ACRL Conference in Charlotte Draws Largest Crowd Ever

Amid the backdrop of a soft economy and looming budget cuts, academic librarians turned out in force April 10–13 for the 11th National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). Final attendance figures swelled to 3490, up nearly 14 percent from the roughly 3000 who attended the ACRL's last national conference in Denver in March 2001 (see News, LJ 4/15/01, p. 14ff.).

ACRL President Helen Spalding took note of the many standing-room-only sessions and the wide-ranging slate of topics. Records were set for the most first-time attendees, just over 900, and the most conference scholarship awardees—eight students and 64 librarians.

The conference served as a springboard for ACRL's first-ever national marketing program, part of the American Library Association's broader "@your library" campaign. All conference attendees received the Toolkit for Academic and Research Libraries, which offers an array of "messages, ideas, and strategies" for promoting the value of libraries.

Session topics included the more pressing issues in academe, e.g., digital library and reference initiatives, information literacy, recruitment and retention of librarians, scholarly communication, and copyright. Still, because session topics were planned months ago, no panels officially addressed recent crises such as massive state budget cuts and the collapse of subscription agent RoweCom. More than 200 exhibitors were on hand in what one attendee called a "livelier than expected" exhibition hall.

As expected, a session entitled "Focus on the Future: Top Issues for Academic Libraries" attracted a large crowd. Deanna Marcum, president, Council for Library and Information Resources—whose talk at the ACRL conference in Denver in 2001 inspired the task force that generated the issues—said that her greatest concern was "how to bridge traditional libraries and digital libraries. In too many institutions, those functions are quite separate. Many colleagues think of digital as an add-on, not an integral piece of the library."

But new technologies, she said, change library functions, and "preservation must occur at the time information is created," which requires librarians to think "very differently."

Duane Webster, executive director, Association of Research Libraries (ARL), cited the importance of measuring a library's value. He noted that more than 300 libraries were using LibQual+, the new project sponsored by ARL and the subject of a popular poster session. He announced the launch of Project Counter, involving ARL and several other organizations, to measure the collection and use of e-resources.

Mary Ellen Davis, ACRL executive director, spoke passionately about the need for libraries to call attention to their role. "Our communities do not always see us as educated professionals who play an active role in the academic community," she said. "We must be proactive in telling users about this value."

Clifford Lynch, executive director, Coalition for Networked Information, said he was uneasy about using the term the task force chose—chaos—to describe scholarly communications. "Rather, we're seeing a creative renaissance in all communications," he said, citing new sets of tools. "Of course it's chaos, but it's a good, healthy, creative, flourishing kind of chaos."

At a session sponsored by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), University of Kansas Provost David Shulenberger suggested that federal legislation, as yet undrafted, could help cure an ailing scholarly communication marketplace. Shulenberger said he would support legislation that would require research projects funded all or in part by federal money to be made freely available via the granting agency's web site within six months after publication, much like the proposal/demand put forth by the nascent Public Library of Science.

John Shumaker, president of the University of Tennessee, provided a supportive but hard-nosed look at the academic environment, which includes a new sense of accountability, especially for state-funded institutions, and a need to harness and unleash entrepreneurial energy.

As for libraries, he said, "Being student-centered means building an effective space to extend the library," wherever that is. He said that while many universities have begun to keep "scorecards" to measure progress, "We haven't succeeded in getting reliable metrics for the quality of the campus library."

In response, Hannelore Rader, university librarian at the University of Louisville, KY, where Shumaker formerly presided, pointed out that the library did turn up on two scorecard measures. One regarded joining ARL, which the library achieved well ahead of schedule. The other goal is increasing holdings to two million volumes; again, that should be reached ahead of schedule.

In the session on budget trends, Alan E. Guskin, Antioch University president emeritus, codirector of the Project on the Future of Higher Education (www.pfhe.org), sketched a bleak future of shrinking resources (state deficits, endowment losses), with managers driven by the need to cut costs.

In Guskin's vision, higher education must undertake revolutionary change. Projecting that the cost of higher education would outpace tuition growth, Guskin said the available dollars per student (at an urban public research university) could shrink from $10,316 to $8,429 in a decade. Thus, all campus "professionals" must engage with students and integrate technology into the instructional process to save money. New instructional methods will involve librarians with faculty in mentoring; "content-based software" will substitute for faculty lecturing.

A session on research and development, however, offered a different scenario. Columbia University librarian James G. Neal said R&D investments within academic libraries will eventually foster more economic efficiency for academic libraries as well as better service for the campus community.

Presenters were Sayeed Choudhury, director of Johns Hopkins University's Digital Knowledge Center (DKC), and Judith Klavans, director of Columbia University's Center for Research on Information Access (CRIA). Neal acknowledged that library R&D programs are a "work in progress" but said that such R&D money is increasingly important.

In a well-attended session, librarians urged not only new steps to combat plagiarism but also a broader understanding of the problem and the learning opportunities it presents. "I truly believe that many students don't understand what plagiarism and citation mean," said Rebecca Jackson of Iowa State University.

How to combat plagiarism? Panelists suggested an oral report requirement could also catch plagiarizing students unaware. A growing solution is the use of software such as TurnItIn.com, which compares submissions to an enormous database.

Christina Peterson of San Jose State University, CA, who tested TurnItIn.com, gave it a mixed report. It's most effective in catching papers that have either been purchased already or appear in part on the web. She advised attendees to explain to faculty the limits and capability of the software, which she said would be effective only in combination with efforts to improve students' research and writing skills.

Participants reported that e-books are not catching on in academia because the collections are still too small and their functionality remains limited. Panelists also said that campuses must improve bandwidth so students can access the content from their dorm rooms. They said that the circulation and purchasing models must become more flexible, allowing, for example, multiple users or specific chapters.

"E-books are well suited for reference works, especially those briefly consulted," said James Rettig, university librarian at the University of Richmond, VA. Librarians would like seamless integration into the OPAC, as well as integration of e-books into traditional approval plans. They also want publishers to go beyond simply transferring books to electronic formats and instead take full advantage of the new medium.

As for online library tutorials, they can't substitute for real-life instruction, declared Cornell University's Kornelia Tancheva. After testing sites at 45 academic libraries, and developing a tool for her institution's Mann Library, Tancheva concluded that most aren't effectively designed and must be used in conjunction with other instructional efforts. Only students well versed in self-learning may perform well in tutorials, she said.

Panelists said some at library schools aren't paying enough attention to the field. They disagreed over whether faculty should be required to work in the field periodically but did concur that changes in curricula are needed.

According to San Jose State's Deborah Karpuk, who comes from a cataloging background, reference is approaching a crisis in library schools, as subject-specific reference courses are disappearing. One solution: integrate those points of view into other courses.

Penn State Associate Dean Sally Kalin proposed a program that addresses compensation, continuing education, and training and demonstrates respect for paraprofessionals. At Penn State, an array of new staff positions have been filled with non-MLS candidates, from cataloging specialist to information technology consultant to instructional developer.

In order to attract and retain more staff, Kalin recommends aligning these jobs with librarians' positions, along subject specialty lines. "Unless we elevate the staff in our own libraries, we won't be able to elevate our own positions," she argued. For more on ACRL, see "Too Soon To Ditch Print ," Inside Track, p. 71.