ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


S ep tem ber 1988 /  523

outlined database content, basic searching proce­
dures, and interpretation of display formats, and 
also highlighted special databases and files such as 
the Eighteenth-Century Short Title Catalog and 
Archives and Manuscripts. Training packets for 
each participant included RLG instructional mate­
rial, a mini-manual and quick reference sheet de­
veloped by NYU, and log-on procedures through 
Telenet. We distributed all account and password 
information at the time of training.

The majority of questions posed by users of re­
mote databases typically relate to technical aspects 
of online searching, such as how to connect, 
download, and print. Our experience with RLIN is 
no exception. Given the variety of communications 
software packages available, we did not attempt to 
give RAP users a crash course in telecommunica­
tions. Rather, we provided assistance for packages 
used on campus, such as ProComm and Kermit 
and, where appropriate, referred users to the 
RLIN Information Center or their user manuals. 
In addition, as previously mentioned, we provided 
packets that contained detailed instructions on T e­
lenet access and a Telenet help number.

The RLIN/RAP training sessions were an excel­
lent opportunity for librarians to learn more about 
faculty research and for faculty to increase their 
awareness of library initiatives in the areas of data­
base design and resource sharing. Further explana­
tion of the MARC record structure was of special 
interest to several faculty involved in database con­
struction, and created a common basis for under­
standing indexing and retrieval. The training ses­
sions also gave us the opportunity to stress the 
utility of using NYU’s online catalog, BobCat, in 
conjunction with RLIN for identifying local re­
sources.

One of RLIN ’s strengths, of course, is the display 
of holdings information for member libraries. The

breadth of the database and inclusion of location 
information within each record combine to create 
a powerful verification tool for faculty searchers. 
Because so many libraries within the metropolitan 
area contribute to the RLIN database, NYU fac­
ulty are able to identify a tremendous amount of lo­
cally available material from libraries such as Co­
lu m b ia , New York P u b lic, the M etro p o litan  
Museum, and a host of similar institutions.

Searching RLIN for themselves, faculty are in­
troduced to the vast potential and importance of 
R L G ’s resource sharing programs.

An evaluation instrument, along with informa­
tion collected by R L G , will provide extensive data 
on the relative ease or difficulty of searching the 
database, the usefulness of various files and special 
databases, and what barriers, if any, exist for end 
user access to RLIN. In addition, it will indicate 
impact on interlibrary loan, on-site referrals, and 
collection development activities, such as book 
purchase recommendations. Since the program has 
evolved differently among the RAP institutions, of 
interest will be the effect of various training ap­
proaches, attitudes toward the cost of searching, 
and satisfaction with the database. We will admin­
ister evaluations as participants complete their ini­
tial ten hours of connect time.

After only a few months, participants have ex­
pressed enthusiasm about using RLIN, due to its 
comprehensiveness as a database and its usefulness 
as a verification and location toolŝ As growing 
numbers of NYU faculty tap into RLIN, we are as­
sessing our interlibrary loan program, considering 
document delivery options, and furthering our 
knowledge of the scholarly communication pro­
cess. The Research Access Project is one of many 
initiatives in remote delivery of library services en­
abling us to realize the full potential of electronic 
access to information.

When closing a library is progress

B y R e b e c c a  Stu rm

H ead  o f  Public Services 
N orthern K entucky University

Like many other medium-sized academic li­
braries at the start of this decade, our university got 
caught up in the need to establish another campus, 
complete with a small library facility. Located in 
Covington, which was the original site of the Uni­
versity and about fifteen minutes from its present 
location, University College was established with a 
dean in the spring of 1983. The campus offers a va­
riety of courses and special offerings and services,

but no distinct academic programs. Faced with lit­
tle start up money, slim hope of additional funds in 
the future and “no thank you” not an option, 
against our best instincts the library during the aca­
demic year of 1983-1984 set up what was called a 
“library referral center” for the new University 
College.

The Library Referral Center (afterwards re­
ferred to as the UCLRC) consisted of a small gen­



524 / C &R L News

eral cataloged book collection, some subscriptions
to magazines and newspapers, reserve readings, 
telephone access to the main library and staffing by
student employees for about 20 hours per week. 
The facility closed between semesters and during
holidays and the summer, when course offerings 
were minimal or nonexistent. Although we’d been
willing to send books from Highland Heights to
Covington, our card catalog was not online, access
and verification was unwieldy and so requests for
this service were few.

By 1987, still no distinct programs had emerged
on the “other” campus, budgets had not increased
for the library, and despite trying a variety of ser­
vice hours for the UCLRC, use remained slight. 
This was understandable for many reasons: library
hours were limited, students tended to come to that
campus for scheduled classes only, not all classes re­
quired use of the library or had required reserve
readings, students used other closer to home li­
braries or the main library and the UCLRC collec­
tion was itself severely limited in size and scope. 
Realizing that there were problems to solve, my
sabbatical in the fall of 1987 was spent studying the
needs for library services of University College and
our other off-site situations.

With the current push now to offer courses at a
variety of locations in an eight-county service area
for the growing “non-traditional” student popula­
tion and the accompanying need for library sup­
port for these courses, the question to be answered
is: “Given limited funds, how can we best serve the
library needs of students and faculty at these re­
mote sites?”1 I think the answer lies in not only not
establishing additional libraries, but in the re­
moval of inefficient facilities and the establishment
of new arrangements, with the result being better
library services for all non-main campus locations. 
Such a decision was made in the spring of 1988, 
based on study and discussion during the previous
fall and first part of the new year. The current
UCLRC will naturally close at the end of the spring
semester and then off-site services will emerge in
their new forms for the fall semester.

Here’s how better library service can result from 
closing a library facility. Our library was spending
approximately $2,500 a year for subscriptions and
for student employee salaries at the UCLRC. Aside
from the initial outlay of staff time and cost to cata­
log a small collection, we were only adding ran­
dom titles, usually gifts or duplicates, to this collec­
tion. Other continuing costs for the library in
addition to cataloging, such as utilities, telephone, 
mail and so forth, are not included in the above fig­

1There are numerous articles in the library and 
education literature of the last ten years regarding 
service for off-site courses, which I will not cite 
here. ACRL does have G uidelines fo r  E xten ded L i­
brary Services, (C &R L  News, March 1982) and the 
proceedings of the “Off-Campus Library Services 
Conferences,” available from Central Michigan 
University Press, are most useful.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

ures. But even the small sum of $2,500 could be 
better justified if it could be used towards a larger 
service population than just that of University Col­
lege.

Our library is an active member of the Greater 
Cincinnati Library Consortium and various state 
networks, and as such is on excellent terms with the 
area and regional public libraries. We are making 
arrangements for reserve readings for University 
College or other off-site courses to be placed at ap­
propriate local libraries, such as publics. NKU will 
pay for photocopying or book purchasing and the 
public libraries will in turn be extending services to 
their own populations. Advantages to students will 
be several: more library hours to choose from, a 
much larger collection of books, magazines and 
other informational materials, and a “real” library 
that they already know how to use or would benefit 
from learning to use. (We will continue to provide 
library instruction in a variety of sites as appropri­
ate.)

In addition to the photocopying and book buy­
ing mentioned above, the Library will retain the 
funds from canceled subscriptions and use them to 
send books and copies of articles to other locations, 
and the recouped student help will provide for ma­
terial retrieval, packaging, etc. We now have a te­
lefacsimile machine, and with the decrease in the 
cost of these machines, we hope to encourage coop­
erating public libraries to purchase them as well. 
Local industries may be good candidates for help­
ing to fund such a purchase; companies generally 
have vested interests in college courses for current 
or potential employees, purchase of the “fax” for 
the local public library would benefit the entire 
community (it could be used for a multitude of 
tasks aside from the courses) and it would be excel­
lent PR for that industry or business. The Univer­
sity, in turn, could perhaps assist the public li­
braries in paying for paper and other continuing 
costs associated with this technology.

I believe that closing a small, seldom-used li­
brary facility (that still has fixed costs to maintain) 
and transferring services to a public library five 
minutes away will benefit our users. The dean of 
University College was most supportive of the deci­
sion, agreeing with us that the prime concern of 
most students was where they could obtain needed 
materials easily and conveniently. Instead of the 
UCLRC, we will maintain a study area near the 
old location with dictionaries and encyclopedias, 
book bags and request forms for books and articles. 
Other books from the UCLRC (many of which 
were duplicates) will be removed from our hold­
ings as the cataloging department has time; a small 
portion of desirable volumes will be added to the 
main collection. The lobby area (just outside of the 
former UCLRC location) will have a free campus 
telephone and a directory for aiding in questions or 
requests for the main library. When our card cata­
log goes online, a terminal will also be placed in the 
current study area. Funds retrieved from closing



Septem ber 1988 /  525

the UCLRC will be used to support the nearby 
public libraries in serving UC students as well as in 
supporting course offerings and public libraries at 
our other off-site locations.

One of our reference faculty has recently agreed 
to serve as the coordinator of off-site services. His 
role (as part of his other reference responsibilities) 
will be to work in conjunction with the director of 
off-site credit courses and serve as liaison between 
faculty teaching these courses and our various li­
brary departments, such as reserve, interlibrary 
loan, and library instruction. Consequently, stu­
dents or faculty from these courses will have to in­
teract with one individual and not the confusing 
variety of library departments. We hope to in­

crease the funding for this coordinator position as 
need for support for these off-site courses manifests 
itself.

If one subscribes to the theory of “survival of the 
fittest,” then the initially unpopular but obvious 
answer is to close a weak and ineffective facility 
and strengthen and support one nearby, in this case 
a public library. The best interests of our off-site us­
ers demand investigating and implementing such 
decisions. And like evolution, such closings will not 
be accomplished overnight, but will involve the 
slow, often painful process, through research, dis­
cussion and negotiation, of changing from one 
form of library service delivery to other, more so­
phisticated and appropriate ones.

Citation forms for bibliographies 
appearing in jou rn als o r as 
com ponent p arts of la rg e r works

P r e p a r e d  by the RBMS S tan d ard s Com m ittee

Jo h n  B. Thom as, C hair, 1987-88

Updating the “Standard Citation Forms. ”

U s e r s  of Standard Citation Form s fo r  P ublished 
B ibliographies an d C atalogs Used in R are B ook 
C atalogin g  (Washington: Library of Congress, 
1982) have noted that its “Working Principles” do 
not provide specific examples of citation forms for 
bibliographies published in journals or as compo­
nent parts of larger works. The Standards Commit­
tee of A C R L ‘s Rare Books and Manuscripts Sec­
tio n , after con su ltation  w ith the editors of 
Standard Citation Form s, Peter VanWingen and 
Stephen Paul Davis, recommends that citation 
forms for such bibliographies be constructed ac­

cording to the guidelines given in Section IV of the 
“Working Principles.”

Additional information required to identify the 
journal or larger work in which a particular bibli­
ography appears should follow the general style 
recommended by the University of Chicago Press 
in T he C hicago M anual o f  Style (13th ed., Chi­
cago: University of Chicago Press, 1982, or latest 
edition). Notice, however, that citation forms do 
not conform exactly to forms suggested by the Uni­
versity of Chicago Press, e.g., titles are not itali­
cized and imprint information is omitted. Inclusive