ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ November 2001 / 987 THE W A Y I SEE IT What happened to the library? When the library and the computer center merge by Robert Renaud I should have seen it coming. I called a senior faculty member to invite her to a meeting in my office in the library. She readily agreed, adding, “You still do call it the library, do you?” The subtle jibe reminded me of the un­ ease in some quarters about the merger sev­ eral years ago at Connecticut College, where, until recently, I worked as associate dean of the library and computing. For some faculty, the merger symbolized how “computers were taking over,” eclipsing the humane values inherent in books and reading. Although I considered this view somewhat simplistic, it pointed to deeper and unresolved tensions surrounding how colleges manage informa­ tion. Bringing u n lik ely b ed fello w s to g e th e r At first blush, libraries and computing seem unlikely bedfellows. The academic library exists in part to build coherent collections over time that will, with hope, support learn­ ing, teaching, and scholarship. This long-term orientation can lead to a certain justifiable conservatism as librarians attempt to build for the future on the groundwork of the past. This deliberate quality can frustrate those w ithin the in stitution pressing for rapid change. On the other hand, it matches the methodical pace of campus governance, plac­ ing librarians firmly in the cultural camp of the faculty. In contrast, computing staff can appear to faculty as both remote and mysterious. Faced with overwhelming complexities and rates of change, computing professionals can go into “siege mode” as they struggle to maintain ser­ vice while coping with the latest Napster-like threat. By its very nature, computing forces a short-term perspective. Although the best computing departments plan ahead, budget wisely, and generally keep their cool, the centrifugal forces exerted by information tech­ nology can pull them away from faculty. The different cultures of libraries and com­ puting create stereotypes. At a conference I recently attended, a librarian referred to the computing staff at her campus as “cowboys,” lone guns who made changes affecting the whole institution without consultation. On another occasion, a computing professional referred to her college librarian as a “deer caught in the headlights,” paralyzed by the changes around her. As with all stereotypes, there is a germ of truth in these caricatures. In fact, they come into stark relief when a college decides to merge its library and com­ puter center. A b o u t th e au th o r R o b e rt R enaud is d ire c to r o f th e W aidner-Spahr Library a n d associate dean o f th e college a t D ickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, e-mail: renaudr@ dickinson.edu. mailto:renaudr@dickinson.edu 988 / C&RL News ■ November 2001 . . . a lib ra ria n refe rre d to th e com p u tin g s ta ff a t h er campus as "cow boys," lone guns w h o m ade changes a ffe c tin g th e w h o le in s titu tio n w ith o u t con sultation. What leads a college to merge these seem­ ingly disparate units? The answer to this ques­ tion lies in the changes that took place in the 1990s in how information technology was applied to teaching, learning, and scholarship. Cheaper personal computers, better software, and, above all, the emergence o f the Internet led many on college campuses to ask how to apply computing in a coordinated way. It seemed that different people had different pieces to the puzzle. Librarians knew how to bring coherence to the new wave o f infor­ mation, discriminate between what was of value and what was not, and talk with fac­ ulty. Computing staff knew how to design and build the campus network, budget effec­ tively, and deploy computers to faculty and staff. B ringing these tw o units together, through either outright mergers or tighter col­ laboration, was a logical response to these emerging opportunities. M easuring th e success o f m ergers Did the mergers succeed? As may be expected, the answers are yes, no, and we are still wait­ ing to see. First, though, the prior question of what we mean by a merger needs to be asked. For some colleges, merging the library and computing meant keeping these units sepa­ rate but having them report to a single boss— who was by the end o f the 1990s often called a chief information officer or CIO. In these cases, the library and the computing depart­ ments remained intact, with staff collaborat­ ing in much the same way that they would have if the “m erger” had not taken place. In most cases, the CIO created by these changes was a librarian, at times adding to the con­ sternation o f computing professionals who felt passed over. In other cases, the merger went much deeper. In these instances, librarians and com­ puting staff were mixed into teams that bore scant resemblance to any recognizable struc­ ture. At Connecticut College, for example, the rare book librarian, the Web developer, and the switchboard operator found themselves on the same team. To those outside the de­ partment, these combinations could seem bi­ zarre, leading to the suspicion that the reor­ ganization was “innovation for innovation’s sake.” To those working inside the depart­ ment, the churning of positions and roles actually worked well, often to the surprise of everyone involved. Although people from drastically different professional cultures were thrown together, they found that all the re­ sources needed to accomplish goals were within the same unit. The need to assemble the pieces o f the puzzle from different de­ partments no longer existed. A lthough generally successful to date, merged library and computing departments face growing pains. Despite years of tight col­ laboration, librarians and computing staff live in separate worlds, with their own profes­ sional associations, certifications, and stan­ dards. It is not unusual, for example, for staff in merged departments to speak of the li­ brary and computing “sides,” and of the need to negotiate the balance between them. This suggests that the organization represented by merged departments is, in the words o f the Panasonic commercial, “just slightly ahead of its time.” Clearly, it is ahead of the ability of professional schools to supply the right mix o f communication and technical skills needed to make a merger work consistently. Some programs, such as library and information sci­ ence and instructional computing master’s de­ grees, almost get it right. However, as one library dean said to me, “We are creating a new profession, and we are just not there yet.” After several years at Connecticut College, I also discovered a relationship between the depth o f the merger of library and computing and the ease o f managing the resulting depart­ ment. In general, the deeper the merger, the higher the benefits to the college but the harder it is to manage the department. Conversely, the more superficial the merger, the lower the gains, but the easier it is to manage. This be­ gins to make sense when we remember that mergers bring very different skills and cultures together. In deep mergers, the mix of staff brought together in new teams brings unex­ pected insight to problem-solving. C&RL News ■ Novem ber 2001 / 989 On the other hand, it requires a high de­ gree o f coordination not to run o ff the rails. In more superficial mergers, the library and com puting “sides” remain essentially intact, m aking them both more recognizable and easier to manage. The proof o f this pudding consists in the difficulty o f recruiting deans for m erged departments. The pool o f indi­ viduals who know enough about both com ­ puting and libraries to lead these departments is minuscule. In practice, because they often have had long years in leadership positions on campus, librarians often end up heading these units. Moreover, there is the issue o f scale. Most m erged departments exist in sm aller institu­ tions, typically liberal arts colleges. It may not be practicable to merge libraries and com­ puting centers at large, research universities, where bringing together hundreds o f staff spread across many locations frustrates ef­ forts to create teamwork. Indeed, the central com puting departments o f m any large state universities find themselves unable to con­ trol the inform ation technology investm ents o f grant-funded units, professional schools, and branch campuses. Paradoxically, the em ergence o f m erged organizations and the new attention to digi­ tal m edia in the 1990s co in cid ed w ith a golden age o f physical libraries. The decade saw a boom in academ ic library construc­ tion and renovation as m any colleges de­ cided to use the campus library to sym bol­ ize their com m itm ent to scholarship. As col­ leges experim ented with how best to orga- Statement of ownership and management College & Research Libraries News is published 11 times a year (monthly, combiningJuly/August) by the Ameri­ can Library Association. 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, ÍL 60611. American Library Association, owner: Maureen Gleason, editor. Second-class postage paid at Chi­ cago, Illinois. Printed in the U.S.A. As a nonprofit organization authorized to mail at special rates (DMM Section 423.12), the purposes, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes, have not changed dur­ ing the preceding 12 months. E xten t a n d n atu re o f circu lation . (“Average” figures denote the number of copies printed each issue during the preceding twelve months; “Actual” figures denote the number of copies of single issues published nearest to filing date.) Total n um ber o f copies (n et press run): Average, 12,790; Actual, 12,787. Total paid/requested subscriptions: Aver­ . . . a c o m p u tin g professional re fe rre d to h er co lleg e lib ra ria n as a " d e e r c au g h t in th e h e a d lig h ts ," paralyzed by th e changes aroun d her. nize themselves to respond to em erging op­ portunities, they also recognized that, to p arap h rase Jo h n Seely B row n and Paul Duguid, inform ation has a social life. The stubborn survival o f the library suggests that digital and physical media will coexist and that colleges w ill need to bridge the very different dem ands o f these form ats in real time and space. Finding th e r ig h t m ix Do merged library and computing depart­ ments make sense? To repeat an earlier an­ swer, yes, no, and we are still waiting to see. Although the need to collaborate to support faculty and students as they learn to adapt information technology to the curriculum and to research is clear, exactly how to organize to achieve that goal in every college and uni­ versity is not. In the end, colleges will have to experiment to find the right mix o f staff, services, and technology for their particular needs. However, although the landscape will surely change, we can be certain of one thing: w e will still call it the library. ■ age, 12,252; Actual, 12,291. Sales through dealers a n d carriers, street vendors, counter sales, a n d other non- USPS p a id distribution: not applicable. Other classes m ailed through the USPS: not applicable. Total p a id a n d /o r requested circulation: Average, 12,252; Actual, 12,291. Free distribution by mail: Average, 89; Actual, 76. Free distribution outside the mail: Average, 0; Ac­ tual, 0. Total fr e e distribution: Average, 89; Actual, 76. Total distribution: .Average, 12,341; Actual, 12,367. Copies not distributed: Office use, leftover, spoiled: Average, 449; Actual, 420. Total (sum o f previous e n ­ tries): Average. 12,790; Actual, 12,787. Percent p a id a nd/or requested circulation: Average, 99.28%; Actual, 99.39%. Statem ent o f o w n e r sh ip , m an agem en t, an d cir­ cu la tio n (PS Form 3526, October 1999) for 2001 filed with the United States Postal Service, Postmaster in Chi­ cago, Illinois, September 27, 2001.