ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 780/C & R L News The future of reference II A panel discussion held at the University o f Texas at Austin, Spring 1989. A second p rogram on th e fu tu re o f r e f e r ­ ence, “A Paradigm of A cadem ic L ibrary O rganization,’’was held at th e U niversity o f at Austin G en eral L ibraries du rin g th e Spring of 1989. W h ere th e first p rogram (see C & R L N ew s, O c to b e r 1988, pp. 578 -8 9 ) looked at th e n e e d for th e re fe re n c e desk and its associated p ro ce d u re s, th e second program expanded this exam ination of reference services to include an entirely n ew p ara- digm, or m odel, o f service. T h e p rogram was sp o n so red by th e G e n e ral L ibrary’s R e fe re n c e and In fo rm atio n Services C o m m ittee. T h e a tte n d e e s in clu d ed academ ic li­ brarians and adm inistrators from th e G e n e ral Li­ braries and th e T arlton Law Library, librarians from th e c e n tral Texas area, library school faculty and stu d e n ts, paraprofessionals, and gen eral fac­ ulty and students. T T h e keynote address was given by F rancis Miksa, professor, G rad u ate School o f L ibrary and eIxnafso rm a tio n Science. His rem arks w ere follow ed by responses from Lynne Brody, h e a d librarian of th e U n d e rg ra d u a te Library, and C heryl K nott M alone, re fe re n c e librarian, P erry-C astañeda L i­ brary R eference Services D e p a rtm en t, b o th at th e U niversity o f Texas at Austin. T h e ir p resen tatio n s w ere followed by a discussion betw een m em bers of th e audience and th e panel th at continued w ellpast th e sc h ed u le d e n d o f th e session. T h e th re e a d ­ d resses a n d a sum m ary o f th e a u d ie n c e ’s com ­ m ents by W illiam K opplin, 1988/89 ch a ir o f th e R e fe re n c e and In fo rm atio n Services C o m m ittee, are p re s e n te d here. The future of reference II: A paradigm o f academic library organization By Francis Miksa Professor, G raduate School o f L ib ra ry a nd Inform ation Science U niversity o f Texas a t A u stin My p urpose h e re is to com m ent on th e fu tu re of th e academ ic rese a rc h library. In m aking th e se com m ents, I will assum e w hat alm ost no on e will deny, th a t libraries in g en eral a n d academ ic r e ­ search libraries in p a rticu la r are going th ro u g h a p e rio d o f significant change. In this light, my task will b e tw ofold— first, to c h a ra c te riz e th e change th at is taking place; and second, to explore im plica­ October 1989/781 tions o f th a t change for th e fu tu re .1 Scores o f p ro n o u n c e m e n ts a n d analyses have been m ade co ncerning changes taking place in o u r field. Some have b e e n friendly and sensitive tow ard libraries, som e hostile. M any have te n d e d to focus on only o n e or a n o th e r o f th e e n v iro n m e n ts in which libraries o p e ra te on, for exam ple, th e irte c h - nological e n v iro n m en t or on th e ir political or eco ­ nom ic e n v iro n m en ts. M any have also c o n c lu d e d th at th e u ltim a te cause o f th e changes is th e p o st- W orld W ar I I a d v e n t o f th e in fo rm a tio n era. All such p ro n o u n ce m en ts and analyses c o n trib ­ u te to w hat has b e e n a lively d e b a te a b o u t th e nature o f th e library’s work, b u t in my opinion th ey have not gone far enough. I see change taking place in our field at a far m ore substantive level than m ost such analyses have sug g ested , at th e level o f w hat may be called th e o p e ra tio n a l p a ra d ig m o f o u r work. A p a rad ig m is a p a tte rn , especially a typical p a tte rn , o f b eh a v io r a n d re la tio n sh ip s. T hom as K uhn p o p u la riz e d th e te rm by applying it to th e way scientific discovery a n d advance is acco m ­ p lished.2 H e re , I will apply it to th e way lib ra ries op erate and, especially, to th e basic assu m p tio n s that librarians b rin g to th e ir w ork a n d w hich shape th e ir activities. It is at this level th a t lib raries in general, and academ ic research libraries in p articu ­ lar, are experiencing significant change. The library paradigm T h e p a rad ig m o r p a tte rn th a t inform s th e w ork of academ ic re s e a rc h lib ra ries can b e asc e rta in e d by exam ining d e fin itio n s o f th e te rm “lib ra ry .” At the core o f all such definitions is th e existence o f a collection. A lib rary is first a n d fo re m o st a collec­ tion of th e g rap h ic rec o rd s, know ledge rec o rd s, docum ents (or w h a te v er w e m ay choose to call th e things collected) o f hum ankind. O f course, a library is n o t ju st any kind o f collection; b ookstores, for exam ple, o r a s e c re ta ry ’s filing c a b in e t, a re also 1C hange may b e view ed on m ore th an one level. O ne may, for exam ple, speak o f it as a series o f specific changes re g a rd in g policies, actions, etc. ad o p ted by social in stitu tio n s at various tim es and places. O ne m ay also speak o f it as I a tte m p t to do h ere as a change at th e level o f beliefs a n d assum p­ tions w h e re th e e sse n c e o f o n e ’s view o f th e p u r ­ pose a n d n a tu re o f th e in stitu tio n is at stake. This level o f analysis is obviously m o re subjective. I t is rela te d to a n d m u st b e b a sed on an a p p reciatio n o f specific real-w orld changes b u t re q u ire s id en tify ­ ing essential p attern s o f aprofession’s self-view th at u n d e rlie th e m ore specific. 2Thomas S. Kuhn, Structure o f Scientific Revolu­ tions, 2 d ed. F o u n d a tio n s o f th e U n ity o f Science series, vol. 2, no. 2 (Chicago: University o f Chicago, Phoenix Books, 1970). collections o f sim ilar kinds o f things. T hus, o th e r req u irem e n ts are ordinarily a dded to th e basic idea in o r d e r to clarify th e definition. F o r exam ple, th e E n cyclo p ed ia B rita n n ica states th a t a library is “a collectio n o f books g a th ­ e re d for purposes o f reading, study o r re fe re n c e .”3 H e re , th e n a tu r e o f th e use o f th e co llection is e m p h a siz e d b u t little else. Jo h n so n a n d H a rris go som ew hat further. In attem p tin g to distinguish th e library from o th e r kinds o f collections, th ey define a lib rary as “a collection o f g raphic m aterials a r­ ra n g e d for relatively easy use, c a re d for by an individual o r individuals fam iliar with th a t arrange­ m en t, a n d available for use by at least a lim ited n u m b e r o f persons.4 H e re , th e id e a o f o rg a n iz in g th e collection so as to facilitate its use com es o u t strongly, as does th e id e a o f m anaging th e co llection by a specialized staff. B ut th e nature of th e use is only im plied— one supposes re p e a te d use, n o t use w h e re th e supply o f d o c u m e n ts dw indles w ith p u rc h a s e as in a b o o k ­ s to re — a n d u se rs are d e s c rib e d only in a vague n u m erica l sense. Finally, th e ALA G lossary states th a t a library is “a collection o f m aterials organized to provide physical, bibliographic, a n d in tellectual access to a ta rg e t group, w ith a sta ff tra in e d to provide services a n d program s re la te d to th e in fo r­ m ation need s o f th e targ e t group.”5 H e re , stress is laid on all o f th e e le m en ts spoken o f so far— on th e collection, including its organiza­ tio n , use, and users (now a ra tio n aliz e d “ta rg e t g ro u p ”), and on th e existence a n d role o f a tra in e d staff. R egardless o f how th e s e d efin itio n s vary, th e ce n tral p o in t in each rem ains th e sam e. A library, if anything, is a collection. I f th e r e is no collection, th e re is no library. This assum ption is fundam ental to th e paradigm and leads us to abstractly p o rtray it as d isplayed in F ig u re 1. Viewing th e paradigm as first o f all a collection is im p o rta n t b e c au se it zeros in on th e p o in t w h ere librarians typically begin th e ir considerations about w h at w ork is to b e done. T h e co llection serves as a focus p o in t, a c e n tral b e g in n in g poin t. All else, alth o u g h n o t u n im p o rta n t, sim ply follows from it; all else is derivative; all else is p e rip h e ra l. T h e collection as th e focus, th e beg in n in g poin t in m en tally p a tte rn in g o n e ’s w ork, is so pow erful E n c y c lo p e d ia Britannica, 15th ed. (“M acrope- dia”) s.v. “L ibrary.” 4E lm e r D . Johnson and M ichael H. H arris, H is­ to ry o f L ib ra ries in th e W este rn W o rld , 3 rd ed. (M e tu c h en , N.J.: S carecro w P ress, 1976), 3. 5The A L A Glossary o f L ib ra ry a n d Inform ation Science, e d ite d by H e a rtsill Y oung (Chicago: A m erican L ib rary A ssociation, 1983), s.v. “L i­ b rary ” (definition 1). 782/C & R L News Fig. 1. O lderparadigm . th a t everything else te n d s to be th o u g h t o f and arran g ed in refe re n c e to it. C onsider, for exam ple, how libraries are usually o rganized, th e functions and processes o f th e ir various elem ents. Bibliogra­ p hy (selection and collection building) c reates th e collection a n d e n su res its vitality. T echnical serv­ ices d e p a rtm e n ts ac q u ire, o rganize, a n d h a n d le loan transactions re la te d to th e collection, each of th e s e activities b e in g m an ifestations o f in ventory co ntrol over th e collection. (A utom ation an d sys­ tem s w ork are c o n c en tra te d prim arily in this area.) Public services divisions prim arily help th e ta rg e t group m ake efficient use o f th e c o lle ctio n . (In this context, bibliographic in stru ctio n m eans teach in g patrons to use th e library— th a t is, to find things in th e collection. A nd in its prim eval sense, “re f e r ­ e n c e ,” figuratively speaking, m eans stan d in g b e ­ side th e u se r and pointing o u t or refe rrin g to item s w ithin th e collection. Finally, an ad m inistrative s u p e rs tru c tu re e n su re s th a t each o f th e s e fu n c ­ tional areas and th e ir respective processes rela te d to th e collection n o t only will w ork efficiently b u t will b e p rovided for by fun d in g sources. T h e collection as th e b e g in n in g p o in t also strongly affects o th e r aspects o f library w ork. F o r exam ple, th e collection focus typically provides a basis for evaluating and m easuring work. A library, especially an academ ic rese a rc h library, is not uncom m only ju d g e d first o f all by th e size o f its collections, by how m any u n iq u e item s have b e e n accum ulated in given fields o f knowledge. T e c h n i­ cal services operations typically m easure th eir work by how m any item s are p ro c e sse d and th e effi­ ciency by w hich th ey are h a n d le d , w hile public services, especially referen ce services, often m eas­ u re w ork in te rm s o f th e n u m b e r o f tran sactio n s m ade in re la tio n sh ip to th e collectio n — for ex­ am ple, factual questions h a n d le d by factual re fe r­ en c e works, bibliographical questio n s h a n d le d by bibliographical aids to th e collection, and so forth. Likew ise, library e d u c atio n p rogram s have tra d i­ tionally follow ed th e sam e p a tte rn , providing courses th a t shadow th e se sam e fu n ctio n al p ro c ­ esses— re fe re n c e , cataloging and classification, adm inistration, collection building, and th e like. I t is, o f co u rse, w ithin this c o lle c tio n -c e n te re d context th a t u sers in te ra c t w ith th e library and engage in know ledge tra n sfe r, in in fo rm a tio n r e ­ trieval. D o u b tless, th e role o f librarians in th a t tra n s fe r p ro cess varies greatly acco rd in g to th e ir personal com m itm ent and sensitivity to users. But, reg ard less o f such variations, th e position o f th e lib rarian in th e know ledge access activities o f th e u se r (and, as a corollary, th e position o f th e u se r in th e activity o f th e librarian) is significantly bounded by th e collection focus o f th e p aradigm . In short, lib ra rian s’ c onsiderations o f u sers are typically shaped by collection-centered concerns, collection issues providing a beginning point for thinking and u s e rs ’ n e e d s b e in g fra m ed chiefly in th a t context. This leads us to am end our abstract portrayal o f th e sense o f th e paradigm to th a t found in F igure 2, th e October 1989 1 783 Fig. 2. O ld er p a ra d ig m w ith directional arrow. a rrow in this p o rtra y al in te n d e d m ainly to tra c k a th o u g h t process th a t begins w ith th e collection and reach es o u t to th e u s e r only w ithin a fram ew o rk in w hich collection issues are central. T h e c h ie f e ffe c t o f this o rie n ta tio n lies in how lib rarian s te n d to c o n c e p tu a liz e o r th in k a b o u t users. It has b e e n my o b se rv a tio n th a t u se rs often rem ain relatively anonym ous, a m ore o r less u n d if­ fe re n tia te d mass o f p e rso n s or a set o f a m o rp h o u s groups. T he lack of differentiation w ithin particular groups a p p e ars to b e d ire c tly a ffe c te d by how forcefully th e lib ra ria n ’s w ork is sh a p e d by co lle c ­ tio n b u ild in g a n d m a in te n a n c e co n c ern s. (This is particularly th e case in acade mic rese a rc h libraries w h e re m any highly sp ecialized tasks allow little c o n ta c t w ith u sers.) F o r exam ple, it is m y o b se rv a ­ tio n th a t for m any w ho w ork in tec h n ic a l se n d ee s th e u sers o f th e lib ra ry a m o u n t to little m o re th a n m en ta l im ages o f fingers flip p in g catalo g card s or eyes view ing C R T d a ta e n trie s , an d h an d s p u llin g books o ff shelves. F o r m any oth e rs, u se rs at b e s t co n sist only o f a m o rp h o u s g e n e ra l g ro u p s such as u n d e rg ra d u a te s, g rad u a tes, professors, an d possi­ bly, university staff, w ith little to d iffe re n tia te in d i­ viduals o r sub g ro u p s w ithin th e larg er groups. O ccasional in te rac tio n s by som e librarians w ith individual u se rs m ight affect how any p a rtic u la r group is c o n c e p tu a liz e d a nd, th u s, allow th e m to partially b re a k this p a tte rn o f thinking. B ut g e n e r ­ ally such in te ra c tio n s are n o t p u r s u e d from th e stan d p o in t o f u sers’ in te g rate d know ledge-transfer n e e d s, n o r a re th e g roups s tu d ie d a n d re s tu d ie d system atically o v er tim e . O n e m ig h t d e d u c e th a t re fe re n c e librarians w ould have th e g rea test im p e ­ tus to carefully d istinguish b e tw e e n kinds o f users a n d th e c h a ra c te ristic s o f th e ir know ledge needs. In d e e d , som e have m ad e a tte m p ts to do ju s t th a t. B ut, it is m y ob serv atio n th a t even in th e s e cases extensive d iffe re n tia tio n is n o t usual. I c o n c lu d e th at th e operational paradigm sim ply d o e sn ’t m ake room for fin e r d istin ctio n s. W h e n all is said a n d done, th e business o f th e academ ic research library is m aking sure its collections are b u ilt and available a n d giving g u id an c e fo r th e ir u tilizatio n to th o se w ho com e to th e m . U sers a n d th e ir n e e d s play a role in this w ork, b u t only so far as g e n e ra liz e d assum ptions co n c ern in g th e m as u n d iffe re n tia te d groups fit c o lle c tio n -c e n te re d concerns. A nything else— for example, making finely tu n e d differentia­ tio n s o f u se rs a n d th e ir n e e d s — will g e n e ra lly d e ­ tra c t from o r cau se con flict in th e c e n tra l p u rp o se o f co lle ctio n b u ild in g , m a in te n a n c e , a n d use in te rm s o f tim e a n d p ro d u ctio n . N ow som e o f you will c o n c lu d e th a t th is p o r ­ trayal o f a lib rary p arad ig m is te rrib ly n a rro w or ev en h e a v y -h a n d e d a n d th a t, in p a rtic u la r, it does n o t give m uch place to y our own rich experience in d e a lin g w ith users. T his c onclusion is c o rre c t b u t 7 8 4 / C & R L N ew s only serves to point out the significance of identify­ ing an operational paradigm or pattern. A paradigm is an abstraction at base. It is an attem pt to identify the inner core o f behaviors and features. In every­ day life those behaviors will have a great deal of variety, some of which contradict the pattern iden­ tified. The purpose o f identifying the paradigm is not to deny that experience. Rather, it is to provide a benchmark, a beginning point against which vari­ ations m aybe measured. By identifying this core, therefore, we are not only able to examine the wellsprings of our daily work but to ask questions of significance about our work as it has existed over tim e. Two such questions of significance are: where and when did the paradigm arise in its present form? And, how has the academic research library adapted the paradigm to changing conditions since then? Paradigm source The paradigm, although having roots th at go back for centuries, is essentially the child of the late n in eteen th century m odern hbrary m ovem ent.6 T hat m ovem ent was prim arily rationalized as an educational endeavor, a partnership with public education then on the rise. Its aim was the m ental cultivation of the nation’s citizenry so as to ensure an enlightened democracy. The most fundamental assumptions of the movement w ere: first, that the development of the entire range of mental faculties 6A useful overview of the early years of the 19th- century American library movement and one that touches som eofthe following themes will be found in Wayne W iegand, T he P olitics o f an E m e r g in g Profession: T h e A m e r ic a n L ib r a r y A sso c ia tio n , 1 8 7 6 -1 9 1 7 , Contributions in Librarianship and In ­ formation Science, no. 56 (New York: G reen ­ wood Press, 1986), 3-74. More specific elabora­ tions of the very condensed rem arks h ere on the way the movement viewed its purpose and shaped its work, especially with respect to reading, biblio­ graphic tools, and bibliography, will be found in my own C harles A m m i C utter: L ib r a r y S y s te m a tize r , Heritage o f Librarianship series, no. 3 (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1977), 35-43; T he S u b ­ j e c t in th e D ic tio n a r y C a ta lo g fr o m C u tte r to th e P re se n t (Chicago: American Library Association, 1983), 37-44; “User Categories and User Convenience,” R eference L ib ra ria n 9 (Fall/Winter 1983): 113-32; “Melvil Dewey: The Professional Educator and his H eirs,” L ib r a r y T re n d s 34 (Win­ te r 1986): 359-81; “The Colum bia School of Li­ brary Economy, 1 8 8 7 -1 8 8 8 ,” L ib ra rie s & C u ltu re 23 (Summer 1988): 249-80; and “Information Ac­ cess R equirem ents: An Historical and F u tu re Perspective,” A d va n ces in L ib r a ry A u to m a tio n a n d N e tw o r k in g 2 (1988): 45-68. (i.e., both intellectual and moral capacities) resi­ d en t in people was especially d ependent on good reading; second, that good reading meant reading the best works written by the best minds; and third, th at such works had to be read according to the position of their subjects in the naturally systematic universe of publicly established knowledge. Given these assumptions, the tasks of the librarian fol­ lowed naturally. First, the librarian was to becom e a bibliogra­ pher—that is, learn the structure of the universe of knowledge with all its branches, departments, etc., and the best works within each part. Second, the librarian was to acquire and organize a collection of books and periodicals that represented the organ­ ized universe of knowledge, the “com prehensive­ ness” o f the collection, being how well it re p re ­ sented that universe ra th e r than its num ber of items. Third, by virtue of his or her mediating position between users and the collection (shelves w ere not ordinarily open to the public), the librar­ ian was to help users to those best works in a timely, careful way—that is, with sensitivity to each user’s progress in mental cultivation. Fourth, the librar­ ian was to pursue each of these tasks as efficiently as possible, efficiency being at the core o f Melvil Dewey’s special contribution to the developm ent o f the field. Adaptations o f the paradigm Since the late n ineteenth century, significant changes have affected th e paradigm. One such change was open shelf access, which swept the library field after 1890. The effect on library opera­ tions o f allowing patrons direct access to materials was immense. Bibliographical aids such as the cata­ log, the shelf classification, and the like, once p ro ­ vided principally for the librarian in his or her work o f reading guidance, were henceforth made p ri­ marily for the user as self-help tools. More im por­ tantly, the librarian, once in something of a mediat­ ing position between users and the collection, came to occupy a place symbolically alongside the user, the latter now engaged in his or her own search for knowledge. In this role, bibliography became “ref­ erence,” the act of pointing out or of referring users to works when asked. M oreover, with the user pursuing his or her own searches, reference took upon itself the additional task o f bibliographic in­ struction. Another change that affected the paradigm was the rise o f discipline-based academic research, w here the basic research model consisted of find­ ing out all that had been published on a topic to ensure the advance of that w ritten record. This change, which began in the university academic setting but spread to industrial and corporate set­ tings as well, becam e even m ore complex by the October 1 9 8 9 /7 8 5 continuous introduction o f new kinds o f knowledge records, especially a fte r th e 1930s. T his d e v e lo p ­ m ent in re s e a rc h m e th o d y ie ld e d tw o significant results— th e a d o p tio n o f a “d o c u m e n ta tio n ” a p ­ proach to supplying th e p u b lis h e d re c o rd to u sers and th e a c c e p ta n c e o f th e id e a th a t a p r o p e r r e ­ search lib rary sh o u ld a c q u ire a collectio n o f r e c ­ ords for th e a reas o f re s e a rc h b e in g su p p o rte d . In the latte r resp ect, th e m easure o f a com prehensive collection becam e one o f q u antity in relationship to the organized universe o f know ledge ra th e r th a n a “best w orks” re p re s e n ta tio n o f th e u n iv erse o f knowledge.7 The information era The m ost significant change th a t has affected th e paradigm , h ow ever, b e g a n d u rin g W o rld W a r II and is in p ro g re ss a t th e p r e s e n t tim e. As already noted, this c h an g e has typically b e e n d e s c rib e d as the advent o f th e in fo rm atio n era; a n d c o m m e n ta ­ tors on it have variously fo cu sed on such aspects o f it as 1) th e enorm ous increase in sh e er q u antity and kinds o f available in fo rm a tio n , esp ecially th a t which arises n o t as p u b lish ed m aterial b u t ra th e r as specially g e n e ra te d data; 2) a b ra n c h in g o u t in to different p a tte rn s o f inform ation use (for exam ple, “big sc ie n c e ” te a m re s e a rc h as o p p o se d to “little science” individual rese a rc h ; m ission o r p ro b le m - o rie n ted re s e a rc h as o p p o se d to d isc ip lin e -b a se d research; th e in stru m e n ta l use o f in fo rm a tio n as opposed to th e in te lle c tu a l o r p a s tim e uses o f knowledge, etc.); 3) th e w id e s p re a d a d o p tio n o f c o m m unication a n d c o m p u te r-b a s e d te c h n o lo ­ gies; and 4) a d e c id e d in te re st in m anaging th e flow of inform ation according to its econom ic value (for example, in strategies for inform ation m anagem ent and for th e su p p o rt o f decision-m aking).8 7Francis Miksa, Research Patterns a nd Research Libraries (D u b lin , Ohio: O C L C , 1987). 8In a d d itio n to th e w ork c ite d in th e prev io u s note, see also esp ecially V in cen t G iuliano, e t ah, Into the Inform ation Age: A Perspective f o r Federal A ction on In fo r m a tio n (A R e p o rt p r e p a r e d by A rthur D . L ittle , Inc. for th e N a tio n a l S cience Foundation) (Chicago: A m erican Library Associa­ tion, 1978) a n d R o b e rt S. T aylor, V a lu e -A d d e d Processes in In fo rm a tio n System s (N orw ood, N.J.: Ablex, 1986). T h e la tte r is p articularly useful for its emphasis on a u se r perspective a n d on th e econom ­ ics o f inform ation retrieval. “In stru m e n ta l,” “in te l­ lectu al,” a n d “p a s tim e ” cate g o rie s o f in fo rm a tio n are b a se d on th e w ork o f F ritz M achlup, as d is ­ cussed in F rancis Miksa, “M achlup’s C ategories o f K now ledge as a F ra m e w o rk for V iew ing L ib ra ry and In fo rm a tio n S cience H isto ry ,” J o u rn a l o f L i ­ brary H isto ry 20 (Spring 1985): 157-72. The information revolution as a user-centered perspective All o f th ese aspects o f th e inform ation revolution p ro v id e u se fu l insights in to th e c o n te x t a n d envi­ ro n m e n t in w hich th e a c ad e m ic re s e a rc h lib rary finds itself. I co n te n d , how ever, th a t in focusing on th e se aspects individually, th e essential core o f th e ch an g e has b e e n o b sc u re d . T h a t e sse n tia l co re o f ch an g e lies in th e discovery o f th e goal (and, to a grow ing e x te n t, th e m eans) o f m aking know ledge access m o re specifically resp o n siv e to p a rtic u la r know ledge tran sfer n e e d s . This is tru e regardless o f w h e th e r th e kn o w led g e tra n s fe r n e e d s a re ex­ p resse d by an individual or by groups o f individuals a n d reg a rd le ss o f th e c h a ra c te r o f th e use to be m ad e o f th e know ledge g ain ed . T h e in fo rm a tio n rev o lu tio n , in o th e r w ords, is n o t c e n te re d fu n d a ­ m en ta lly on th e types o r n u m b e rs o f know ledge rec o rd s available, n o r on th e o rie n ta tio n o f r e ­ se arc h , n o r on th e n a tu re o f th e tec h n o lo g y e m ­ ployed, no r on th e econom ics o f inform ation tra n s­ fer, alth o u g h all o f th e s e factors play a ro le in it. R a th e r, th e in fo rm a tio n rev o lu tio n pivots on achieving specificity, on tailo rin g in fo rm a tio n r e ­ trieval to th e specific inform ation tra n sfe r re q u ire ­ m en ts o f u se rs. In a s h o rth a n d way, w e m ight conveniently call this th e w id esp read adoption o f a u se r-c en te re d perspective.9 The effect of the information revolution on the library paradigm T h e principal effect o f th e rise o f a use r-c en te re d perspective has b e e n to cause a grow ing n u m b e r o f anom alies in th e lib ra ry p a rad ig m , an anom aly bein g a p a tte rn o f b ehavior th a t is n o t explained by th e basic paradigm (see F ig u re 3). O ne such an o m ­ aly consists o f th e a tte m p t to e x te n d collections translocally by such strategies as cooperative acqui- 9T ay lo r, V a lu e-A d d ed Processes in In form ation S y ste m s, 2 3 -4 7 , is an especially u sefu l survey o f u se rs’ decision contexts, although it is h e d g e d in by a ten d e n c y to see users in fairly w ell-defined organ­ izational settin g s r a th e r th a n in th e kinds o f op en - e n d e d situations com m on to g eneral libraries. T h e g e n e ra l id ea o f specificity in in fo rm a tio n retriev al n o t only re p re s e n ts m y own w ay o f p o in tin g o u t w h at I c o n c lu d e is th e m ost re m a rk a b le fe a tu re o f th e m o d e rn shift in lib ra ries b u t also c o n stitu te s a way to add perspective to those w ho focus prim arily on c o m p u te r tec h n o lo g y as th e m ajo r focus o f th e c h a n g es o c c u rrin g . O bviously, c o m p u te rs en a b le us to handle g reat bulks o f m aterials, to handle such m aterials quickly, and, w ith tele co m m u n ic a tio n s, to h a n d le th e m at a d ista n c e. B u t, in m y opinion, th a t is n o t th e ir m ost significant capacity. R ather, it is th e “specifying” capacity n o te d h e re . 786 / C& RL News Fig. 3. O lder p a radigm a n d anomalies. sitions, un io n catalogs, in te rlib ra ry loan, a n d th e like.10 * In its fullest expression, this ten d en cy tra n s­ form s th e library in to a sw itching station, w h e re d o cu m en ts m ay b e accessed th ro u g h som e co m ­ m unication system w hen n e e d e d in ste a d o f bein g collected locally. O th e r anom alies consist o f incor­ poratin g aspects o f inform ation analysis, in fo rm a­ tion m anagem ent, and inform ation generation into th e academ ic rese a rc h library program . T h e se ac­ tivities are n o t c e n te re d on th e collection, b u t ra th e r on aiding u sers in in te rp re tin g , applying, m anipulating and producing inform ation, w h eth er th e re su lt is re ta in e d p e rm a n e n tly in th e lib ra ry ’s collection or n o t.11 10K uhn, S tru c tu re o f S cientific R evolutions, po in ts to anom alies as u n ex plainable p h e n o m e n a th at, w hen sufficient in n u m b e r, lea d to th e re fo r­ m ulation o f th e p aradigm . “T ran slo cal” stresses a collection c o n c e p t th a t extends bey o n d sim ply w hat can b e a c q u ire d a n d ow ned locally. 11See my “In fo rm atio n Access R e q u ire m e n ts,” 5 9 -6 3 , for a discussion o f how various o f th e s e aspects m ay b e view ed in th e context o f th e en tire spectrum o f inform ation retrieval operations. T h e essential n a tu re o f th e se anom alies is not th a t th ey e x ten d b e y o n d th e scope o f collecting th in g s to b e ow ned a n d sto re d in an ticip atio n o f p o te n tia l use, b u t in th e ir u s e r-c e n te re d o rie n ta ­ tion. T h e y have a p p e a re d in g re a t m easu re as resp o n se s to u s e rs ’ m o re specific inform ational needs. They represent, in otherw ords, intrusions of an increasingly u se r-c en te re d p ersp ectiv e. As such th ey directly challenge and conflict with th e tra d i­ tional collection-centered paradigm . T h ey challenge th e tra d itio n a l p aradigm b e ­ cause to acco m m o d ate th e m is to have a d iffe re n t beginning poin t for rationalizing library w ork than is fo u n d in th e tra d itio n al op eratio n al p a tte rn . In th e collection-based paradigm one begins w ith th e id ea o f th e co llection and th e n p ro ce e d s to th e p a rtic u la r p ro cesses involved in im p le m e n tin g a collection o rie n tatio n . B eginning w ith specific u s e rs ’ n e e d s u n d e rc u ts b e g in n in g w ith collection c oncerns by placing those concerns in a derivative position. B eginning w ith th e u s e r ’s inform ation n e e d s a n d p ro c e e d in g from th e r e to w h a te v er ac­ tions are a p p ro p ria te to satisfy th o se need s m ight involve collection-building, b u t th e n again m ight not. Building a collection is, in fact, n o t th e central O ctober 1 9 8 9 / 787 Fig. 4. R e v is e d paradigm . p u rp o se o f th e w ork. M e e tin g in fo rm a tio n n e e d s specifically, w ith a p p ro p ria te reso u rc e s a n d activi­ ties, is th e c e n tra l p u rp o se; b u t an a c cu ra te analysis o f th o se n e e d s, esp ec ially econom ically, m ay r e ­ quire only lim ite d “o w n e d ” collections. T h e con flict h e re seem s obvious. Tw o d iffe re n t focuses o r b e g in n in g p o in ts c a n n o t b e a c c o m m o ­ dated in th e sam e o p e ra tio n a l parad ig m . O n e m u st begin w ith e ith e r th e o n e o r th e o th e r . O n e m u st plan, in o th e r w o rd s, to m ake c o lle c tio n -b u ild in g cen tral a n d w o rk from th a t p o in t to u s e rs ’ n e e d s as best as can b e done, o r one m u st p lan to m ake u s e rs ’ specific in fo rm a tio n n e e d s c e n tra l an d w o rk fro m that p o in t to w h a te v er co llection-building is a p p ro ­ p ria te. In sum , th e u s e r - c e n te r e d focus o r b e g in ­ ning p o in t re s u lts in an e n tire ly d iff e re n t o p e r a ­ tional paradigm . Implications o f a new paradigm for academic research libraries T h e fo re g o in g sc en a rio has fa r-re a c h in g im p li­ cations fo r th e a c a d e m ic r e s e a rc h library. T h e academ ic re s e a rc h library c o m m u n ity m ay choose to ignore th e ch an g e in p e rsp e c tiv e , o f co u rse. B u t should th e c h a n g e b e e m b r a c e d in te n tio n a lly as a n e w p a rad ig m for ratio n alizin g a c ad e m ic re se a rc h lib rary w o rk , th e n it se em s th a t at a m in im u m th e following p ro b le m s m u st b e ad d ressed . (F ig u re 4 is an a tte m p t to show w h at a rev ise d p a ra d ig m yields in te rm s o f a d iff e re n t a p p ro a c h to th e w o rk .) F irs t, it strik es m e th a t u s e r - c e n te r e d issues m u st b e d e a lt w ith d ire c tly in t h e i r ow n rig h t a n d n o t sim ply as a u g m e n ta tio n s o f a c o lle ctio n -b a se d p a ra d ig m . U p to now , it se em s to m e, p u re ly u s e r- c e n te re d activities, analyses, etc., have fu n c tio n e d ch iefly as e ffo rts a d d e d o n to c o lle c tio n -c e n te re d c o n c e rn s w h ic h a re m o re f u n d a m e n ta l. W h a t is n e c e ssa ry h e re is to b e g in lo oking at u s e rs ’ n e e d s a n d in fo rm a tio n -u s e p a tte r n s w ith a b so lu te ly no p re lim in a ry a s su m p tio n s a b o u t th e n e e d to b u ild collections. I t m ean s, in effect, to d isc o n tin u e co l­ le c tio n -b u ild in g as a n e c e ssa ry a n d p rim a ry activ­ ity. T h is does n o t m ea n , o f c o u rse , th a t c o lle c tio n ­ b u ild in g activ ities will n o t re s u lt fro m th is a p ­ p ro a c h , b u t r a t h e r th a t th e in itia l q u e s tio n s to be a sk e d at e a c h p o in t w o u ld n o t c e n te r on a s su m p ­ tio n s a b o u t su c h activities. R a th e r, th e y w ould c e n te r o n such th in g s as: W h o a re o u r u s e rs ? T o w h at e x te n t are o u r p r e s e n t categ o ries o f u sers and u se d istin c t e n o u g h to serv e as fo u n d a tio n s for hig h ly sp e c ifie d in fo rm a tio n re trie v a l? W h a t k n o w le d g e -tra n s fe r n e e d s a n d uses d o o u r u se rs sp ecifically h a v e ? H o w a re th e s e n e e d s a n d uses e x p re s s e d ? H o w d o th e y c h a n g e o v e r tim e ? H o w d o e s th e social g e n e ra tio n o f k n o w le d g e in te r s e c t w ith t h e i r n e e d s a n d u ses o f k n o w le d g e ? H o w 7881C& RL News m ig h t we b e s t m e e t th o se n e e d s a n d uses and, p articularly, w h at role should collectio n -b u ild in g serve in m e e tin g th o se n ee d s? T hese a re d o u b tless only som e o f th e questions th a t n e e d to be asked. Even m ore im p o rta n t w ould b e c re a tin g stru c tu re s o f p e rs o n n e l a n d m eth o d s for system atically g athering, re g a th erin g , a n d im ­ p le m e n tin g this kind o f in fo rm atio n . T h e critical p o in t in th e foregoing is to d iffe re n tia te u se rs and th e ir inform ation n e e d s m ore distinctly in th e first p lace, b ecau se th a t sh ould b e th e b eg in n in g p o in t for all o th e r considerations. Som e illustration o f w hat is m e a n t by this for th e academ ic re s e a rc h library m ay b e se en in th e fol­ lowing. In ste a d o f c h a ra c te riz in g u n d e rg ra d u a te u se rs a n d use only on th e basis of, say, low er and u p p e r divisions, m ore d e ta ile d inform ation w ould n e e d to b e c o m p ile d (m ost likely in th e form o f a m a n a g e m e n t in fo rm a tio n d a ta b a se) for a g re a te r n u m b e r o f d e fin e d sub g ro u p s. T h e in fo rm a tio n com piled w ould include inform ation needs assess­ m e n t a n d profiles u sefu l for p la n n in g a n d assis­ tan c e u n d e rg ra d u a te retriev al a n d use o f in fo rm a­ tion. Possible categories m ight consist o f all (or m ost) individual sem ester-length courses and th e ir individual m em b ers; groups a n d individuals r e ­ lated to m ajor study areas; groups in term s o f living a rra n g e m e n ts (w h e th e r u n iv ersity d o rm ito rie s, un iv ersity a n d o th e r local housing, co m m u te rs, etc.); special in d e p e n d e n t stu d y p rojects; etc. G raduate level students w ould likewise b e tracked, b u t w ith additional profiles on d e g re e -re la te d r e ­ search proposals and projects. F a c u ity at all levels w ould n e e d to b e tra c k e d for in fo rm a tio n n e e d s rela te d to teaching. A nd in tersectin g th e foregoing categ o ries w ould b e th e listing a n d m o n ito rin g o f re se a rc h efforts (especially th o se o f th e faculty), p ro je c t by p ro je c t a n d te a m by te a m , ea ch w ith th e ir p a rtic u la r in fo rm a tio n n e e d s. O bviously, com piling m assive am o u n ts o f in fo rm a tio n ab o u t groups and individuals in this way will b e useful for inform ation service only if in fo rm atio n specialists are available to pro v id e h e lp at th e p o in t o f n e e d . An ap p ro ach to such p e rso n n e l n e e d s is discussed b elow in p o in t four. Second, th e academ ic re se a rc h library m u st a t­ te m p t to u n d e rs ta n d in a m o re d e ta ile d way th a n e v e r b e fo re how collections o f any kind o f know l­ ed g e resources serve actual inform ation uses. T h e goal h e re is to identify th e conditions u n d e r w hich ow ned collections, in clu d in g th e ir kinds, ex ten t, and longevity, are necessary req u ire m e n ts for effi­ c ie n t in fo rm a tio n retriev al. T h e a ssu m p tio n has long b e e n th a t extensive ow ned collections are ab solutely necessary for s u p p o rtin g first-ra te r e ­ search . B ut to w hat extent is this really tru e and for w hat specific users o r u s e r groups is it o p erativ e? T h e sam e issues apply to any w arehousing p ro j­ e c t— for exam ple, w arehousing spare parts, w a re ­ h o u sin g foodstuffs, e tc .— except th a t in th is case th e w a re h o u sin g is n o t o f physical o b jects th a t are in te n d e d to b e co n su m ed b u t ra th e r o f know ledge re c o rd s th a t are reu sa b le to g re a te r o r le sse r d e ­ grees. In all w areh o u sin g it is especially necessary to d e te rm in e w h at possible tra d e -o ffs exist e c o ­ nom ically a n d in te rm s o f u s e r d e m a n d s a n d satis­ faction in n o t w a re h o u sin g locally b u t r a th e r d e ­ p e n d in g on d em an d -d riv en access p ro ced u res. A p p ro ach in g in fo rm a tio n reso u rc e s th is way does n o t p re s u p p o s e , o f co u rse, th a t all library c o llectio n b u ild in g will cease. In fact, it seem s obvious th a t c e rta in co llection re q u ire m e n ts will n o t only p e rsist b u t will b e absolutely necessary— for exam ple, those now em ployed for u n d e rg ra d u ­ ates a n d those th a t su p p o rt areas o f hum anities and social science re s e a rc h p rin c ip ally d e p e n d e n t on th e contin u in g p re se n c e o f actual d o cum ents. T he goal is, how ever, to develop collections only w h ere essential, and n o t sim ply to do so as an unexam ined goal in all cases. A parallel issue th at m ust also b e b ro ach ed at this p o in t is th a t o f d e te rm in in g w hat is to b e done w ith co llections a lre ad y am assed; a n d w h at to do w ith m asses o f in fo rm atio n reso u rc es th a t will b eco m e available in th e future. O ne o f th e principal reasons w hy m aterials have b e e n am assed by academ ic re s e a rc h lib raries in th e first p lace is th a t such institutions w ere in reality th e only agencies extant c o m m itte d to collectin g th e m . If, how ever, th e raison d ’être o f academ ic rese a rc h libraries ceases to b e co lle ctio n -b u ild in g for its own sake, w h e re w ould th e sam e d o c u m e n ts be w a re h o u se d ? T hey will c o n tin u e to b e necessary even if th e academ ic re se a rc h lib ra ry does n o t focus its e n e rg ies c e n ­ trally on collection building. H e re one e n c o u n te rs th e m ost striking paradox o f th e u s e r-c e n te re d shift o ccurring in o u r society. T h e capacity to re d ire c t th e lib ra ry ’s e n e rg y away from c o llectio n b u ild in g p e r se a n d to w a rd u ser- n e e d s analysis as a sta rtin g p o in t for o p e ra tio n s p re s u p p o s e s th a t do c u m e n ts will be w a re h o u se d som ew here. To achieve this, how ever, will req u ire an e n tirely new set o f in stitu tio n s and institutional a rra n g e m e n ts— for exam ple, a level o f in stitu tio n th a t exists only for th e sake o f w arehousing, as well as a rra n g e m e n ts w ith p u b lish e rs a n d o th e r in fo r­ m ation reso u rc e suppliers to pro v id e m aterials on d e m a n d r a th e r th a n th ro u g h classic p a tte rn s o f pu b lish in g . T his can b e do n e, how ever, only on a societal basis. I t c a n n o t b e th e action o f isolated libraries or even o f th e library field by itse lf w ithout th e c o o p e ra tio n o f o th e r societal elem en ts. A th ir d p ro b le m to b e b ro a c h e d has to do w ith th e n a tu re o f in fo rm a tio n retrie v a l m echanism s available. F o r m any decades inform ation retrieval tools in th e academ ic rese a rc h library se ttin g have b e e n fo cu sed on m aking local collections acces­ sible, m ainly th ro u g h catalogs a n d th ro u g h s h e lf O ctober 1989 / 789 and o th e r sto rag e a rra n g e m e n ts . As th e tra n slo c a l collection has b e c o m e in cre asin g ly n ecessary , u n ­ ion catalogs su c h as O C L C , R L IN , a n d W L N as well as o th e r b ib lio g ra p h ic a n d n o n -b ib lio g ra p h ic databases have c o m e to fu n c tio n as e x te n sio n s o f local re so u rc e s a n d local b ib lio g ra p h ic c o n tro l m echanism s. E v en tu ally , local b ib lio g ra p h ic c o n ­ trol m u st m o re c o m p le te ly m e rg e w ith u n iv e rsa l bibliographic c o n tro l so th a t th e re c o r d o f w h a t is available in th e local a c a d e m ic re s e a rc h lib ra ry setting will m o re a c c u ra te ly r e f le c t th e b ib lio ­ graphic u n iv e rse o f re s o u rc e s t h a t hav e p o te n tia l value for local u se , w h e th e r o w n e d b y th e local library o r not. A m ajor difficulty exists, how ever, in th e n a tu re of th e b ib lio g ra p h ic c o n tro l m ech an ism s th a t have been im p o rte d in to tra n slo c a l b ib lio g ra p h ic d a ta ­ bases such as O C L C . T h o s e b ib lio g ra p h ic d a ta ­ bases are, frankly, n o t u p to th e d e m a n d s o f th e new paradigm . T h e y p u t g re a t stre s s o n p ro v isio n s fo r known-item a n d w hole-item “exact-m atch” s e a rc h ­ ing.12 B ut even in th e ir b e s t re n d itio n s th e y d o n o t do well at all fo r id e n tify in g th e e le m e n ts o f m u lti­ w ork ite m s a n d a re v ery d e fic ie n t in t h e i r su b je c t- access c a p a c itie s. T h e m a jo r re a s o n fo r th e w e a k ­ nesses is d o u b tless th e fact th a t th e y w e re originally d e sig n e d fo r local c o lle c tio n access, w h e re d e fi­ ciencies c o u ld b e a m e lio ra te d by p e rs o n a l e x a m i­ nation o f m aterials a n d by brow sing local m aterials. In c o n tra s t, th e k ey to b ib lio g ra p h ic c o n tro l in th e new p a ra d ig m will b e th e a b ility to sift q u ickly th ro u g h m asses o f m a te ria ls r e p r e s e n t e d o n ly in su rro g a te fo rm a n d to z e ro in o n sm all classes o f n e e d e d ite m s e v e n w h e n th e y only p a rtia lly m a tc h a se arc h r e q u e s t. T o do th is w ill r e q u ir e , h o w ev er, a new g e n e ra tio n o f bibliographic tools th a t will n o t be lim ite d b y sy stem p a ra m e te rs d e s ig n e d fo r th e older p arad ig m — tools th a t n o t only stress efficient d o c u m e n t access b u t th a t have system s fo r h e lp in g users m o re explicitly specify th e ir r e q u e s ts . A fo u rth a re a o f d iffic u lty th a t will hav e to b e a d d re sse d is th e sy ste m atic d e v e lo p m e n t o f p ro v i­ sions for p ro v id in g u sers w ith in fo rm a tio n analysis, m a n a g e m e n t, a n d g e n e ra tio n h e lp . In fo r m a tio n 12“E x act-m atch” searching is th a t w hich req u ires th a t th e r e q u e s t fo r a d o c u m e n t (as s ta te d in th e query) m u s t b e e x a ctly c o n ta in e d in a d o c u m e n t system s’ te x t re p re s e n ta tio n s ; or, s ta te d m o re sim ­ ply, th a t th e te r m s o f a q u e ry exactly m a tc h as­ signed o r d e riv e d te rm s in th e indexing vocabulary. T he w eakness o f this strateg y is, o f course, th a t texts w hich only p a rtia lly m a tc h a q u e ry a re o m itte d as c an d id ates fo r retriev al. See N icholas J. B elkin a n d B ruce C ro ft, “R e trie v a l T e c h n iq u e s ,’’A n n u a l R e ­ v ie w o f I n fo r m a tio n Scien ce a n d T e c h n o lo g y 22 (1987): 109^15, fo r a s u m m a ry disc u ssio n o f th is issue. analysis c o n c e rn s in te r p r e tin g in fo rm a tio n r e ­ trie v e d fo r sp e c ific n e e d s o f u se rs. In fo rm a tio n m a n a g e m e n t in c lu d e s h e lp in g u s e rs o rg a n iz e i n ­ fo rm a tio n r e tr ie v e d in so m e u s e fu l w ay fo r th e ir ow n specific p u rp o se s . A nd inform ation g en e ra tio n m eans p ro d u c in g n e w in fo rm a tio n ta ilo re d specifi­ cally to u s e rs ’ n e e d s. S om e b e g in n in g s in th is a re a h a v e b e e n m a d e b y th e in fo rm a tio n in d u s tr y in g e n e ra l in th e fo rm o f in te llig e n t w o rk sta tio n s a n d in th e fo rm o f easily u s e d d a ta b a s e a n d o th e r c o m p u ta tio n a l sy ste m s w h ic h o fte n involve C D d riv e s , H y p e rte x t, a n d th e lik e , a n d in o th e r form s o f so p h istic a te d softw are. I t strik e s m e, h o w e v e r, th a t th is w ill n o t b e e n o u g h . U ntil in d e p e n d e n t in te llig e n t system s are b u ilt, a m a tte r th a t a p p e a rs to b e still som e d e c ad e s off, h u m a n in te r m e d ia r ie s w ill still b e n e e d e d to assist u se rs in th e s e tasks— in a id in g u s e rs to navi­ g a te in w h a t T a y lo r calls th e “n e g o tia tin g s p a c e ” b e tw e e n in fo rm a tio n n e e d s a n d in fo rm a tio n r e ­ s o u rc e s y s te m s.13 B u t, th is calls fo r a d iffe re n t a p p ro a c h to u s e r a id th a n o n e typically finds in th e p re s e n t library p a rad ig m . At th e p r e s e n t tim e, h e lp for u sers is typically b a se d on th e u s e r com ing to th e lib ra ry as a c o lle c tio n -o rie n te d p lac e . H o w e v er, if th o ro u g h u s e r aid is to b e acco m p lish ed , th e id e a o f u s e r a id m u st b r e a k aw ay fro m its c o lle c tio n a n d “p la c e ” o rie n ta tio n s a n d m ove to w h e r e th e u s e r finds h im se lf o r herself. T his will re q u ire a d iffe re n t k in d o f p e rs o n n e l s tru c tu re ; o n e th a t allows a large g ro u p o f in fo rm atio n professionals to fun ctio n w ith rela tiv e in d e p e n d e n c e as in fo rm a tio n c o u n se lo rs o r o m b u d sm e n , as likely as n o t d is tr ib u te d a m o n g th e u s e rs th e m s e lv e s . I en v isio n , in th is re s p e c t, a level o f p e rs o n n e l w ho a re s u p p o rte d by th e library b u t w h o fu n c tio n m u c h like in d e p e n d e n t h e a lth service p ro fe ssio n a ls in b u ild in g u p a n d p ro v id in g se rv ic es to p a rtic u la r c lie n te le s th a t c h a n g e o v er tim e .14 A fifth a re a o f d iffic u lty to b e a d d re s s e d follow ­ ing from th e o th e r fo u r has to do w ith th e o rg an iz a ­ tio n a l s tr u c tu r e a n d o p e ra tin g m o d e o f th e library. T o m ove from th e o ld e r p a rad ig m a n d its collection b u ild in g o rie n ta tio n to th e n e w e r p arad ig m w ith its u s e r-c e n te re d focus will plainly re q u ire an e n tire ly n e w a p p ro a c h to o rganizing th e lib ra ry for its w ork. T h e o ld e r p a ra d ig m , b e in g w e d d e d e ssen tially to a m aterials-handling rationale, has traditionally b e e n s tr u c tu r e d a n d a d m in is te re d as a h ie ra rc h ic a l c o n ­ tro l m echanism o v e r m aterials-h an d lin g p ro cesses. In c o n tra s t, th e n e w e r p a ra d ig m e m p h a s iz e s h u ­ m an n e e d s a s se s s m e n ts a n d p e rs o n a l in te r a c tio n 13Taylor, V a lu e -A d d e d Processes in In fo rm a tio n S y ste m s ,2 3 - 4 7 . 14I t m ig h t e v e n b e fe a s ib le to fu n d th e s u b ­ c o n tra c tin g o f su c h services w ith a k in d o f in fo rm a ­ tio n in su ra n c e in th e sam e way th a t h e a lth service is fu n d e d by h e a lth in su ra n c e . 7 9 0 /C & R L News with users. This will re q u ire entirely new arran g e­ m ents for professional w ork assignm ents, re p o rt­ ing, a n d evaluation, w h e re em phasis will b e p laced prim arily on d istrib u ted control a n d in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t a n d decision-m aking rela te d to ever- changing needs. A final p ro b le m to b e solved, and o n e a b o u t w hich little n eed s to b e said o th e r th an its necessity, has to do w ith educational program s. At th e p re s e n t tim e, library e d u c atio n program s th a t supply p ro ­ fessionals for academ ic rese a rc h libraries are d eep ly c o m m itted to th e o ld e r paradigm . Program s o f this so rt will n o t b e very useful to th e new er p aradigm w ith its u s e r o rientation. Steps m u st b e taken to develop th e p a tte rn s o f thinking, ju d g ­ m en t, and m ethods th a t will s u p p o rt th e new focus. O f highest im p o rtan ce in this re sp e c t w ould b e th e d ev e lo p m en t o f essential courses th a t b e g in w ith th e exam ination a n d exploration o f users n eed s and behavior in finding and m aking use o f inform ation. Conclusion W h at has b e e n suggested as p ro b le m s to b e a d d ressed or solved in o rd e r to im p le m e n t a new op eratio n al p aradigm for ac ad e m ic rese a rc h lib ra r­ ies could doubtless b e g reatly ex p an d ed and w orked o u t in g re a te r detail. I t is h o p e d , how ever, th a t th e points m ade will pro v id e a beg in n in g for th a t process, assum ing, o f course, th a t th e analysis o f th e academ ic rese a rc h library on th e basis o f operational p aradigm s was ac cu ra te to beg in with. The future o f reference II: A response B y Cheryl K nott M alone Reference Librarian, Perry-C astañeda L ibrary U niversity o f Texas at A u stin W h e n I read an advance copy o f F ra n M iksa’s p a p e r I confess to feeling som ew hat alarm ed th a t in o n e sh o rt y e a r o f R IS C program s, it se em e d w e had g o n e from ab a n d o n in g th e re fe re n c e desk to o ver­ throw ing th e library as we know it.1 Professor M iksa first c o nstructs a m odel o f th e co lle ctio n -c e n te red library, th e n describes th e d e ­ veloping anom alies re p re se n tin g u se r-c en te re d - ness: in terlib rary service, reso u rce sharing s tra te ­ gies, d o c u m e n t delivery, and so on. In holding this m odel up for o u r insp ectio n h e m akes us aw are o f two im p o rta n t fea tu re s o f o u r w ork lives. F irst, w e a re o p e ra tin g in a transform ative p e rio d as w e shift o u r gaze from th e collection to th e users. A nd second, h e helps us to u n d e rsta n d th e conflicts we face on th e job as a result. I w an t to explore th ese conflicts as a living e m ­ b o d im e n t o f th em , for I am b o th a u s e r-o rie n te d refe re n c e librarian and a collection-oriented b ibli­ o g rap h e r— o r vice versa, d e p e n d in g on y o u r in te r­ p re ta tio n o f th e paradigm . A nd I also w an t to add a n o th e r e le m e n t, for th e se conflicts o c c u r w ithin 1"T h e F u tu re o f R eferen ce: A P anel D iscussion H e ld at th e U niversity o f Texas a t A ustin, Spring 1988." C & R L N ew s 49 (O c to b e r 1988): 57 8 -8 9 . com plex organizations. In ad dition to th e historical tre n d s M iksa m en ­ tioned briefly, collection d e v e lo p m en t a n d re fe r­ e n c e activities have ch a n g ed in th e last several years. C ollection d e v e lo p m en t generally has m oved o u t o f th e hands o f faculty a n d into th e library. T h e re w e re several reasons for this tran si­ tion: th e increasing p re ssu re on faculty to "publish o r p erish" and th e resu ltin g lack o f tim e to handle library collection building; dissatisfaction with skew ed collections th a t reflected a specialist’s p e r ­ haps narrow interests; th e professionalization o f li- brarianship. F u ll-tim e bibliographers w orking for th e library b eg a n to h a n d le selection, m aking d e c i­ sions b a sed on form al policies.2 M ore recently, th e p lace o f collection d evelop­ m e n t has shifted again, in resp o n se p artly to th e increasing q u a n tity and com plexity o f th e m aterials b ecom ing available. F u ll-tim e biblio g rap h ers had little o p p o rtu n ity in th e ir daily w ork to in te ra c t with th e p a tro n s using th e collections th ey w e re b u ild ­ ing. T h e e sta b lish m e n t o f reliable approval plans 2T hom as F . O ’C o n n o r, “C ollection D e v e lo p ­ m en t in th e Yale U niversity L ibrary, 1865-1931," Journal o f L ib ra ry H istory 22 (S pring 1987): 164-89.