ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries July /August 1983 / 235 year. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) is sponsoring with ACRL the Samuel Lazerow F el­ lowship for outstanding contributions to acquisi­ tions or technical services in an academic or re­ search library. The award, presented for the first time at Annual Conference in Los Angeles, will provide practicing librarians a fellowship for re­ search, travel, or writing. A second award co-sponsored by ISI is the ACRL Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship. The purpose of this fellowship is to foster research in academic li­ brarianship by encouraging and assisting doctoral students with their dissertation research. It too was awarded for the first time in Los Angeles. W h a t L ie s A h e a d It should not require an accurate psychic to fore­ see our immediate future. The economy might be rebounding, but it is going very slowly, and higher education is not one of the growth areas in that economy. As a profession we will have to find bet­ ter and more compelling ways to articulate our contributions to our parent institutions and to the public at large. W e need to identify and delete those activities done by tradition alone, and focus on and communicate those that have the highest payoff to our profession. Librarians cannot be all things to all people; we must use our resources judi­ ciously. Most importantly, we need to be sure that the choices we have made are relevant to the per­ ceived needs of our users and our funding agencies. The Association of College and Research L i­ braries needs to make those same decisions, so that we can continue to serve and advance our profes­ sion wherever the economy may lead. ■ ■ Humanities Programs for Libraries: An ACRL/NEH Workshop Paula Elliot Humanities Reference Librarian Kansas State University April on the shores of Lake Mendota, Wisconsin, was its own season, ’mid winter and spring, and a low gray sky wrapped the Yahara Center in a com­ fortable isolation. The setting was entirely condu­ cive to the activity of the ACRL/NEH workshop on humanities programming, where librarians and humanists gathered to learn from the experts, and from each other, the ways in which the National Endowment for the Humanities makes funds avail­ able for library programs. Twenty-five institutions were represented (in most cases) by an academic li­ brarian and a faculty humanist. They met with ex­ perienced consultants and NEH representatives for two days of discussion and practice, which focused on the writing of grant proposals to enhance and promote libraries’ humanities holdings. The workshop was the last of a series of four made possible by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The first two were held in late 1981 and early 1982, in Massachusetts and California, respectively (the latter was reported on by George Eberhart in CirRL News, May 1982, pp. 169-72). Following their successful completion, ACRL re­ submitted its proposal for two additional work­ shops, which were funded by a grant for $62,423, and were held this year in New Orleans and Madi­ son. The gracious and informal setting of the Yahara Center established the friendly atmosphere for the conference. Librarians and their humanist team­ mates were barely distinguishable one from an­ other. It was initially entertaining to try to guess which of a pair was the librarian, but it soon be­ came refreshingly evident that such a distinction was unimportant. A collaborative spirit, some­ times missed on our own campuses, was greatly ev­ ident. Participants introduced themselves to the group by relating what special interest had brought each team to the workshop. Concerns ranged from public policy to regional history, women’s studies to musical comedy. Many came to the workshop with programs in mind, and were eager for infor­ mation on implementation. All were committed to the promotion of the humanities; all recognized the vital worth of public programming. The workshop director was Peggy O ’Donnell, Chicago library consultant, who coupled her own experience at grant writing with organizational and teaching skills to produce a combination of lec­ tures, panel discussions, and role-playing. Open­ ing the first session with the assurance that “Money is available,” she went on to describe the work of the NEH as a funding agency for programs aimed at the out-of-school adult public. Grant applica­ tions have diminished due to inflated rumors of budget cutbacks. ACRL staff on hand were Sandy Whiteley, program officer, and Barbara Macikas, continuing education officer. Their advance plan­ ning and on-the-spot coordinating efforts moved events along smoothly. Huel Perkins, assistant vice-chancellor for aca­ demic affairs, Louisiana State University, deliv­ 236 / C&RL News ered a rousing address vindicating the preservation and the promotion of the humanities in American life. He reminded his audience that, unlike the sci­ ences, the study of the humanities is “not so much an increase in kn ow led g e as an increase in insight,” and that both are essential to the survival of democ­ racy. A grant-writing veteran, he further contrib­ uted his perceptions of the process, along with Jes­ sie Smith and Gregory Stevens. Smith, as director of the Fisk University Library, Nashville, success­ fully implemented the NEH-funded program, “Themes in the Black American Experience,” which provided three years of cultural events to the N ashville and Fisk U niversity com m unities. Stevens, as director of the Capital District Human­ ities Program, administers NEH funds in a variety of educational offerings, in the Albany, New York, region. In the absence of program officer Tom Phelps, Abbie Cutter represented the Endowment. Cutter, whose NEH specialty is the museum program, pre­ sented an overview of NEH grant opportunities for libraries. She then spoke specifically about the cri­ teria for a stong proposal, emphasizing clarity at every juncture. She noted that it is important to de­ fine explicitly a program theme, target audience, resource people, and use of library resources. All panelists reiterated this admonition. From the Wisconsin Humanities Council, executive director Pat Anderson provided a view of humanities pro­ gramming at the state level. Her contribution placed state activities in the larger context of the NEH, and provided some ideas for smaller-scale programs which librarians might develop with state funds. After absorbing many suggestions and caveats from the panelists, participants were ready to go to work themselves. Each participant was assigned to a small group which represented a planning com­ mittee. A staff member assisted, and a recorder- reporter was chosen. When presented with a writ­ ten description of a certain academ ic library situation (e.g., large urban, community college, small rural), each group’s collective imagination blossomed. It was the task of the group to devise a library- based program highlighting certain special collec­ tions which were outlined in the description. Though the written descriptions were moderately detailed, participants, warming to the task, rel­ ished the opportunity to embroider each situation to suit their fancies. Some witty exchanges oc­ curred. W hat also occurred, as the session pro­ gressed, was a deepening seriousness, and a genu­ ine response to the panelists’ suggestions. In the group with the philospher present, the incisive question constantly arose: “Does this idea, this pro­ posed program, this theme, have real humanistic value?” The refrain was crucial. (A by-product of the group sessions was a taste of the committee ex­ perience with its attendant accords and difficul­ ties.) Halfway through the planning process, the groups reported to one another and to the “NEH”— as played by the panel of experts— for feedback and suggestions. At this point not one proposal was considered fundable, although all were promising. Hearing about one another’s process gave fuel to the second group session, where revisions and refinements were made. Upon a second reporting, the hypo­ thetical situations had become richly embellished, and great care had been taken to justify the human­ ities content of every program. Lectures interspers­ ing the group sessions included one on the utiliza­ tion of fa cu lty hum anist consultants in the planning stages, and another on budgeting the pro­ posal. After a third group session, in response to the improvements, the panel expressed the possibility of funding each group’s project. For a majority of participants, this simulation technique provided an excellent opportunity to discover the planning process, and to reinforce information heard earlier from the panel. Another amenity of the workshop was the eve­ ning time spent in conversation, over ample re­ freshments, in the homey Yahara lounge. Work­ shop staff were available to discuss individual programming concerns. Also in these moments, participants could exchange ideas and compare notes, coming away from the workshop richer not only for the intended contents, but also for that NEH Offers Program Development Grants The National Endowment for the Humani­ ties has announced that the next deadline for applications for a program development grant is August 1, 1983, for any project beginning af­ ter April 1, 1984. Project applications must be received at the Endowment’s offices by the es­ tablished deadline date. Future application deadlines are February 6 ,1 9 8 4 , for projects be­ ginning after October 1, 1984; and August 6, 1984, for projects beginning after April 1,1985. NEH encourages proposals in the following areas: 1) the history, theory, and criticism of the arts; 2) the interpretation of literature; and 3) the 200th anniversary of the U.S. Constitu­ tion. Academic or research libraries consider­ in g public programs in any of these areas are el­ igible to apply. L ectu res, discussions, conferences, films, short radio broadcasts, small interpretive exhibits, theatrical produc­ tions, and essays in newspapers have all been tested and evaluated in previous NEH-funded projects. To receive a complete set of guidelines and application forms, call or write the NEH Office of Special Projects, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N .W ., W ashington, DC 20506; (202) 786- 0271. July/August 1983 / 237 glimpse of a larger professional world which such a meeting inherently offers. It is safe to speculate that, NEH-funded or not, many new program ideas are likely to be tried at the libraries of those institutions represented in Madison. The April workshop was the last ACRL/NEH event on humanities programming for academic li­ braries. Related programs are envisioned for the future, but these are still in the proposal stage. The previous workshops all emphasized the accessibil­ ity of the National Endowment for the Humani­ ties, and encouraged librarians to utilize existing public funds in order to bring their public the hu­ manistic experience. ■ ■ The Librarian As Library User: A Personal Comment Mina Ja n e G rothey Ibero-A m erican R eferen ce Librarian University o f N ew Mexico We librarians speak fervently about our goal to serve the users of our libraries. Yet how many of us are library users ourselves, both of our own library and other libraries in our community? If we are li­ brary users, do we utilize our experiences to make our libraries easier to use? Too often the attitude is, “If I can find it, why can’t they?” We have forgot­ ten how much trouble we had the first time we tried to find the same thing. For the past few years I have been doing research on liberation theology in Latin America. My pri­ mary goal has been to discover the best sources for locating current English-language materials on the subject. As a reference librarian, I could feel com­ fortable on both sides of the desk. I had not realized the difference between my attitude to the library as a librarian and as a user until, when checking a list of promising articles, I found myself muttering, “ W e don’t have any of the good jo u rn a ls.” I stopped and chuckled as I remembered how many times I had heard users saying the same thing! From behind the desk my reply was always sym­ pathetic as I suggested that a user request articles through interlibrary loan. From in front of the desk I felt the same frustration, maybe even more so. Since I knew the state of the serials budget, I also knew that the chances of adding to the collection were very slim. Even if we did add the journals now, we could not afford the backfiles containing those great articles from two years ago. Do I always take the time to explain the limita­ tions of interlibrarv loan? For example, how long it takes to fill a request or the fact that some items may not be loaned at all. Our library has begun a procedure whereby we will request items for un­ dergraduates through interlibrary loan, not only if they have a note from their professor, but also if they get the signature of a reference librarian. This procedure has made me much more aware of the importance of speaking to users about their needs before sending them to interlibrary loan. There is always a chance that the library might own some­ thing that will help but the user knows nothing about it. I had always thought of myself as a library user as well as a librarian. I have used and supported the local public library in communities where I have lived. This use has been for recreational reading and as an alternate source for general information. Now I realize that finding out what other libraries in the area have in their collections and what ser­ vices they provide can aid me in making referrals. When I worked on a subject master’s degree a few years after completing my MLS, I was amazed at how much easier it was for me to complete as­ signments requiring use of the library. Just under­ standing the basics of how a library functions was a great asset, although this headstart did not elimi­ nate all the problems. In fact I ended up giving in­ formal library instruction to my classmates. This instruction helped me to realize that know­ ing how to use the library and really using it can be two different things. Just being aware of the filing rules for the card catalog is a great advantage. Knowing that cards can be misfiled or the title card can be missing should make it a routine procedure to go that little bit farther in searching for a book. Do I always carry this knowledge over when help­ ing a user? As a librarian I usually don’t hesitate to ask if I need help in finding something. With others this is not always the case. A commonly acknowledged problem is how to create an atmosphere around the reference desk that welcomes questions. One as­ pect of this problem I have encountered is that the work I do at the desk will create the impression that I am too busy to be bothered. On the other hand, just sitting and waiting for questions gives the im­ pression that I don’t have enough work to do. Being aware of people in the area and watching for signs that they need help takes a conscious effort that goes a long way toward creating an appropriate at­ mosphere. One of the most popular library cliches says that library instruction has the greatest impact on a per­ son who needs it the most. The same principle