ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries March 1987 / 119 S ta ffin g th e r e fe r e n c e d esk d u rin g c o n fe r e n c e s B y T a r a L y n n F u lt o n Reference Instruction Librarian Loyola University* Balancing professional activity with responsibility for public service. Tw ice a year at regular departm ental meetings, a poll is ta k en in th e referen ce d e p a rtm e n t at N orthw estern U niversity L ib rary : “H ow m any people plan to go to ALA?” Every year the percent­ age of people w an tin g tim e off seems to grow, and it has become increasingly difficult to accomm o­ d ate everyone’s wishes. Soon th ere m ay not be enough bodies to go around: single-staffing, using m ore students d uring non-peak hours, asking some people to come back early, and other make-shift measures are just not going to be sufficient much longer. In an effort to find a solution to this di­ lem m a, we decided to find out if other institutions w ere having the same problem and how they were handling it. The survey A telephone survey of fourteen university li­ braries was conducted in April 1986. W e antici­ pated th a t three prim ary factors w ould affect an institution’s response to reference desk staffing d u r­ ing conferences: 1) size of the professional reference staff; 2) proxim ity to m etropolitan areas sponsoring li­ brary conferences on a regular basis; and * At th e tim e of w riting th e author was assistant interlibrary loan/reference lib rarian a t N orthw est­ ern University, Evanston, Illinois. 3) professional pressure on the librarians to a t­ tend conferences. The institutions surveyed w ere selected because of th e ir v a ria tio n s on these th re e facto rs. T he schools ranged in size from 10,000 students to over 40,000. E ight of the libraries had betw een six and eig h t lib ra ria n s serving on th e referen ce desk, w hile the other six employed betw een nine and thirteen reference librarians. H alf w ere close to cit­ ies in w hich m ajor lib ra ry conferences are fre­ qu en tly held (e.g ., W ashington an d Chicago). H alf h ad faculty status or prom otion docum ents— a m easure believed to result in pressure to attend. Methodology Since the survey was designed only to gather in­ form ation, it was developed and conducted infor­ mally. No attem p t was m ade to control the three p rim ary factors—staff size, conference proximity, and professional pressure. The larger libraries sam ­ pled tu rn ed out to be fu rth er aw ay from confer­ ences th a n the small or m edium –sized ones. Not surprisingly, th e institutions w ith faculty status or prom otion docum ents tended to be larger institu­ tions as well. Therefore, in some cases it is difficult to d eterm in e w hich of these factors m ost in flu ­ enced the responses of a given institution. Since respondents w ere not prepared in advance 120 / C & R L N ew s fo r th e te le p h o n e su rv ey , th e y w e re a n s w e rin g questions fro m m em o ry . W e p re su m e d th a t d e ­ p a r tm e n t heads (w ho w e re re a c h e d a t eleven o f th e lib raries) o r referen ce lib ra ria n s w h o h a d b ee n a t th e in stitu tio n a t least tw o years (as w as th e case in th e re m a in in g three) w o u ld be fa irly fa m ilia r w ith th e d e p a rtm e n t; b u t it is possible th a t these in d iv id ­ uals w o u ld h av e resp o n d e d d iffe re n tly h a d th e y m o re tim e to g a th e r th e re q u e ste d d a ta . F in ally , b ec au se responses to q u a n tita tiv e questions te n d e d to b e given in ran g es, p erso n a l ju d g m e n t w as used in fittin g responses in to re p re se n ta tiv e categories. ALA commitments and attendance S ta ff size, c o n fe re n c e p ro x im ity , a n d p ro fe s­ sional pressu re affect th e n u m b e r of lib ra ria n s w h o choose to m a k e professional association c o m m it­ m en ts a n d th e n u m b e r of lib ra ria n s w h o choose to a tte n d conferences. T hese n u m b e rs in tu r n d e te r­ m in e h o w m u c h d ifficu lty a lib ra ry has sta ffin g its referen ce desk d u rin g conferences. T h e re fo re , d a ta on these tw o fa c to rs— ALA c o m m itm e n ts a n d ALA a tte n d a n c e — w ere also so u g h t. Since ALA is th e la rg e st U.S. lib ra ry o rg a n iz a tio n a n d sponsors th e m ost h ea v ily a tte n d e d conferences, th e survey sin­ gled o u t ALA conferences fo r th e sake of sim p lifica­ tio n . Responses reflect sig n ific an t ran g es of p ro fes­ sional in v o lv em en t a m o n g th e lib ra rie s surveyed. F o u r in stitu tio n s h av e few er th a n tw o lib ra ria n s w ith ALA co m m itm e n ts, seven h a v e tw o o r th re e , a n d th e o th e r th re e lib ra rie s h a v e fo u r o r five. T w o in stitu tio n s h a v e few er th a n tw o lib ra ria n s a tte n d ­ in g ALA re g u la rly , six h a v e b e tw e e n tw o a n d fo u r, a n d th e re m a in in g six h av e fro m five to eig h t. In s ti­ tu tio n s, regardless of staff size, co n feren ce p ro x im ­ ity, or p ressu re to a tte n d , h av e a n av e ra g e of one a n d o n e -h a lf m o re lib ra ria n s a tte n d in g ALA re g u ­ la rly th a n a re c o m m itte d to a tte n d . B ecause of th e sm all sa m p le size, ob serv atio n s b ased on n u m b e rs of lib ra rie s d id n o t rev eal an y tre n d s. T h erefo re , th e to ta l n u m b e r of lib ra ria n s w ith ALA c o m m itm e n ts a n d th e to ta l n u m b e r a t ­ te n d in g ALA re g u la rly in ea ch of th e th re e p rim a ry fa c to r categories w e re c a lc u la te d (T a b le 1). As w e see fro m this d a ta , lib ra ria n s fro m la rg e r d e p a r t m e n ts h a v e c o m m itm e n ts to a n d a t te n d A LA m o re f r e q u e n tly t h a n do lib r a r ia n s fro m sm aller d e p a rtm e n ts . W h e th e r th is in d icates th a t la rg e lib rarie s re c ru it professionally active lib r a r i­ ans, th a t la rg e d e p a rtm e n ts offer th e sch ed u lin g flexibility to p e rm it lib ra ria n absences, o r t h a t li­ b ra ria n s fro m la rg e lib ra rie s m o re o ften feel th e n eed to get a w a y is n o t a n issue th a t is easily d e te r­ m in e d . I t is clear, h o w ev e r, th a t som e rela tio n sh ip exists. L ib ra ria n s u n d e r p ressu re to a tte n d a n d to c o n ­ tr ib u te to ALA do so m o re re g u la rly th a n those w h o a re n o t u n d e r pressure. H o w ev er, it is also n o te ­ w o rth y t h a t even a t fa c u lty sta tu s in s titu tio n s , few er th a n 50 % of th e referen ce lib ra ria n s are a c ­ tive in ALA. C o n tra ry to p re d ic tio n , lib ra ria n s living close to c o n fe re n c e c e n te rs a t t e n d c o n fe re n c e s less f r e ­ q u e n tly th a n those w h o h av e to tra v e l to get th e re . As in d ic a te d previously, th e lib ra rie s close to c o n ­ ferences in this sam p le also te n d e d to b e sm aller, a n d this o v erlap m a y a c c o u n t in p a r t fo r th e fig­ ures. I t is also possible th a t resp o n d en ts w e re n o t considering single o r h a lf-d a y visits w h e n asked h o w m a n y lib ra ria n s a tte n d ALA on a re g u la r b a ­ sis. O th e r possible ex p lan atio n s a re a llu d e d to in o th e r sections of this article. Coping w ith shortages T h e survey first sou g h t to d e te rm in e th e o verall level of co ncern w ith referen ce desk sta ffin g d u rin g conferences. F o u r g en e ra l scenarios w e re o ffered as response options. E a c h resp o n d e n t w as asked to choose th e one t h a t best reflec ted th e g en e ra l te n o r in his or h e r d e p a rtm e n t. In a d d itio n to th e to ta l n u m b e r of responses fo r ea ch scenario, T a b le 2 also lists h o w m a n y of those responses ca m e fro m in sti­ tu tio n s w ith a la rg e r sta ff size, in stitu tio n s w h ic h are close to conferences on a re g u la r basis, a n d in- T A B L E 1 R E F E R E N C E LIB R A R IA N S W IT H A LA C O M M IT M E N T S AND A T T E N D IN G ALA R E G U L A R L Y BASED O N ST A F F S IZ E , C O N F E R E N C E P R O X IM IT Y , AND P R O F E S S IO N A L PR ESSU R E. N u m b e r of L ib ra ria n s w ith ALA C o m m itm e n ts A tte n d in g ALA All In stitu tio n s 123 32 (26% ) 54 (44% ) S taff size 6 -8 54 12 (22% ) 22 (41% ) 9 -1 3 69 20 (29% ) 32 (46% ) C o n feren c e P roxim ity Yes 50 8 ( 1 6 % ) 18 (36% ) No 73 24 (33% ) 36 (49% ) Professional Pressure Yes 67 22 (33% ) 33 (44% ) No 56 10 (18% ) 21 (38% ) M arch 1987 / 121 TABLE 2 N U M B ER O F LIBRARY RESPO N SES T O T H E Q U E S T IO N , “W H IC H O F T H E F O L L O W IN G BEST D E SC R IB E S YOUR S IT U A T IO N ?” T o ta l L a rg e Close W ith Pressure H as w o rk e d o u t n a tu ra lly 4 2 2 1 H av e m a n a g e d to a rra n g e am o n g individuals 8 3 4 4 H av e h a d to sh o rt-staff o r lim it a tte n d a n c e 2 1 1 2 H av e overtaxed those w h o stay 0 0 0 0 stitu tio n s w ith professional pressure to p a rtic ip a te . O n ly tw o o u t of fo u rte e n lib rarie s experience m u c h d ifficu lty in this re g a rd . T h e seven schools a t w h ic h lib ra ria n s a re u n d e r pressure to a tte n d are slightly m o re in clin ed to h av e to m a k e a rra n g e ­ m ents. N eith er d e p a rtm e n t n o r size n o r proxim ity ap p e ars to affect responses to this general question. W h e n asked a b o u t specific m easures ta k e n to keep th e re fe re n c e desks sta ffe d d u rin g c o n fe r­ ences, only th re e in stitu tio n s said th ey do n o t use an y e x tra o rd in a ry m easures a t all. T w o institu tio n s use as m a n y as fo u r of th e options displayed in T a ­ ble 3. I t is c o m fo rtin g th a t no n e of these institu tio n s h av e h a d to tell a lib ra ria n n o t to go to a co n fer­ ence, a lth o u g h it is a p p a re n t by th e n u m b e r of co n feren ce–goers w h o re tu rn early a n d /o r a tte n d for only h a lf o r single days th a t th e pressure to “a r ­ ra n g e a m o n g in d iv id u als” is felt a t m o re th a n h a lf th e institutions. O n ly in th e sm aller d e p a rtm e n ts do lib ra ria n s a tte n d ALA for h a lf or single days. L a rg e r in stitu ­ tions a p p e a r to b e ab le to get help from o th e r d e ­ p a rtm e n ts m o re easily. A b o u t tw o -th ird s of b o th sm all a n d la rg e lib rarie s use sh o rt-staffin g a n d in ­ creased p arap ro fessio n al sta ffin g as options. In s titu tio n s close to co n feren ces m a k e u p th e o v erw h elm in g m a jo rity of those th a t short-staff a n d /o r use lib ra ria n s from o th e r d e p a rtm e n ts. N ot surprisingly, th e y are th e only ones th a t h av e li­ b ra ria n s a tte n d in g for single or h a lf days. P roxim ­ ity does n o t a p p e a r to affect th e use of p a ra p ro fe s­ sionals or people r e tu rn in g ea rly from conferences: responses are eq u a lly d iv id ed in this category. N one of th e in stitu tio n s w ith pressure to a tte n d re p o rt using lib ra ria n s fro m o th e r d e p a rtm e n ts. T hese lib ra ria n s seem to p re fe r in creasin g th e n u m ­ b e r of paraprofessionals serving on th e desk, w ith som e in d iv id u als asked to re tu rn early , o r sh o rt­ staffin g if necessary. M any reasons for this choice can b e im ag in ed . P erh ap s it is a reflection of in ­ creased fu n c tio n sp ecializatio n in these libraries. P erh ap s th e lib ra ria n s in o th e r d e p a rtm e n ts are also too active a t professional conferences to be av aila b le to assist on th e referen ce desk. I t is also conceivable th a t these lib raries a lre a d y use m o re paraprofessionals on th e desk th a n o th e r lib raries a n d th e re fo re te n d to rely m o re on th e m th a n on colleagues from o th e r d e p a rtm e n ts . In an y case it is a p p a re n t t h a t th e choices m a d e by la rg e r, faculty- status in stitu tio n s are significantly d iffe re n t from th e choices m a d e by sm aller schools th a t are close to conference sites. Priorities for attendance T h e last survey question asked w h e th e r o r n o t p rio rities for conference a tte n d a n c e h a d to b e es­ ta b lish e d a n d , if so, h o w questions of a tte n d a n c e w ere resolved. W h ile no in stitu tio n s h av e h a d to d en y som eone a tte n d a n c e , som e in stitu tio n s are forced to schedule in d iv id u als for p a rtic u la r days. Several h av e in stitu tio n a l policies in th e ev en t a conflict should arise. N ine in stitu tio n s, ho w ev er, re p o rte d no need, as yet, to set such p rio rities. A m ong th e five in stitu ­ tions th a t h av e p rio rity systems, several d e te rm in ­ ing c rite ria w ere used to c re a te th e m . T h e n u m b e r of in stitu tio n s in each categ o ry re p o rtin g th e use of each c rite rio n is listed in T a b le 4. N one of th e th re e c o n trib u to ry factors (staff size, c o n fe re n c e p ro x im ity , o r p ro fessio n al pressure) seem s to a ffe c t th e se ch o ices. M ost w h o m u st choose seem to agree th a t fu rth e rin g o n e’s k n o w l­ edge or professional statu s are th e m ost im p o rta n t c rite ria , w ith fairness ru n n in g a close second. T A B L E 3 N U M B ER O F LIB R A R IE S E M P L O Y IN G EX TR A O R D IN A R Y S T A F F IN G M EASURES T o ta l L a rg e Close W ith Pressure S h o rt-staff 7 2 5 2 Use m o re paraprofessionals 10 4 4 5 R e q u ire som e lib ra ria n s to re tu rn ea rly 5 3 2 3 L im it som e lib ra ria n s to h a lf or single days 4 0 4 1 Use lib ra ria n s from o th e r d e p a rtm e n ts 4 1 3 0 Refuse som eone a tte n d a n c e 0 0 0 0 122 / C & R L N ew s TABLE 4 P R IO R IT Y SYSTEMS U SED BY LIB R A R IES T O D E T E R M IN E W H IC H LIBRARIANS A T T E N D C O N F E R E N C E S T o ta l L arg e Close W ith Pressure H av e n o t n eeded to set p rio rities 9 5 5 4 C o m m itte e m em bers/officers given p referen ce 4 1 2 3 R elevance of sessions to job 3 0 2 2 F airness based on previous a tte n d a n c e 1 1 0 1 N ew lib ra ria n s given p referen ce 1 0 0 1 A lp h ab e tiz ed ro ta tio n 1 0 0 0 F irs t com e first serve 0 0 0 0 Other factors T h re e ad d itio n a l factors w ere m e n tio n e d by re ­ spondents as c o n trib u tin g to th e ir a b ility to staff th e referen ce desk ad e q u a te ly d u rin g conferences. Five in stitu tio n s (of w h ic h four w e re sm aller in sti­ tu tio n s, th re e w ere close to conferences, a n d tw o h a d fa c u lty statu s o r p ro m o tio n docum ents) m e n ­ tio n e d insufficient tra v e l funds as a reaso n fo r th e lack of co m p etitio n to a tte n d . U n fo rtu n a te ly this facto r w as n o t in c lu d ed as a survey question: it w o u ld b e in te re stin g to see if th e com m on-sense supposition th a t facu lty statu s in stitu tio n s p ro v id e b e tte r tra v e l fu n d in g holds tru e . P erh ap s w e w o u ld find th a t cost ra th e r th a n p ro x im ity is th e tru e ac ­ cessibility issue w h e n it com es to a tte n d in g c o n fe r­ ences. A second fa c to r, ag a in p e rtin e n t a t five in s titu ­ tions (four sm aller in stitu tio n s, th re e close to co n ­ ferences, a n d th re e u n d e r pressure to a tte n d ), is th a t th e m a jo r conferences te n d to fall d u rin g in ­ te rim a n d su m m er sessions. A t these tim es resp o n ­ d e n ts r e p o r t fe e lin g less u n c o m f o r ta b le s h o r t­ s ta ffin g th e desk a n d /o r m a k in g g re a te r use of paraprofessionals. It is n o te w o rth y th a t d u rin g th e interview s, each lib r a r ia n ’s to n e of voice clearly in ­ d ic a te d re g re t in h a v in g to ta k e a c h a n c e on co m ­ p ro m isin g th e q u a lity of referen ce service. A th ird fa c to r, m e n tio n e d b y fo u r in stitu tio n s (three sm all, tw o close to conferences, a n d one fac­ u lty status), is th a t n o t everyone a tte n d s th e sam e conferences. Some p re fe r sta te a n d regional c o n fer­ ences to ALA w h ile o thers p re fe r subject-specific conferences. W h e th e r o r n o t this p e rc e p tio n re p re ­ sents a tre n d to w a rd d e c e n tra liz a tio n a n d /o r spe­ cializatio n w o u ld m a k e a n in te re stin g stu d y in its o w n rig h t. Conclusion In c o n d u c tin g th e survey w e h o p ed to fin d a n in ­ stitu tio n w ith a novel, successful solution a d a p t­ ab le to o u r conference staffin g d ile m m a a t N o rth ­ w estern . In ste a d , w e fo u n d th a t m ost in stitu tio n s do n o t y e t p e rc e iv e th e p r o b le m to b e c r itic a l en o u g h to w a r r a n t fo rm a l policies. A co m b in a tio n of juggling acts has e n a b le d m ost referen ce d e p a rt­ m en ts to get by. I t seems t h a t few in stitu tio n s sh are th e u n fo rtu n a te c o n fig u ratio n th a t N o rth w e ste rn does: th e y are a sm all university, close to m a jo r conferences on a re g u la r basis, a n d o p e ra tin g u n ­ d e r a m e rit system based p a rtia lly on professional activities. H o w ev er, all of th e lib ra ria n s c o n ta c te d a re co n cern ed th a t staffin g th e referen ce desk d u r ­ in g conferences m a y becom e a g re a te r p ro b le m in th e n e a r fu tu re if staff cu tb ack s c o n tin u e, if airlin e fares re m a in low , a n d if lib ra ria n s c o n tin u e to be en co u rag ed to serve th e profession outside th e ir o w n institutions. As referen ce d e p a rtm e n ts g ra p p le w ith this is­ sue, w e m u st look for options th a t consider th e needs of in d iv id u al lib ra ria n s, th e needs of o u r in ­ stitu tio n s, a n d th e needs of o u r users. O u r profes­ sional ethics re q u ire us to b e service-oriented, b u t th ey also re q u ire th a t w e m a in ta in a hig h level of co m petence a n d c o n trib u te to th e d ev e lo p m e n t of lib ra ria n sh ip . B a lan cin g these responsibilities d e ­ m an d s h a r d choices a n d sacrifices. As w e p la n for conferences in th e fu tu re , w e should re m e m b e r th a t w e are n o t discussing “g ettin g b y ” tw o weeks o u t of th e year; w e a re asking ourselves th e b ro a d e r question: To w h a t degree should th o ro u g h , im m e ­ d ia te , q u a lity reference service b e co m p ro m ised for th e lo n g -term professional d ev e lo p m e n t of lib r a r i­ ans? ■ ■ W hat are you looking for? W h a t types of articles o r in fo rm a tio n w o u ld you like to see in C ollege & Research Libraries N ew s? A re th e re a n y p ra c tic a l aspects of a c a ­ dem ic or research lib ra ria n sh ip th a t should be addressed in these pages? O r p e rh a p s a b ro a d to p ic su m m arize d ? T h e e d ito r w a n ts to know . C a n you reco m m en d a colleague kn o w led g e­ able in a c e rta in aspect of a c ad e m ic o r research lib ra ria n sh ip w h o m ig h t be w illin g to c o n trib ­ u te an in fo rm a l or p ra c tic a l a rtic le to C & R L N ew s? P lease send a rtic le s, suggestions a n d c o m m e n ts to: G eo rg e M . E b e r h a r t, E d ito r , C & R L N e w s, A C R L /A L A , 50 E . H u ro n S t., C h icag o , IL 60611-2795. We Are Professionals We a t E B S a r e d e d i c a t e d to providing libraries w ith th e f a s t e s t serv ice, th e b e s t d is c o u n ts , b u t a b o v e all, th e accuracy a library demands. With all this in your favor you owe it to y o u r s e lf to try us …