ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 422 / C&RL News Id e a s , 5th ed ., to be issued later this year. The win­ ning entries will be on display at the John Cotton D ana booth at the New Orleans ALA conference. Things to consider This year winners share a common theme. Their programs are not wholly unique in the sense that it was the first time a library had ever brought up an automated system or begun a Friends group. But both entries showed evidence of planning realistic goals, then setting about accomplishing them in in­ novative ways. Jon Eldredge, a frequent observer of JC D entrants from academic libraries, deline­ ated the key ingredients of a winner in a 1986 arti­ cle (C &R L N ew s, October 1986, p. 579). Entry packets for next year’s contest are available from the Marketing Department at the H. W . Wilson C om pany, 950 University Avenue, Bronx, NY 10452. Academic libraries have much to gain by promoting their services, then promoting their ef­ forts by applying for a John Cotton D ana Award or Special Award. How oth ers see us by D ia n e R ich a rd s R eferen ce L ibrarian N orth D akota State University a n d P a u la Elliot R eferen ce L ibrarian W ashington State University Examining the image of the academic librarian. I n common with other professionals, librarians have long been concerned with their image. Our profession has been plagued with an unpleasant, and increasingly irrelevant, librarian stereotype. In an effort to make some headway with this prob­ lem, the Washington State Chapter of the Associa­ tion of College and Research Libraries convened its Spring Meeting in Ellensburg, W ashington, on April 22, 1988, for a program entitled, “How O th­ ers See Us: The Professional Image of the Librar- ian.” The topic of this meeting was particularly timely for academic librarians employed in the State of Washington. After several years of minimal pay in­ creases for faculty at state schools, a bill granting substantial raises was introduced in the first session of the 1987-88 Biennial Legislature. Initially, this bill specifically excluded librarians, even though li­ brarians are considered faculty at all the state insti­ tutions except th e U niversity of W ash in g to n , where they are classed as “academic” employees. In prior years, librarians were grouped with fac­ ulty at all the institutions when raises were consid­ ered. This time it was different. Because of their more nebulous status and a perception that their university administration was not supportive, the University of Washington librarians decided that some direct action was necessary. Hiring a lobbyist to present their case to the legislature seemed most appropriate. The outcome was to include permis­ sive language in the bill that allowed each institu­ tion to decide for itself whether to include librari­ ans as faculty. Ultimately, all the state schools gave their librarians the same access to raises as other faculty. However, the entire process and its attendant publicity brought to the forefront the question of how librarians are viewed by those outside the pro­ fession, particularly when money— and morale— hang in the balance. Against this backdrop the 1988 Spring Meeting took place. The timeliness of the topic; the conve- 424 / C &RL News nience of the location (Ellensburg is near the center of the state); and the one-day format, making an overnight stay unnecessary, combined to draw a much larger group than usual. The program began with a panel presentation by three invited speak­ ers. Sharon Foster, the lobbyist hired by the Uni­ versity of Washington librarians, spoke on legisla­ tive views of the librarian. Robert Smith, vice provost for research and dean of the Graduate School at Washington State University, addressed faculty and administrative perceptions of librari­ ans. Lawrence Bowen, associate professor of com­ munications at the University of Washington, gave suggestions for improving the librarian’s image. Sharon Foster spoke first and sounded a theme echoed by the other speakers. Librarians, she said, need to decide what image they want to project and unite to achieve th at. She noted th at the fragmentation of librarians into many organiza­ tions, each with its own agenda, is confusing to leg­ islators. Legislators are not hostile to librarians, but they are often ignorant of what librarians do. Educating them is essential. State-employed li­ brarians need to decide what they want from the legislature, develop a specific plan to achieve those ends, and organize long before the legislature is ac­ tually in session. Events move too quickly during the sessions for last-minute efforts to be effective. “There is no doubt that the groups who make the most noise are the ones that are heard,” she said. She also urged librarians to become active partici­ pants in the selection of key state officials, support­ ing candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction who are sym­ pathetic to library concerns. Robert Smith based many of his remarks on research* done for him by the conference coordina­ tor, Diane Richards, confessing his prior ignorance of the “librarian stereotype.” After discussing the literature, he reiterated the theme introduced by Sharon Foster, saying that “librarians should iden­ tify a special niche for themselves and pursue it with vigor.” He suggested that in moving from an image as “helper” to one as team member or part­ ner, librarians might promote themselves as posses­ sors of unique and specialized knowledge rather than as dispensers of books. He specifically men­ tioned the role Richards had assumed in relation to this talk as one that is of great value to administra­ tors, who are often called upon to speak on topics outside of their particular discipline. He described this role as “sifting and winnowing references,” “placing the literature in perspective,” and “serv­ ing the need to understand literature that is repre­ sentative, not exhaustive.” He went on to say that the value of this role was such that he would be willing for a librarian to be listed as the first author in a collaborative effort. *For a bibliography, contact Diane Richards, Reference Librarian, North Dakota State Univer­ sity Library, Fargo, ND 58105. Lawrence Bowen offered librarians the perspec­ tive of a marketing expert, drawing on the princi­ ples of his discipline. Following some amusing an­ ecdotes ab o u t th e m ark etin g cam p aign s for now-familiar products— campaigns that had radi­ cally changed that product’s image— he reminded the audience that this kind of change comes slowly. “It takes a planned, coherent, cohesive effort. Im ­ plement change gradually. Build to change. For attention, whisper. But whisper clearly, slowly, consistently. I t ’s not what you say; it’s how you say it.” In concert with the other speakers, he stated, “Define how you want to be perceived. Agree on where you want to b e.” Bowen made these additional points about pro­ jecting an image: • L in k up with a m ajor transition point; it makes you visible. Capitalize on the excitement that surrounds the new. “Hitch your wagon to a star.” •Put a dollar value on the service you provide. People place less value on service that is free. When the audience had heard the three presen­ tations, they formed into several small groups to discuss their impressions. In workshop style, re­ corders reported in a concluding session the reac­ tions of conference attendees. W hile all three guests offered well-intentioned advice, their re­ marks also provided personal insight into “how others see us” : on the one hand, a fragmented group, with many conflicting concerns; on the other, indispensable and highly valued public ser­ vants. On the implicit assumption that a negative pub­ lic image is linked to a low salary, there was general agreement that librarians should unite to present a strong, identifiable public image. However, in a profession that has attracted individuals of diverse professional backgrounds, attitudes, and priori­ ties, some felt that the highly valued diversity which has traditionally characterized librarian­ ship would be threatened. In a chapter largely populated by state employ­ ees, concern for the Legislature’s actions of a year ago surfaced in the discussion. Many felt that Washington legislators misunderstood the nature of librarians’ activity, and, on some campuses, their faculty status. Because not all Washington State institutions consider librarians faculty, there is further confusion about academic librarians’ roles. Librarians in private institutions found rele­ vant parallels in their own administrative struc­ tures. One astute conference attendee admonished the group, “We have to pursue this one on our own; teaching faculty have their own problems.” It was unanimously determined to pursue common con­ cerns. Although the meeting centered around legisla­ tive, faculty, and administrative perceptions of ac­ ademic librarians, it provided an opportunity to discuss public perceptions of librarians more gener­ ally. Certainly the concern for “how others see us” July/August 1988 / 425 is not a new one. The debate over professional im­ age has prevailed in our literature and on our coffee breaks. As a program for the Spring Meeting of the Washington State Chapter of ACRL, it offered a form al arena for substantive discussion and decision-making. A coordinated p rogram for state agricultural publications By S arah E. Thom as Chief, Technical Services Division National Agricultural Library A cooperative project of the National Agricultural Library and land-grant university libraries. Bibliographic control of state agricultural publi­ cations is one of the most challenging tasks facing documentalists and agricultural librarians today. State Agricultural Experiment Station and Exten­ sion Service publications contain valuable infor­ mation on scientific research and practical applica­ tion of th at research which is im portant for researchers and consumers. Yet, because of the dif­ ficulties inherent in tracking and providing access to this literature, the information contained in these publications has been severely underutilized. Librarians have long recognized that control of state publications is even more elusive than that of federal documents, and they are not used as fre­ quently as federal publications.1 Terry Weech, a documents specialist, observed that “state gov­ ernment information sources are often considered secondary in importance to national and interna­ tional information sources.”2 Yet these publica- 1David W. Parish, “Some Light on State Bibliog­ raphies,” G overnm ent P u blication R eview 12 (January-February 1987): 65-70. 2Terry L. Weech, “Introduction,” Government Publications Review 10 (March-April 1985): 155. tions contain useful information, and there is some evidence that enhancing access, for exam­ ple, including records for government publica­ tions in an online catalog, significantly increases their level of use. The route to providing access to state agricul­ tural material is fraught with peril at every turn. Acquisition of state agricultural publications can often be a haphazard process, as some agencies re­ sponsible for distribution of this literature issue publications in limited numbers, do not automati­ cally include libraries on their mailing lists for dis­ tribution, and publish without observing biblio­ graphic conventions with regard to attribution and identification of which series a particular title should be issued in. For the acquisitions librarian, the task of obtaining this often fugitive literature can require great patience, perseverance, and inge­ nuity. Once the material has been acquired for the li­ brary, serial checkers and catalogers face addi­ tional problems. State agencies sometimes drop, consolidate, and rename titles without adequate announcement, making the tracing of their biblio­ graphic history confusing, complicated, or even