ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries Septem ber 1988 / 517 reer action plan will help boost career develop­ ment. Following the ten steps requires conscien­ tious efforts and keeping on track. To recap: 1. Conduct a self-analysis. 2. Ask a colleague to review that self-analysis and to offer constructive criticism and advice. 3. Identify organizational expectations for ca­ reer advancement. 4. Pursue additional education. 5. Keep up with the profession through its litera­ ture. 6. Participate in library, organizational, or local activities. 7. Pursue career development through effective use of a mentor, development of a network, and participation in professional organizations. 8. Develop an area or areas of expertise. 9. Research and write for publication. 10. Concentrate on attitude adjustment. Successful completion of these ten steps will help an academic librarian realize the goals of a reward­ ing career in increasingly more responsible positions—or, if committed to a particular locale or library—it will lead to personal satisfaction. Staff retreats in ACRL libraries By E . D ale Cluff D irector o f L ibraries Texas T ech University an d Gisela Webb Assistant D irector o f L ibraries fo r Administrative Services Texas Tech University What types of libraries hold staff retreats, and why. L ibraries are changing. As part of the change process, they are becoming more participative, staff-centered organizations. They try to foster the adaptability, creativity, and development of their human resources to better serve their clients and to advance the profession. To achieve these goals, some administrators are incorporating managerial tools which have proven effective in other organi­ zational development efforts. One such tool is a re­ treat which can be used, in addition to other pur­ poses, to clarify new missions and goals, open communication channels, brainstorm and plan fu­ ture programs and improve the skills of staff. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to determine: a) whether academic libraries were holding, have held, or were planning to hold retreats as de­ fined; b) the nature of these retreats; c) the usefulness of these retreats; and d) whether libraries holding or likely to hold re­ treats had common characteristics. Methodology During the last ten years, no mention of retreats for library staff was found in the literature, al­ though meetings were being held for similar pur­ poses. They were called “workshops,” “continuing education seminars,” “staff development meet­ ings,” “institutes,” “in-service training,” etc. These activities had some components of a retreat as de­ fined by the researchers, but not all. A 35-item self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 192 college and university libraries se­ lected from the membership list of the Association of College and Research Libraries. After non- academic libraries were excluded, every third li- 518 / C &R L News TA B LE 1 Purposes of Retreats Essential D esirable N/A Clarify organizational goals 13 2 0 Evaluate achievement of previous goals 8 3 4 Help assimilate new staff members 3 8 3 Provide work related continuing education 2 9 4 Improve overall communication 10 7 1 Help staff get acquainted 2 7 4 Improve organizational climate 10 6 0 Involve all employees in the change process 4 7 3 Improve interpersonal relations skills 7 8 0 Understand total organizational needs and constraints 10 4 0 Other: Team building; Establishing annual objectives; Strategic planning; Setting new goals; Developing strategies for problem solution. brary on the list was selected, regardless of size. The response rate was 73.4% (141). All but three questionnaires were usable. Findings G eneral. For the purpose of this study, we de­ fined a retreat as “a meeting of one or more days, attended by a large number of library staff, held away from the library and with a portion of the ac­ tivity generally falling outside of work hours.” Ac­ cording to this definition, 18 libraries out of the 138 responding (138) held retreats. Of these, 9 were publicly and 9 were privately supported. Sixteen other (11.8% ) respondents said they would likely hold retreats in the future. Of these, 13 were public and 3 were private institutions. One hundred and one (73.7% ) of the respon­ dents, including those holding retreats, indicated that they provided other types of continuing educa­ tion/staff development sessions/events for their staff. Ten libraries (7.8% ) stated that they had held retreats in the past but had discontinued them. Reasons stated were: the expense could not be justified; there was a lack of need; and an oppor­ tunity had not presented itself. Similar reasons were given by libraries for not holding retreats. Staff being too few in number was an additional reason given by this group. Of all the respondents, 30 (21.7% ) stated that they planned to hold a retreat in the next two years. Respondents were generous with ideas, cautions and successes rewarding retreats. On the negative side, retreats were judged as trendy, artificial, promising more than they deliver, too costly and time consuming. Positive comments noted their ef­ fectiveness for improving communication, sharing ideas and increasing participation. Positive com­ ments outnumbered negative remarks. The major reasons stated why libraries do not hold retreats are a) they are too costly; b) the size of the library staff is too small; and c) a need is not seen for them. Most libraries which try the retreat approach to staff development continue holding them. Analysis o f data fr o m libraries holding retreats. A third of those libraries holding retreats started them during the past six years. Of the eleven who responded to the question of frequency, seven held retreats annually. Retreats were held more often for professionals than support staff. Support staff were involved about half as much as professionals. Some retreats (37.5% ) were held for administrative staff (direc­ tors, associate/assistant directors, department heads) alone, while the same percentage (37.5% ) were held for professional staff alone. No retreats were held for support staff alone. Fall was the time of year most retreats were held (47.8 %), followed by Spring (33.3 %) and Summer (19.0% ). None were held in the Winter. Seventy percent of the retreats were held between school sessions. Eighty-two percent of the retreats were held totally on institutional time. The range for length of retreats was from 1 to 3 days. Responding institutions reported that 77.8% of their retreats were held on campus, usually within 30 miles of campus at places like ranches, confer­ ence centers, resorts, hotels, and university-owned facilities. On-campus (22.2% ) retreats were held away from the library at faculty/staff clubs, chapels, lodges and assembly rooms in various buildings. The institution usually (87.5 %) paid the entire expenses for attendees. The rest of the time the ex­ penses were shared between the participant and the institution. Two-thirds of the public-supported libraries used state funds to support retreats. The impetus for holding retreats came from a va­ riety of sources. It was generated by the library ad­ ministration 33.3% of the time and by staff 20 % of the time. The most essential purposes of retreats were September 1988 / 519 TABLE 2 Data for Institutions Holding Retreats N u m b er Percent Characteristics Responding Responding Governance: Public Institution 9 50 Private Institution 9 50 Professional Staff: 1-10 5 28 (FTE) 11-30 5 28 31=50 1 6 51-100 7 39 101-200 0 0 Support Staff: 1-20 5 28 (FTE) 21-50 5 28 51-100 1 6 101-200 5 28 210-300 2 11 Budget: Under 100,000 1 6 (in 100,001-500,000 3 17 dollars) 500,001-1 million 2 11 1,000,001-2 million 0 0 2,000,001-3 million 4 22 3,000,001- 4 million 1 6 Over 5 million 7 39 Population: Under 25,000 2 11 25,001-50,000 4 22 50,001-100,000 4 22 100,001-250,000 0 0 250,001-500,000 2 11 500,001-1 million 2 11 1,000,001-2 million 1 6 Over 2 million 3 17 Director in Position: 0-3 years 4 22 3-10 years 8 44 Over 10 years 6 33 Past Director: 0-3 years 4 22 3-10 years 7 39 Over 10 years 7 39 Outside Director: Yes 13 72 No 5 28 identified as: 1. Clarifying organizational goals; 2. Improving overall communication; 3. Improving organizational climate; and 4. Understanding total organizational needs and constraints (see Table 1). R e tre a ts w ere e v a lu a te d u p o n c o m p le tio n 88.2% of the time. Most (43.8%) were planned and organized by a combination of library adm in­ istration and staff. Topics discussed at retreats were decided by library administrators 70.6% of the time. Topics discussed included long-range planning, goal setting and mission, evaluation of present programs, autom ation, improving com­ m unication, personnel m atters, budget, organiza­ tional structure, moves, and administrative style. The library’s own staff (41.2%) provided most of the presenters at retreats, followed by university staff (20.8 %), then personnel from other libraries, colleges and universities, and the private sector (39.2%). Seventeen of the 18 libraries holding retreats stated th at they would likely continue this practice. Septem ber 1988 / 521 Conclusions A number of general conclusions can be drawn from the data gathered: Although work-related continuing education is a desirable component of retreats, the results of the study indicate that retreats are generally held to address overall organization concerns. The fact that nearly 22% of respondents (in­ cludes institutions presently holding retreats) said they plan to hold a retreat in the next two years, may indicate a growing interest in holding retreats. Institutional characteristics of libraries which hold retreats are shown in Table 2. When combining the data of libraries holding and planning to hold retreats, the following com­ mon characteristics emerge: 1) Both privately and publicly supported college and university libraries are likely to hold retreats. Though a greater percentage of privately sup­ ported libraries held retreats, data indicate that more public institutions plan to hold retreats in the near future. 2) The larger the institution based on size of staff and budget, the more likely retreats will be found. 3) The larger the city population in which the li­ brary is located, the more likely the library will be involved in retreats. 4) A library which has had a director in position between 3-10 years will be more likely to have re­ treats than those with directors in position fewer than 3 and more than 10 years. Retreats are more likely to start at libraries which are directed by a person who came from the outside and whose pre­ vious director was in position over 10 years. Recommendations As a result of this study, several recommenda­ tions were made. Some deal with the study itself: 1) Research focusing on the other types of staff development/continuing education activities and programs presently held in ACRL libraries be con­ ducted. 2) A follow-up article containing specific guide­ lines for holding retreats at libraries be written. 3) A follow-up study be accomplished to expand on the different purposes served by retreats and other continuing education/staff development ac­ tivities. 4) A follow-up study be conducted to help ascer­ tain the cost-effectiveness of retreats. Other recommendations deal with retreats: 1) Libraries undergoing major organizational or philosophical change may find the retreat method a valuable approach to help the change process. 2) A relatively new director hired from outside the present organization may find retreats helpful in facilitating the transition. 3) Retreats appear helpful in clarifying organi­ zational goals, improving overall communication and climate, and in helping employees understand total organizational needs and constraints. 4) Since the complexity of libraries increases with size of staff and budget, larger libraries may benefit from the retreat method as a staff and orga­ nizational development tool. 5) Libraries whose past directors had long ten­ ures may find retreats helpful in assisting with the transition period. Have you seen your IPEDS? For many years, as part of the Higher Education General Information Survey (H EG IS), the D e­ partment of Education has collected statistics on college and university libraries and produced ta­ bles of results. ACRL has occasionally published these results, most recently in L ibrary Statistics o f C olleges an d Universities, 1985: N ation al Sum­ m a ries, S tate S u m m aries, In stitu tion al T a b les (ACRL, 1987). HEGIS was not one survey but a set—some peri­ odic, some annual—that gathered data on such topics as enrollment, degrees awarded, faculty, and finance. Forms went from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to the agency in each state responsible for coordinating higher edu­ cation. What happened next varied from state to state, but the usual pattern was that the forms were mailed “To The President” on each campus for dis­ tribution to the appropriate respondent. Several years ago it was decided that HEGIS should be expanded to include not only public and private institutions accredited to award degrees, but also institutions offering occupational educa­ tion beyond the secondary school. Hence HEGIS became IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Educa­ tion Data System) and the number of institutions covered was increased from just over 3,000 to just over 12,000. A library survey is still part of the package and the procedures remain the same (i.e ., distribution through state agencies). The 1988 IP­ EDS library survey will be sent to states in August and should reach campuses in the fall. If you don’t get a copy by the end of September, contact the person on your campus responsible for responding to government surveys. Academic librarians have criticized the NCES 522 / C &R L News for taking too long to publish results of the HEGIS library surveys. One reason for the delay was that librarians were very slow to return completed questionnaires. In 1985, when the last H EGIS li­ brary survey was in process, Robert Wedgeworth, then Executive Director of ALA, and JoAn Segal, ACRL Executive Director, co-signed a letter sent to all academic library directors urging response. A good number called ALA to say that they had never received a form! This experience made us resolve to alert academic librarians next time the library sur­ vey form went out. If you don’t get a copy by the end of September, contact the person on your cam­ pus responsible for responding to government sur­ veys. Once you have the survey, please fill it in com­ pletely and return it promptly to the indicated ad­ dress. The sooner forms are returned, the sooner results can be published. ACRL and the ALA Of­ fice for Research are working with the NCES to get results out fast. You can help by returning your sur­ vey form as soon as possible. We are also working with NCES to improve the questionnaire. Please let us know what you think of the 1988 form. INNOVATIONS Faculty access to RLIN at New York University: R LG ’s research access project B y M elanie D odson C oordinator, P roject In form B obst L ibrary , New York University RLIN, the database of the Research Libraries Group, has entered the world of end user services through the Research Access Project (RAP), a pilot program involving eleven RLG institutions. Initiated in early 1988, RAP provides faculty with RLIN searching accounts at a cost of $99 for a ten hour block of search time. Each participating institution has adopted its own approach to subsi­ dies, training, and selection of faculty. But all will contribute evaluative information about the proj­ ect through a questionnaire developed in conjunc­ tion with the Public Services Committee of RLG. At New York University, we have set up over forty library-subsidized RLIN/RAP accounts thus far for faculty and research staff— the largest group of accounts to date among the RAP institu­ tions. RAP’s enthusiastic reception at NYU is partly due to Project Inform, an initiative through which librarians at NYU are examining ways and means to u tilize and in teg ra te in fo rm atio n systems throughout the campus. As part of Project Inform, we have introduced faculty to many online data­ bases, including RLIN. Through these demonstra­ tions, faculty see firsthand R L IN ’s capabilities and, by extension, the benefits of the Research Ac­ cess Project. Initially, we identified departments with faculty most likely to use R L IN as a research to o l— primarily in the arts, humanities, and social sci­ ences. Reference librarians and bibliographers also suggested specific faculty who use RLIN in the L i­ brary or who are involved in ongoing bibliographic research projects. These faculty were sent a letter and brochure describing the database and equip­ ment needed to access it. From this targeted mail­ ing of 100, we received thirty-five requests for ac­ counts from departments ranging from nursing to telecommunications and from cinema studies to Near Eastern languages. A month later, we distrib­ uted several more accounts following a general an­ nouncement in the Library’s newsletter. While most accounts are for individual use, some are shared by faculty and graduate students within de­ partments. Librarians conducted training for participants during April and May. These one-hour sessions