ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ June 2002 / 415 THE W A Y I SEE IT Subject access in an interdisciplinary environment Meaningful signposts must be created by Anthony T. Vaver S ubject organization governs much of what w e do in libraries, from collection b u d ­ get lines to library research guides to the ar­ rangem ent of Web resources. Given our reli­ ance on subject categories, the rise in inter­ disciplinary practices on college campuses has created real problem s for libraries. Interdisciplinary research draws upon at least two distinct disciplines, or subjects, to produce new kinds of knowledge, so it has the potential to shake up traditional subject categories and transform the curriculum. The popularity of interdisciplinary research, then, seem s to call for changes in the way libraries organize their w ork and approach subject- based access to resources and services. At the Brandeis University Libraries, indi­ vidual subject specialists manage the selec­ tion of resources across broad subject areas, including the creative arts, the humanities, the social sciences, and major subject groups in the sciences. Thus w e solve the problem of selecting interdisciplinary resources that fall within one of these broad subject areas. But w hen con­ sidering resources that cross these areas, se­ lectors often need to collaborate in making decisions, and this seems to be happening m ore and more. Are w e heading tow ard a time w hen the growth of interdisciplinary studies across cam­ puses will eliminate the need for selectors w ho cover traditional subject areas? Will we instead find ourselves working in selection teams? W ho w ill d ecide? W hen creating subject guides and organiz­ ing resource lists on o ur W eb pages, the Brandeis libraries generally follow the d e ­ partm ental structure of the university. Until recently, w e left out m any of the interdisci­ plinary program s from our listing, except for major ones such as Latin American Studies. Now that w e have decided to offer subject access to resources falling un d er interdisci­ plinary program s, w e face the problem of w ho covers what. Every interdisciplinary subject a dded to our list will require at least one person to oversee the content in the guide or resource list. W ho will m ake decisions on w hat to include un d er Religious Studies w hen it in­ volves elem ents of creative arts, the hum ani­ ties, and the social sciences? O nce w e create guides and resource list­ ings for all the interdisciplinary programs on our campus, our subject-access offerings for interdisciplinary practices on campus will still be incomplete. Cutting-edge interdisciplinary work often remains hidden in the classrooms. Students taking a course listed solely in the About the author A n th o n y T. Vaver is hum anities librarian a t Brandeis University Libraries, e-mail: vaver@brandeis.edu mailto:vaver@brandeis.edu 4 1 6 / C&RL News ■ June 2002 English literature departm ent might contrib­ ute their know ledge of anthropology, poli­ tics, or history to the class. Interdisciplinary programs by no m eans cover the depth of interdisciplinary practices on campus. Only w hen an interdisciplinary them e emerges af­ ter m any course offerings across several d e ­ partm ents does the need for a program that codifies the study of that them e arise. The challenges posed by interdisciplinarity at the Brandeis University Libraries are not unique, and they raise broader questions for academic librarianship. Do interdisciplinary practices necessarily lead to a loss in our abil­ ity as librarians to make firm category dis­ tinctions and force us to rethink how w e cat­ egorize resources? Should w e abandon cat­ egorization altogether and put our faith in the p o w er o f search engines, w here one search can retrieve multiple hits regardless of subject category? Can librarians anticipate the peculiar needs of the researcher w hose re­ search project combines chemistry, art his­ tory, and anthropology? M a in ta in th e tra d itio n a l The answ er to each of these questions is no. Ironically, the best way to accom m odate the needs of the interdisiplinary researcher is to maintain traditional subject boundaries in our practice of librarianship. On a theoretical level, the very concept of interdisciplinarity requires the presence of traditional disciplines. With­ out them, you can’t even talk about inter- disciplinarity. Far from breaking dow n tradi­ tio n a l d isc ip lin a ry b o u n d a rie s , in te rd is ­ ciplinarity lends great importance to these boundaries; it is their very presence that al­ lows an interdisciplinary research project to take place at all. From a practical point of view, the scholar pursuing a research project using chemistry, art history, and anthropology knows that he or she will have to consult resources in each of these three disciplines in the course of the research. If the resources in these subject ar­ eas are not organized according to these tra­ ditional boundaries, the scholar will have dif­ ficulty following the various research paths needed for the project. Researchers often rely on a combination of well-thought-out research practices and ser­ endipity. In both instances, a well-structured inform ation environm ent is key. Research strategies cannot be created w ithout prior know ledge of how information is structured. Similarly, serendipity has a better chance of being meaningful within a highly structured environm ent, w here chance can lead to new research paths, as opposed to a research e n ­ vironm ent w here only isolated instances of good fortune can take place. As librarians, w e need to create m eaning­ ful signposts for resources so that our users can navigate through and retrieve them with relative ease. We still need to decide w hat goes where, which admittedly becomes tricky w hen dealing with interdisciplinary resources. But making category distinctions has always been tricky, even w hen working with tradi­ tional subject areas. By creating a slew of new subject categories, in an effort to anticipate the infinite combinations possible in interdis­ ciplinary practices, w e risk losing the struc­ tured environm ent that gives rise to these c o m b in a tio n s in th e first p la c e . I n te r ­ disciplinarity should not distract us from one of our primary goals as librarians: to create meaningful categories in an information e n ­ vironment that sometimes resists structure. ■