21,503,554 $17,406,509 $31,528,453 $15,276,918 $7,765,153 $11,358,224 $12,223,102 $15,245,177 $11,693,080 $9,734,594 $25,052,613 $5,965,596 $6,187,520 $10,683,117 $8,860,269 $11,513,410 $11,071,259 $15,800,028 $23,093,355 $24,359,313

$13,261,570 $12,228,892 $7,603,048 $5,566,344 $8,124,014 $15,259,142 $16,946,057 $13,659,816 $16,577,903 $13,143,750 $7,044,039 $8,046,524 $9,159,770 $12,753,217 $9,545,884 $8,823,355 $19,077,680 $5,261,837 $5,082,606 $9,188,663 $8,227,097 $8,591,549 $8,934,131 $14,130,449 $11,135,244 $19,168,397

1342200 1428888 2058676 851235 1569690 1727495 2125632 1310745 2131247 2154487 425846 149216 870342 797699 767560 1003956 1622243 423839 416194 826650 348868 508060 1388086 946806 1471320 1865886

459 229 211 218 154 407 584 298 377 221 117 117 189 379 146 271 311 110 109 162 103 197 186 226 521 392

152 95 61 78 54 164 239 107 157 91 44 63 87 98 58 93 123 36 61 92 84 84 91 99 161 143

154 66 75 79 93 174 294 134 161 79 58 44 61 203 74 102 93 48 26 31 0 81 54 91 237 101

153

Continued

Appendix B

ARL-LIB-73 ARL-LIB-74 ARL-LIB-75 ARL-LIB-76 ARL-LIB-77 ARL-LIB-78 ARL-LIB-79 ARL-LIB-80 ARL-LIB-81 ARL-LIB-82 ARL-LIB-83 ARL-LIB-84 ARL-LIB-85 ARL-LIB-86 ARL-LIB-87 ARL-LIB-89 ARL-LIB-90 ARL-LIB-91 ARL-LIB-92 ARL-LIB-93 ARL-LIB-94 ARL-LIB-95 ARL-LIB-96 ARL-LIB-97 ARL-LIB-98 ARL-LIB-99

154

Table 1 ARL Academic Library Datadcont'd

Professional staff (FTE)

Support staff (FTE)

$13,091,052

661718

279

103

120

$26,773,798

$16,461,709

2252444

683

251

288

Yes

$12,621,670

$9,268,654

1115398

138

51

63

Yes

Yes

$9,641,638

$7,860,349

842614

304

74

151

Yes

Yes

$14,623,761

$10,999,325

1816203

220

81

85

No

Yes

$14,033,517

$11,081,973

749287

327

163

115

No

Yes

$9,405,708

$7,685,306

1054457

169

91

66

Yes

Yes

$21,153,133

$13,697,841

1062995

446

193

161

No

Yes

$7,002,022

$6,384,339

709994

134

47

62

No

Yes

$15,074,900

$12,242,136

1827367

225

112

78

Yes

Yes

$8,373,210

$6,931,419

464853

152

40

84

WebScale discovery?

Ongoing resource purchases

No

Yes

$13,786,450

Yes

Yes

Yes

Electronic resources librarian?

ARL-LIB100 ARL-LIB101 ARL-LIB102 ARL-LIB103 ARL-LIB104 ARL-LIB105 ARL-LIB106 ARL-LIB107 ARL-LIB108 ARL-LIB109 ARL-LIB110

Appendix B

Electronic books

Total number of staff (FTE)

Library materials expenditures

ARL academic library

ARL-LIB111 ARL-LIB112 ARL-LIB113 ARL-LIB114 ARL-LIB115

No

Yes

$10,367,266

$9,934,977

1106089

223

71

86

No

Yes

$11,172,120

$9,296,324

1663125

163

68

83

Yes

Yes

$12,437,179

$9,371,912

1854356

352

162

97

Yes

Yes

$45,886,146

$14,697,544

1815295

532

215

242

No

Yes

$9,546,960

$7,922,061

1446766

189

56

107

Appendix B

155

Appendix C*

* Note. The author compiled information gathered from library websites in 2019 with statistics from Morris, Shaneka, and Gary Roebuck, comps. and eds. ARL Statistics 2016e2017. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2019.

157

ARL-LIB-1 ARL-LIB-10 ARL-LIB-12 ARL-LIB-14

ARL-LIB-19 ARL-LIB-20 ARL-LIB-22 ARL-LIB-24

ARL-LIB-25 ARL-LIB-26 ARL-LIB-28 ARL-LIB-31 ARL-LIB-32 ARL-LIB-33

Title

Department

Electronic Resources Librarian; Coordinator of Acquisitions and Electronic Resources Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian; Head, Electronic and Continuing Resources Unit Electronic Resources Acquisitions Librarian; Electronic Resources and Serials Cataloging/Metadata Librarian

Resource Acquisition & Discovery Technical Services Acquisitions Department

Electronic Resources Librarian; Electronic Resources Metadata Librarian Electronic Resources Management Librarian E-Resources and Serials Acquisitions Specialist; E-Resources Metadata Specialist Head of Electronic Resources Management: Operations and Analysis; Head of Electronic Resources Management: Technologies & User Experience Elextronic Resources Librarian Acquisitions & E-Resource Strategy Librarian; Electronic Resources Librarian Associate Librarian and Electronic Resources Librarian; Associate Librarian and Head Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian; Electronic Resources Integration Management Librarian E-Resources Specialist; Serials & Electronic Resources Manager

Acquisitions Department, Cataloging & Metadata Services Department Acquisitions & Metadata Services E-Resource Management Scholarly Resource Development, Metadata Services Collection Development & EResources Management Acquisitions & Discovery Technical Services Collections and Electronic Resources Management Acquisitions & Collections Services Electronic Resources Collection Management E-Resources, SAG

Appendix C

ARL academic library

158

Table 1 ARL library electronic resources librarian positions

ARL-LIB-34 ARL-LIB-37 ARL-LIB-38

ARL-LIB-40 ARL-LIB-42 ARL-LIB-43

ARL-LIB-44 ARL-LIB-45 ARL-LIB-46 ARL-LIB-47 ARL-LIB-49 ARL-LIB-5 ARL-LIB-50 ARL-LIB-52 ARL-LIB-53

ARL-LIB-55

E-Resources & Acquisitions Support Specialist; E-Resources Cataloging Specialist; E-Serials Bibliographic Control Specialist; E-Resources & Acquisitions Support Specialist Electronic Music Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Unit, Head Electronic Resource Manager/Distance Education Librarian Manager, Electronic Resources Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Library Manager Principal; Electronic Services Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian; Electronic Resources Manager and Government Documents Librarian Coordinator, E-Books and Cataloguing; Coordinator, E-Resources and Serials E-Resources and Collection Analysis Librarian

Technical Services Collections & Content Electronic Resources and Serials Acquisitions Resource Discovery Systems Resource Acquisitions and Management Acquisitions and Cataloging Services Music Library Acquisitions Collections & Technical Services Entrepreneurial Library Program Serials & Electronic Resources Technical Services Acquisitions, Law Library Collection Services Collections Appendix C

ARL-LIB-54

Electronic Resources Librarian; Unit Head, Electronic Resources & Serials E-Resources and Metadata Librarian Head of Electronic Resources and Serials Acquisitions; E-Resources Coordinator for the Humanities; E-Resources Coordinator & Reporting Librarian Electronic Resources Coordinator Electronic Resources Librarian

Collection Services Collection Services

159

Continued

160

Table 1 ARL library electronic resources librarian positionsdcont'd

ARL-LIB-56 ARL-LIB-58 ARL-LIB-59 ARL-LIB-6

Title

Department

Electronic Resources Librarian (x2); WRHA Collections, Acquisitions, Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Specialist (x2)

Technical Services

ARL-LIB-64

Electronic Resources Librarian; Electronic Resources Metadata Librarian Head of Resource Management (E-Resources); Electronic Inventory Manager; OpenBU and Electronic Theses and Dissertations Librarian Head of Digital Production & Electronic Records Archivist Electronic Resources Officer; Electronic Resources Cataloger Systems Librarian for Electronic Resources Interim Collection Development Officer & Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian

ARL-LIB-66 ARL-LIB-67 ARL-LIB-68

Acquisitions & eResources Coordinator, Assistant Professor Supervisor, Serials & Electronic Resources E-Resources Librarian; E-Resources & Serials Acquisitions Librarian

ARL-LIB-69 ARL-LIB-7

Electronic Electronic Resources Electronic Librarian

ARL-LIB-60 ARL-LIB-61 ARL-LIB-62 ARL-LIB-63

ARL-LIB-70

Resources Librarian (x2) Resources Access & Discovery Librarian; Electronic Acquisitions Librarian Resources Librarian; Acquisitions and Electronic Resources

Information Resources Management Acquisitions & Appraisal Electronic Resources; Digital Scholarship Services Digital Strategies Collections; Technical Services Technical Services E-Resources Management Unit Acquisitions, Collections and Technical Services Technical Services Resource Management E-Resources & Serials Management (ESM) Acquisitions & Discovery Resource Acquisition & Management Acquisitions, Health Sciences Library & Learning Center

Appendix C

ARL academic library

ARL-LIB-71 ARL-LIB-72 ARL-LIB-73

ARL-LIB-74 ARL-LIB-76 ARL-LIB-78

Electronic Resources Metadata & Discovery (ERMD) Librarian [Vacant] Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Officer; eResources Metadata & Discovery Librarian; eResources Catalog Program Coordinator; eResources Licensing Coordinator; eResources & Serials Cataloger; eResources Cataloger; eResources Access Coordinator Monographs & Electronic Resources Cataloger Electronic Resources Team Leader (Associate Librarian) Electronic Discovery & Access Librarian; Serials & Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources and Serials Librarian (x2)

ARL-LIB-84 ARL-LIB-86 ARL-LIB-87 ARL-LIB-89 ARL-LIB-9 ARL-LIB-90 ARL-LIB-91

Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian Serials and Electronic Resources Librarian E-Resources Licensing Specialist Assistant Head for Electronic Resources Electronic Resources Librarian

ARL-LIB-92 ARL-LIB-93

Electronic Resources Coordinator Electronic Resources Coordinator

Description & Access Collection Services Acquisitions, Access, & Licensing, Resource Management (Law Library) Information Resources, Discovery and Technology Services Acquisitions Shared User Services Resources Management Acquisitions Technical Services Technical Services Information Resources Management Acquisitions Department Collections & Acquisitions

161

Continued

Appendix C

ARL-LIB-83

Resource Acquisitions & Discovery (RAD) Acquisitions & Collections Services Content and Access

162

Table 1 ARL library electronic resources librarian positionsdcont'd

ARL-LIB-96 ARL-LIB-97 ARL-LIB-98 ARL-LIB-99 ARL-LIB-101 ARL-LIB-102 ARL-LIB-103 ARL-LIB-104 ARL-LIB-107 ARL-LIB-110 ARL-LIB-113 ARL-LIB-114

Title

Department

LibrariandElectronic Resources; Supervisor, Serials & E-Resource Acquisitions Electronic Resources Librarian

Acquisitions and Collection Development Acquisitions and Continuing Resources Scholarly Resources Electronic Resources, Client Services Collection Development Acquisitions and Electronic Resources Collection Management Acquisitions and E-Resources East Asia Library Collection Development Electronic Resources Management E-Resources and Serials Management Team

Central and Electronic Collection Strategist Director of Electronic Resources; Electronic Content Management Librarian; Web & Electronic Access Librarian Electronic Resources Librarian Head of Acquisitions and Electronic Resources; Serials and Electronic Resources Catalog Librarian Electronic Resources Manager Librarian for Electronic Resources Japanese Cataloger/Electronic Resources Librarian eResources Access Manager Head of Electronic Resources Management; Electronic Resources Management Librarian; Electronic Resources Management Librarian Director of E-Resources and Serials Management; E-Resources Metadata Management Librarian; Catalog Librarian for E-Resources and Serials Management; E-Resources Acquisitions Librarian

Appendix C

ARL academic library

Index ‘Note: Page numbers followed by “f ” indicate figures and “t” indicates tables.’

A Academic libraries, 91e92, 94e96, 98, 107e108, 111e112, 114e115, 128, 141 information science, 11e13 innovation, 13 integrated library systems (ILSs), 13e14 library automation, 18e21 North America, 7e11 American Library Association (ALA), 9 Dewey’s program, 10 Harvard University, 8 Librarianship, 10e11 Morrill Act, 1862, 8e9 substantial library collections, 8 online presence for, 34e35 online public access catalogs (OPACs), 13e14 organizational structure, 13e18 professional culture, 13e18 Academic Video Online (AVON), 107e108 Academy of Certified Archivists (ACA), 17e18 American Association of Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), 61e62 American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 98 American Library Association (ALA), 9, 107e108, 129 Application programming interfaces (APIs), 114 ARL Academic Library Data, 150te155t ARL library electronic resources librarian positions, 158te162t Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ACLTS), 118e119, 130 Association of Academic Research Libraries (ACRL), 106

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 44e45, 130e131 Association of Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS), 17 Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 86, 104, 123e124 academic libraries, 125, 126t departmental/unit designation, 125e128, 127t Great Recession, 99 budget cuts, 92e93 physical infrastructure, 93 technical services, 93 Association of the College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 123e124 Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet), 47e48 Automated reference librarian, 58 Avalon Project, 106

B Batch processing, 19 BIBFRAME, 113, 136 Bibliographic Retrieval Service (BRS), 51 Bio-Medical Library, 19 Browse Electronic Titles (BET), 34e35 Budgetary crisis, 91e95

C California Library Authority for Systems and Services (CLASS), 51 California Union List of Periodicals (CULP), 51 Cataloging units, 16 CD-Revolution, 25 CD-ROM, 1e3, 42e43, 103e104 CERN, 7

163

164

Index

Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), 9 Circulation units, 15e16 Civil War, 8e9 Compact Disc Digital Audio technology, 23 Compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM) archival information, 31 cataloging, 28e29 CD-Revolution, 25 definition, 23e24 demonstrations, 29e30 Electronic Information Services Librarian, 35e36 full-text linking, 33 Gonzaga University, 30 group sessions, 29e30 information resources, 23e32 machine-readable cataloging (MARC), 28e29 North America, 32 online presence for academic libraries, 34e35 optical discs, 27 print to electronic journals transition, 32e34 search functionality, 32 statistical profile, 26 training, 29e30 “up-front” costs, 25 Core Competencies, electronic resources librarians, 129e130, 141 effective communication, 145e146 life cycle, 142e143, 142f personal qualities, 148 research and assessment, 145 supervising and management, 146e147 technology, 143e144 trends and professional development, 147 Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), 63 COUNTER R4, 132 COUNTER R5, 132

Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources (COUNTER), 68e69 Creativity, 2e3

D Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 109 Dewey’s program, 10 Digital Libraries Initiative (DLI) project, 109 Digital Library Federation (DLF), 63 Dublin Core, 45e46, 96

E eBooks, 103e108, 124e125 EBSCO, 52e53, 108e109 Educational Information Resources Center (ERIC), 12 Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), 26 Electronic data interchange (EDI), 114 Electronic documents promotion, 60 Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF), 34e35 Electronic Information Services Librarian, 35e36 Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), 64e66 Electronic Resources & Libraries (ER&L), 107e108, 130e131 Electronic resources management, 3 Electronic resources management (ERM), 48e50, 108, 125 Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI), 2 Electronic resources management systems (ERMS), 50, 110 academic libraries, 80e86 Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR), 69e70 definition, 63e69 document delivery, 80e86 Electronic Resources/Serials Librarian (ER/SL), 78 E-resource acquisition, 60e61

Index

library of congress subject headings (LCSH), 69e70 metadata, 69e75 organizational structures, 76e80 Electronic Resources/Serials Librarian (ER/SL), 78 Encoded Archive Description (EAD), 75, 96 E-resource evaluation, 63 E-resource job titles, 125 E-resource licensing, 63 Ex Libris, 108e109, 136 Extra-terrestrial relays, 12

F Federal Depository Program, 34e35 FOLIO project, 136 Full-text linking, 33 Full-time employee (FTE), 96 Functional Requirements and Numbering Authority Records (FRANAR), 72 Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), 71, 112e113

G Geographic information systems (GISs), 45 Global Information Locater Service (GILS), 75 Global Open Knowledgebase (GOKb), 136 Gonzaga University, 30 Google Scholar, 133e134 Government Printing Office (GPO), 34e35 The Great Recession, 100e101, 104 budgetary crisis and impact, 91e95 promotion and tenure, 98e100 reclassification, 95e98 redundancy, 95e98 reorganization, 95e98

H Harvard University, 8 Higher education, 91e95

165

Hybrid library electronic resources management (ERM), 48e50 managing electronic resources, 50e53 nonlinear workflows, 53e54 self-directed users, 53e54 traditional library services, 41e46 user population, 46e48 virtual information service, 53e54

I iBistro, 109e110 Indiana University Bloomington, 97 Information Access Company (IAC), 43 Information science, 11e13 Information services, 132e134 Innovation, 2e3, 13 Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), 109e110 Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), 94e95 Institutional improvisation academic libraries, 2e3 CD-ROM, 1e3 electronic resources management, 3 Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI), 2 Internet, 3 North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG), 2 self-service digital information, 2e3 World Wide Web, 3 Integrated library system (ILS), 13e14, 64, 110 Interest Groups (IGs), 130 Interlibrary loan services, 16 International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), 63 International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN), 72 International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), 74e75 Internet, 3, 57

J Journal Usage Factor (JUF), 133

166

Index

K Kanopy, 107e108 Knowledge Base and Related Tools (KBART), 111e114

L Librarianship, 10e11 Library and information science (LIS), 44e45, 99e100, 107e108, 117e119 Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), 25 Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), 130 Library automation, 18e21 Library Electronic TextResource Center (LETRS), 31e32 Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), 25 Library Information Technology Association (LITA), 118e119 Library Leadership and Management Association (LLAMA), 17, 130e131 Local area networks (LANs), 31e32

M Machine readable cataloging (MARC), 28e29, 50e51, 62e63, 96, 136 Master of Library Science (MLS), 42 McGraw-Hill, 106 MediaLab Solutions, 109e110 Mendeley, 133e134 “Metadata” in job titles, 96 Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS), 75 Morrill Act, 1862, 8e9

N NASA, 109 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data, 93e95 National Information Standards Organization (NISO), 64e66, 112 National Science Foundation (NSF), 109

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 1964, 13e15 New York Public Library, 8e9 Nonlinear thinking, 2e3 Non-MARC metadata, 96 North American Serials Interest Group (NASIG), 2, 107e108, 129 Northeast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL), 85e86

O Ohio College Library Center (OCLC), 13e15 Old Dominion University, 45 Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), 45e46, 70e71, 100 Online databases, 20e21 Online public access catalog (OPAC), 13e14, 109e110 Online search tools, 20e21, 70e71 Open Archives Initiative (OAI), 109 Open Athens, 137e138

P Pearson, 106 Print to electronic journals transition, 32e34 Professional culture, 13e18 Professional organizations, 130e132 Project Gutenberg, 106 Promotion, 98e100 ProQuest, 52, 107e108, 136 Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (PMH), 109 Public Library Association (PLA), 17 Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (PCLMC), 31 Public Library Service (PLS) data, 94e95

R Random House, 106 Reclassification, 95e98 Redundancy, 95e98 Reference and User Association (RUSA), 17

Index

Reorganization, 95e98 Representational State Transfer (REST) approach, 132 Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN), 70e71 Resource Description and Access (RDA), 13e14, 73e74, 111e114 Routine work perpetual reorganization, 2e3

S Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), 86 ScienceDirect Gateway, 1998, 33 SciMago, 133e134 Search functionality, 32 Self-service digital information, 2e3 Serials and Electronic Resources Acquisitions (SERA), 97 Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum (SERIALST), 63 Serials Librarian, 61e62 Serials Solutions, 108e109 Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), 132 Smart-links, 33 Social Science Research Network (SSRN), 133e134 Society of American Archivists (SAA), 17e18 Special libraries, 15 Steering Committee on Organizational Effectiveness (SCOE), 131e132 Streaming media, 103e108 Substantial library collections, 8 SUSHI harvesting, 132 Swank, 107e108

167

T TDNet, 52e53 Technical services, 114e117, 123e130 Tenure, 98e100 TERMS 1.0, 136e137 Traditional library services, 41e46

U Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), 136 United Kingdom Serials Group (UKSG), 112 “Universalist” approach, 94 University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, 79e80 UNIX, 36e37 U-Search, 35 US Office of Education (USOE), 12

V VIVO, 133e134 VuFind, 110

W WebFeat, 109e110 Webscale Discovery Services (WSDS), 108e113 Web-service (SOAP) layer, 68 Wide Area Information Server (WAIS), 47e48 Wisconsin-Ohio Reference Evaluation Program (WOREP), 44 Works, expressions, manifestations, and items (WEMI), 112e113 WorldCat Local, 111 World War II, 15e16 World Wide Web, 3, 7e22

Y YouSeeMore, 109e110