College and Research Libraries THOMAS W. SHAUGHNESSY Library Services to Educationally Disadvantaged Students Librarians and Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) personnel were interviewed at eight urban college and university campuses to de- .termine the extent to which their respective libraries have responded to educationally disadvantaged students. The study focused on four principal areas: relations between the library and the Educational Op- portunity Program, library staff assignments, collections, and the pro- vision of special services. A considerable range of service program- ming was discovered, and some of the factors which may account for the variation are discussed. IN A 1971 Library Trends article en- titled "The Role of the Academic Li- brary in Serving the Disadvantaged Stu- dent," E. J. Josey identified four charac- teristics of an effective service program: staff members who are able to empathize with the special needs of disadvantaged students; the organization of a wide range of library resources; the imple- mentation of innovative, action-orient- ed programs; and close and regular con- tact with the faculty who teach disad- vantaged students. 1 Other factors could also be cited, such as the institution's level of commitment to these students and the social consciousness of the li- brary's staff and administration. These variables are much more difficult to ob- Thomas W. Shaughnessy is associate dean of the School of Library Science at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. The study on which this article is based was conducted in the spring of 197 4 when the author was director of the Dana Library (Newark Campus) of Rutgers Unt- versity. The investigation was funded by a grant from the Council on Library Re- sources. serve, much less describe, but they may indeed be determinants of the charac- teristics discussed by Josey. The article mentioned above is one of the few substantive articles to ad- dress the question of academic library services to disadvantaged students. It is interesting to note that, in contrast, li- brary literature virtually abounds with articles describing public library services to the urban poor, minority groups, and the educationally disadvantaged. The meager amount of literature on the ac- ademic side of the question, combined with the personal observations of a number of academic librarians, provid- ed the stimulus for this research. The basic hypothesis of the study was that academic libraries have not re- sponded to their respective institutions' educationally disadvantaged students. These students are variously defined or described, but in the main they are in- dividuals who are lacking in the educa- tional background and communication and study skills necessary for successful college work. More often than not, they are members of various minority groups. Frequently such students are I 443 444 I College & Research Libraries • November 1975 economically disadvantaged too, but the focus of this study is the educationally disadvantaged student. SAMPLE SELECTION AND METHODOLOGY It would seem safe to assume that virtually every publicly supported insti- tution of higher education has some stu- dents who are educationally disadvan- taged. But in order to maximize the number of such students in a given in- stitution, the population from which the sample was selected was limited to publicly supported urban colleges and universities. To attain a base which was somewhat broad and representative, eight institutions were selected from across the country. Two were located on the west coast, three in the midwest or middle Atlantic region, and three in the northeast. Southern colleges and univer- sities were not included in the sample. The reason for this omission was due primarily to the application of the cri- terion of maximizing the number of educationally disadvantaged students in each institution. Rightly or wrongly, it was felt that the eight institutions se- lected met this criterion. Many other colleges and universities, such as those located in urban centers in the South, might also have been included. How- ever, it is questionable whether the in- clusion of the libraries of these institu- tions in the study would have any sig- nificant impact on its results. The methodology employed in the study consisted primarily of interviews, accompanied by limited observation. It was originally proposed that question- naires would be administered to a sam- ple of educationally disadvantaged stu- dents to solicit their impressions and evaluations of academic library services as well as their suggestions as to how the respective libraries might better meet their needs. But this approach or tech- nique had to be discarded for at least two reasons. First, there appeared to be no tactful way of identifying those stu- dents who were educationally disadvan- taged from among the many students using the libraries in a given period. Second, administrators and faculty members assigned to work with these students were understandably reluctant to allow them to be the focus of still another study. Consequently, it was not possible to administer the question- naires to assembled groups or classes of these students. From a methodological point of view, the loss of student input considerably weakens the study. The questionnaires were seen as a means of corroborating or balancing the data collected by means of interviews, as well as of providing input from library users. But to a limit- ed extent it was possible within the con- straints imposed by the interview tech- nique to "verify" the responses of the librarians interviewed. This was accom- plished by comparing their answers or perceptions with those of a sample of administrators and counselors involved with programs designed to meet the special needs of educationally disad- vantaged students. Interviews were con- ducted, therefore, first with librarians and then with Educational Opportunity Program personnel. (Programs for edu- cationally disadvantaged students have various names or designations, depend- ing on the institution. But for the pur- poses of this article, all such programs will be called Educational Opportunity Programs [EOP].) The number of li- brarians interviewed was twenty-four; .and a total of thirteen EOP faculty and staff were interviewed. It is encouraging to note that every library which was asked to participate in the study accepted the invitation. Some library directors were more en- thusiastic than others, but that is to be expected. A few directors and several public service librarians appeared to be somewhat uneasy about the study, while others seemed to- welcome the opportu- nity to discuss the topic. For both groups it is hoped that levels of social consciousness were raised. LIBRARY-EOP RELATIONS The study's findings concerning the relationship and frequency of contact between library and EOP staff tend to confirm many of the conclusions of the Whitbeck study, especially with respect to the isolation of librarians in many important collegial areas.2 In two in- stances, interviews revealed a virtual ab- sence of contact betw~en the two. But the majority of libraries visited had at- tempted to establish a dialogue with EOP faculty and staff. In one case the EOP staff failed to respond despite re- peated attempts on the part of the li- brary. The most frequent contact be- tween library administrators and EOP directors seemed to occur at campus- wide meetings of departmental deans and directors, meetings which typically afforded little more than an opportuni- ty for them to introduce themselves or renew acquaintances. Interviews with EOP faculty and staff revealed a range of views of the library which roughly paralleled the views of librarians toward EOP programs. A few seemed to be unaware of the library .and its services. Others used the library for reserve readings but had not serious- ly considered the library as an impor- tant part of their teaching activities. And then there were those faculty who were very conscious of the library's po- tential role in educational programs for disadvantaged students. This latter group, however, seemed to divide itself into two subgroups: those who had es- tablished strong service relations with their campus libraries and those who claimed to have attempted such relation- ships and to have been rebuffed by the librarians. Additional probing revealed that the cause of the rebuff was frequent- ly the library's refusal to provide either special collection space, library staff, or Se1'vices to Disadvantaged I 445 special handling of selected library ma- terials for EOP students. It is interesting to note that in the two cases where frequent communica- tion appeared to take place, it was chan- neled through one individual who, in both cases, was a librarian employed by the EOP office. Very little informal communication seems to occur between library and EOP staff. LIBRARY STAFF AND SERVICE FuNcriONS Because the provision of library ser- vices rests so heavily upon library staff, special attention was focused on the ex- tent to which librarians were specifically .assigned the responsibility for serving EOP students and faculty. Among the eight libraries visited, three librarians were identified (in three separate li- braries) who devoted a major portion of their time to this group. As was indi- cated earlier, two· of these librarians were employees of EOP offices; only one was employed by the library. All three librarians had, in addition to their EOP service responsibilities, other duties as well, such as collection development and service at the general reference desk. All three were .also mem hers of a mi- nority group . In the course of rather lengthy inter- views, each of these librarians empha- sized the need for highly individualized service and personal relationships with EOP students and faculty. But given the large numbers of educationally dis- advantaged students (ranging from about 500 to over 1,500) and the very limited number of library staff specifi- cally assigned, each of these librarians expressed his or her frustration and doubts as to the general effectiveness of the libraries' efforts. They also expressed concern that while they were able to re- late effectively to students who were of the same ethnic or racial background as themselves, they questioned their effec- tiveness in reaching students of other 446 I College & Research Libraries • November 1975 racial or ethnic backgrounds, especially those for whom English is a second lan- guage. Library administrators and de- partment heads interviewed indicated that efforts continue to be made to re- cruit librarians who are members of mi- nority groups, but most admitted that they have been relatively unsuccessful in this regard. In contrast to the academ- ic libraries visited, EOP offices seem to have been very successful in recruiting minority staff. Consequently, communi- cation between library and EOP office must cross not only departmental bar- riers but also racial and ethnic gaps. '" In the two cases where librarians were employed by the EOP office, services were more fully developed and ranged from special orientation tours and lec- tures (including taped tours) and li- brary instruction integrated with basic communication skills courses to pro- grams wherein students receive super- vised "hands-on" experience in using reference sources as well as individual counseling and tutoring by EOP librari- ans. In addition, the EOP librarians reg- ularly participated in classroom instruc- tion by teaching techniques of biblio- graphic research which focused on the content of a particular class session. In the case where the librarian assigned to work with EOP students and faculty was an employee of the library, services were not as developed or contact as fre- quent. However, relationships were be- ing established and services planned. Each of the three librarians who had EOP responsibilities emphasized that the success of their efforts depended in large measure on their individual rela- tionships with EOP faculty and staff. They believed that the emphasis given and importance attached to the library by EOP faculty is readily seen in their students, a view which also finds sup- port in the Monteith College Library experiments. 3 In the five remaining libraries, where specific staff were not assigned to devel- op services for EOP students, a wide variety of attitudes was found. Most, if not all, of the library directors inter- viewed expressed genuine concern over their libraries' response to the needs of EOP students. Various types of services had been tried ( especially after the stu- dent unrest of the late 1960s), but none had been evaluated and most were sub- sequently dropped for one reason or an- other. The following are illustrative of the types of services offered: two of the five libraries developed special guides to racial or ethnic literature; four provide bibliographic instruction programs at faculty request; two libraries attempted a course in bibliographic instruction for credit, but it was dropped; and one li- brary operates a term paper clinic. None of these services was specifically de- signed for EOP students. An assumption which seems to under- lie most of these programs is that stu- dents are students. These libraries have J· not recognized the special needs of edu- cationally disadvantaged students and established appropriate services to meet these needs. Obviously, the identifica- tion of these needs is by no means an easy task. Indeed, it is very difficult even to identify EOP students. This may be due in part to the university's desire to assimilate them as quickly as possible in- to the mainstream of academic pro- grams, as well as to the fact that EOP students are not concentrated only in freshmen classes. Because many of the colleges visited serve as transfer or sen- ior colleges for junior and community colleges, educationally disadvantaged students may be found at freshman, sophomore, and -junior levels. Library services, therefore, which are aimed at the first-year college student are prob- ably missing students at these upper levels. COLLECTIONS Not one of the eight libraries studied had established special collections for their educationally disadvantaged stu- dents. The three librarians who were specifically assigned EOP responsibilities did maintain small office collections of relevant materials, especially paper- backs. These collections, however, were not the result of library policy, and to some extent they existed outside the formal structure of the library. One li- brarian (employed by the EOP office) reported that the library's policy pre- vented the purchase of textbooks. As a result, she maintained her own office col- lection of texts and workbooks which she personally circulated to EOP stu- dents. When queried about special collec- tions, most library administrators men- tioned the large budgets allocated to the development of ethnic studies collec- tions. They tended to equate these col- lections with the needs of EOP stu- dents. Clearly there is frequently a re- lationship between the two, but the needs of these students for remedial materials may not be met by such collec- tions. For example, books dealing with effective study and communication skills, or those which attempt to correct reading disabilities, might not be in- cluded within these collections. A related problem was the lack of audiovisual resources within the library. None of the libraries studied had an integrated library-media facility ( al- though a few libraries did have audio facilities). Perhaps as a result of this separation, those service programs de- signed for educationally disadvantaged students did not utilize the electronic media, the only exception being a li- brary tour recorded on cassette tape. The study also attempted to deter- mine whether EOP faculty were able to contribute in the collection develop- ment process. In the case of those in- stitutions which had EOP librarians, these librarians served as liaison be- tween the library and EOP faculty, and titles recommended for acquisition were Services to Disadvantaged I 447 usually channeled through them. At two of the remaining five libraries, some EOP faculty assumed they should send their requests to the ethnic studies li- brarian, although none reported doing so. It is interesting to note that library administrators at these two institutions also assumed that EOP departmental re- quests would be received by their re- spective ethnic studies librarians. For the remainder of the libraries, no for- mal mechanisms for EOP faculty input could be discovered. CONCLUSION To summarize, three libraries out of eight provided special programs and special staff to service EOP students and faculty. Only one library, however, as- signed a regular, full-time librarian to this group; at the other two libraries the librarians were employed by the EOP offices. Administrators of the five re- maining libraries seemed genuinely in- terested in the problem, but cited a va- · riety of reasons or excuses why their respective libraries could not provide special services. Yet it is precisely these services which appear to be needed. Ac- cording to the president of City College of New York: A library, if it is to be a good and use- ful one, must be one of the most dy- namic resources of a modern college or university .... it must, in addition to its traditional roles, be responsive to the new demands made upon it by the Open Admissions Program. A ma- jor aspect of this is the development of new modes of instruction in library use for beginning as well as for ad- vanced students. 4 It is interesting to speculate on the reasons for the rather limited library effort with respect to educationally dis- advantaged students. It is undoubtedly very difficult for large bureaucracies such as libraries to change, and response to the educationally disadvantaged ob- viously demands institutional change. 448 I College & Research Libraries • November 1975 From an organizational point of view, Holley found very little difference be- tween urban and rural university li- braries. 5 From the standpoint of ser- vices, Haro states that academic libraries have never been noted for their willing- ness to accept innovative suggestions .and implement change from outside sources. Changes in service policies and programs, when they occur, tend to orig- inate only from internal sources. 6 But some of our urban public li- braries have demonstrated that institu- tional change is possible, and given ef- fective leadership and firm commit- ment, innovative services have been de- veloped for the disadvantaged. Perhaps no other group of students has ever needed academic library services more than the educationally disadvantaged. Some have translated these needs and their frustrations into demands on the library that may appear to b~ impulsive, strident, and economically impossible to some libraries; but, in fact, these de- mands hold profound significance for the very future of ethnic minority groups, as well as for society as a whole. 7 If academic libraries are sin- cerely interested in meeting their service responsibilities to these students, new priorities must be established, a sense of mission must be communicated, and fresh and innovative services must be instituted. There are obvious risks in such a venture-personal and institu- tional-but these can be met by strong leadership and an appreciation of the extraordinary range of possible rewards. REFERENCES I. E. J. Josey, "The Role of the Academic Li- brary in Serving the Disadvantaged Stu- dent," Library Trends 20:436-42 (Oct. 1971). 2. Ge.orge W. Whitbeck, The Influence of Li- brarians in Liberal Arts Colleges in Selected Decision-Making Areas (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1972). 3. Patricia B. Knapp, The Monteith College Li- brary Experiment ( Metuchen, N.J.: Scare- crow, 1972). 4. Robert E. Marshak, Problems and Prospects of an Urban Public University (New York: City College, 1973), p.93. 5. Edward G. Holley, "Organization and Ad- ministration of Urban University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 33:180 (May 1972). 6. Robert P. Haro, "Change in Academic Li- braries," College & Research Libraries 33:97 (March 1972). 7. Robert P. Haro, "Academic Library Services for Mexican Americans," College & Re- search Libraries 33:455 ( Nov. 1972).