College and Research Libraries Involvement in Curriculum Change Catherine E. Pasterczyk Many sources of information exist for selectors and bibliographers in academic libraries to learn about curriculum change. A survey of the heads of collection development in 104 ARL libraries was conducted to determine the usefulness of these sources and the extent of library involve- ment in planning for curriculum change. Some factors having an influence on this involve- ment, such as library representation on curriculum committees and informal contacts with faculty, are examined in detail. The role of the General Library in the establishment of new courses and programs at the University of New Mexico is discussed, as are methods used at other universities. he mission of a university li- brary to support the teaching, research, and service goals of its parent institution is largely fulfilled through the selection of appropri- ate library materials. A collection develop- ment policy statement (where one exists) serves as an exceedingly useful guide to what the collections are and what they should be. This document, partly because of its mode of production, is always some- what out-of-date. Selectors must have a means of keeping up with changes in the university that should be reflected in the collections. This study of Association for Research Libraries (ARL) members repre- sents a beginning effort to quantify the ex- tent and nature of ARL selector involve- ment in planning for curriculum change and to identify methods effective in this . process. The library's responsibility to support the university's teaching functions through appropriate selection of materials is an old and enduring idea.u'3' 4 The "Standards for University Libraries" doc- ument clearly states, "A university li- brary's collections shall be of sufficient size and scope to support the university's total instructional needs and to facilitate the university's research programs. " 5 Quantitative studies to determine if this is actually occurring are rare. 6' 7 Sources of information mentioned in the literature as being useful for librarians learning about the curriculum include the course catalog, faculty contacts, course syllabi, and the card catalog. The relative usefulness of these and other methods and the extent to which they are used are not discussed. Many authors8' 9' 10 empha- size informal means for learning of such change. David Kaser mentions that "sig- nificant inputs to the library plan are gleaned, almost through an underground intelligence network, from such circum- stantial sources as hearsay, as things said rather than unsaid. " 11 Edward Holley Catherine E. Pasterczyk is science collection development coordinator, General Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131. This article is based on a paper presented to the RTSDIRS Chief Col- lection Development Officers of Medium-Sized Research Libraries Discussion Group at the ALA Midwinter Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 5, 1985. This research was supported by a grant from the Research Allocations Committee, University of New Mexico. The author would like to thank all the respondents to this survey and two anonymous reviewers for their com- ments. 7 8 College & Research Libraries freely acknowledges, ''despite his protes- tations that the librarian should be a valued member of every curriculum committee and informed of every move into a new re- search area . . . he will probably be one of the last to learn of these new develop- ments unless he has informal contacts among the faculty." 12 Numerous authors emphasize the need for learning of pro- posed changes and then plannin% surport for the projected curriculum. 13•14· ·16·1 This study seeks to address the follow- ing questions: (1) What sources of infor- mation are available to selectors/bibliog- raphers for learning of existing and pro- posed curriculum? (2) How useful is each of these sources? (3) To what extent are li- brarians learning of proposed curriculum changes before they are implemented? (4) What are the characteristics of techniques used by librarians who always have prior knowledge of proposed curriculum change? METHODOLOGY A survey was mailed to the heads of col- lection development in ARL' s 104 mem- ber libraries in the United States and Can- ada. The results reported here (see appendix A) are based on a 77 percent re- sponse rate . The data were analyzed using SPSS-X Release 2.0 as implemented on an IBM 3081D . Frequencies and cross- tabulations including chi-square were run on certain variables. In cases where there was a high number of responses in an un- anticipated category, such as ''academic status" rather than a clear-cut "yes" or "no" for faculty status, another category was formed so as not to create an uninten- tional bias in the interpretation of the results. Data analyses were performed by both using and not using the other catego- ries. Even though the data were analyzed quantitatively, they should probably be examined qualitatively: the sample size was small, and there was a possibility for varying interpretations of the questions . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Despite the fact that liaison with aca- demic departments is widely viewed as a top priority in collection development ac- tivities18 and that a myriad of methods for learning of curriculum changes are poten- January 1986 tially available, 19'20 60.5 percent of the re- spondents indicated that select- ors/bibliographers II rarely" or II some- times" have knowledge of proposed course changes in their areas of responsi- bility before they are implemented. Only 7. 9 percent II always" had that knowl- edge, and 31.6 percent "often" did. This implies that, despite the clear and budge- tarily significant link between curriculum and library materials acquisitions, few li- braries are involved to any significant de- gree in curriculum planning. One potential method for learning of curriculum change is through the faculty committee responsible for reviewing it. Approximately one-third (34.6 percent) of the respondents indicated that the library had a representative on the committee or otherwise knew what transpired at meet- ings by having an observer there or by re- ceiving the minutes or the agenda. One- third (34.6 percent) of respondents never had a representative on the committee; another third (31.9 percent) fell some- where in between. A summary of the other methods men- tioned by respondents for learning of change i1? presented (tables 1 and 2). Not all the methods may be applicable to a par- ticular situation, but it must be noted that the methods considered most useful are ones where direct communication be- tween librarians and departmental faculty members occurs. A positive, significant correlation was found between having an awareness of what transpires during curricula commit- tee meetings and (1) having prior knowl- edge of curriculum change and (2) selec- tors being allowed an opportunity to comment on the change (see table 3). The curriculum committee or its equivalent was mentioned by a number of respon- dents as an appropriate, effective channel of communication. Seeking active in- volvement with this committee would be beneficial to many libraries. The argument that faculty status in and of itself will improve selector awareness of curriculum change does not appear to be valid: 74.3 percent of respondents saw no change in selector awareness due to librar- ians having obtained faculty status. Only 20.0 percent felt that it contributed to Involvement in Curriculum Change 9 TABLE 1 USEFULNESS OF SOURCES USED BY SELECTORS/BIBLIOGRAPHERS FOR LEARNING ABOUT COURSES/PROGRAMS Sources of information Informal contacts with individual facultyt Meetings with department liaisons Memberships on faculty curriculum committeest Course cata1ogs Attendance at departmental faculty meetings Reserve booklists Department-produced lists of classes Course schedules Attendance at general faculty meetings Campus/faculty newspaper Campus/student newspaper Bookstore textbook lists Departmental bulletin boards *6 = most; 1 = least Usefulness* 5.6 5.5 5.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.1 tSignifies responses not specifically included on questionnaire but mentioned by N > = 2 respondents Note : Other mentioned sources include membership on senate committees, lists of approved new courses, and employment interviews. TABLE 2 USEFULNESS OF SOURCES USED BY SELECTORS/BIBLIOGRAPHERS FOR LEARNING ABOUT CHANGES IN COURSES/PROGRAMS Sources of information Informal contacts with individual facultyt Memberships on faculty curriculum committeest Meetings with department liaisons Usefulness* Attendance at departmental faculty meetings Lists of proposed course changes routed specifically to library Course catalogs Attendance at general faculty meetings Reserve booklists 6.0 5.7 5.4 4.9 4.8 3 .7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.3 Course schedules Department-produced lists of classes Campus/faculty newspaper Campus/student newspaper Departmental bulletin boards Bookstore textbook lists *6 = most; 1 = least tSignifies responses not specifically included on questionnaire but mentioned by N > = 2 respondents N{)te: Other sources mentioned include membership on senate committees, selector survey used for budget allocation, and information about new faculty appointments . greater awareness, and 2. 9 percent said it contributed to less awareness. One re- spondent remarked, "Faculty status does not assure bibliographer acceptance.'' In fact, no significant correlation was found between faculty status and whether (1) li- brarians are aware of curriculum change prior to the fact, (2) librarians have the op- portunity to comment officially on how proposed curriculum changes will affect materials selected, or (3) libraries have an up-to-date collection development policy (see table 3). Apparently the methods for improving communication are more sub- tle than simply possessing faculty status. One-half (49.3 percent) of the respon- dents indicated that selectors are not al- lowed to comment on how proposed course/program changes will affect mate- rials selected. For the remaining half (50.7 percent), the opportunity to comment might occur only occasionally and applied only to program changes. Commentary was made through somewhat informal means or through various Faculty Senate committees. There is almost unanimous 10 College & Research Libraries January 1986 TABLE 3 CHI-SQUARE TEST: INDEPENDENCE OF SOME FACTORS POTENTIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH SELECTOR/BffiLIOGRAPHER AWARENESS OF CURRICULUM CHANGE Fac. Update Rep. Stat. Prior Comme nt Current* a<.OOS a<.lOO NS a<.050 NS Update NS NS NS NS Rep. a<.lOO a< .050 a<.lOO Fac. Stat. NS NS Prior a<.005 *Current = library has a current (revised within last five years) collection development policy. Update = collection development policy is updated on a regular basis (at least every five years) . Rep. =library has representation on the university curriculum committee, i.e., committee charged with discussing curriculum concerns such as degree requirements, course changes, etc . Fac. stat. = librarians have faculty status. Prior = selector/bibliographers have knowledge of proposed course changes in their area(s) of responsibility before they are implemented. Comment = selectors are given an opportunity to officially comment on how proposed course/pro~am changes will affect materials selected. Figures giVen show the significance level at which the null hypothesis of independence can be rejected or, in other words, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of inaependence when the null hypothesis is true (Type I error). Statisticians often use a< .05 as a cutoff point at which the alternative hypotheses of dependence can safely (i.e ., with a probability a< .05% that a Type I error will occur) be accepted. Values a> .05 are _generally considered nonsignificant . The table shows values a> .100 as being nonsignificant (NS) . agreement that both librarians and the university would benefit from librarians having this opportunity to comment, at least on major changes. There was a posi- tive relationship between librarians hav- ing prior awareness of curriculum change and their being allowed to comment offi- cially upon it. This may imply that once an official avenue for comment is put into ef- fect it is easier for selectors to learn of changes, since automatic notification oc- curs, or that once selectors express an in- terest in curriculum change, they are more likely to be allowed to comment. ONE SOLUTION The procedure developed at the Univer- sity of New Mexico (UNM) General Li- brary for selector involvement in planning for curriculum change results from the be- lief that a combination of formal and infor- mal communications between teaching faculty and library faculty is optimal. Library faculty are voting members of the three standing committees of the Fac- ulty Senate that are concerned with curric- ulum changes, the Curricula Committee, the Senate Graduate Committee, and the Undergraduate Committee. Additionally, the assistant dean for Collection Develop- mentis an ex officio member of the Curric- ula Committee. 21 New course requests and major or mi- nor curriculum change requests are first sent to the dean of Library Services for as- sessment of library impact. These requests are referred to the appropriate selector for comment, which provides selectors with an official notification that a new course is being proposed and the requesting de- partment with an evaluation of antici- pated library support. Often, the earlier, informal dialogue between librarians and teaching faculty is the first way librarians learn of new course proposals, and it is not unusual for consultation to take place dur- ing the selectors' evaluation. The new course requests are subsequently for- warded to the Curricula Committee, the college or school dean, and the Office of Graduate Studies . Faculty Senate minutes notify the selector of the requests' final disposition. It is possible, however, for a course to be offered as a special topic for several years without going through this process. Still, many respondents to the survey mentioned that they would like such a system; only six indicated that they have a comparable system in place. The desirability of keeping the Library informed as plans are made for new pro- grams was discussed by the Library Fac- ulty Committee as early as the 1930s. 22 The present communications system was achieved over a period of eight years and is based on a ''concept of quality'' for li- brary service established partly through good selector/departmental liaison com- munications that helped build credibility and partly from the expectation of the li- brary's high-quality response (within fi- nancial constraints) to the university's needs. The fact that university and state policies mandate an examination of the budgetary implications of a new course le- gitimized the impact statements prepared by library faculty. It was also argued that librarians, because they are faculty, should actively participate in planning the curriculum change rather than merely re- acting to it. 23 Some survey respondents commented that individual course changes should not affect library materials selection: a well- developed collection development policy would take care of such things, and library comment would only be valuable for ma- jor, i.e., program or degree changes. First, the achievement of library integration into the curriculum planning process at UNM was, of necessity, a gradual one. Library impact statements were first required for courses and then for programs and de- grees. Second, the UNM General Library does not have a complete, up-to-date col- lection development policy and every lit- tle bit of information helps. Kaser noted "All librarians ... serve as unique anten- nae, through which units of information can be received, some of great impor- tance, some of small importance, but all of some importance. A well-run library will assure that all such information is fed, on a structured basis, into a central intelligence system where it can be noted, winnowed, evaluated against other input, and acted upon as appropriate on a continuing ba- sis."24 - SOLUTIONS AT OTHER LIBRARIES These solutions are not unique to UNM: they are also used by the five other li- braries where librarians "always" have knowledge of proposed course changes. Involvement in Curriculum Change 11 Many of these libraries are provided a space on university curriculum forms for selector comment on both graduate and undergraduate, new, modified, or deleted courses and programs. These forms some- times include a bibliography of materials deemed important by the department. Course requests can be held up in commit- tee for want of a library statement. Exten- sive resource evaluations are conducted by some selectors in the case of proposed degree programs. Several librarians men- tioned that having the head of Collection Development or some other selector sit on the curriculum committee was very valu- able. Where this is not feasible, receiving the minutes or agenda of the meetings is sometimes arranged. Membership on other senate committees is useful for some libraries. Besides being effective for those libraries that use them, the above solu- tions were frequently mentioned by other librarians as being desirable. CONCLUSIONS The problem of facilitating exchange be- tween teaching faculty and librarians, par- ticularly regarding curriculum change, is an old one, and the fundamental solution, informal face-to-face communication, is equally old. The present study confirms the benefits of this solution and shows that it is not used to its fullest potential. Selectors, the librarians with the most bib- liographic knowledge of particular subject areas and influence on how collections are built, are rarely consulted automatically when curriculum changes are proposed. A great deal has been written in the last few years about faculty status for librari- ans. Its attainment is viewed as a victory by librarians and with confusion by some teaching faculty. Faculty status by itself does not necessarily increase the efficacy of some collection development activities; faculty status does not affect how selectors maintain an awareness of what is happen- ing within the university milieu. Rather, it is largely personal contacts with teaching faculty (not just departmental chairs or li- aisons), graduate students, and depart- mental secretaries that is believed to be at the heart of effective communication. These informal contacts can provide the 12 College & Research Libraries foundation for the development of formal channels of communication. Selectors and bibliographers must therefore be given the opportunity to in- teract on an informal basis with faculty. They must be permitted to attend-at no charge and during work hours-classes, seminars, workshops, and field trips in the teaching departments. Attending fac- ulty committee meetings should become a part of the selectors' normal workload. They should also be able to do online com- puter searches and library instruction in their areas of subject responsibility. Pro- fessional leave for attending subject- January 1986 oriented professional meetings of groups such as Modern Language Association, Geological Society of America, and Amer- ican Chemical Society-not just ALA and SLA-should be given freely. Educating the faculty about the library can be accom- plished partly by hiring selectors with a knowledge of, or a genuine interest in, their selection areas. Librarians should be regarded as equals or partners in the over- all educational process. With informal channels of communication firmly in place, the library, down to the selector level, can be formally and rightfully in- volved in planning for curriculum change. REFERENCES 1. Mae L. Holt, "Collection Evaluation: A Managerial Tool," Collection Management 3:280 (Winter 1979). 2 . John H. Whaley, Jr.," An Approach to Collection Analysis," Library Resources & Technical Services 25:333 (July/Sept. 1981). 3. Mary B. Cassata and Gene L. Dewey, "The Evaluation of a University Library Collection: Some Guidelines," Library Resources & Technical Services 13:452 (Fall1969) .. 4. Edward J. Jennerich, "A Primer on Effective Library Utilization for Department Chairpersons," (Arlington, Va.: ERIC Document Preparation Service, 1978), p.3 . (Microfiche ED 202 479) . 5. "Standards for University Libraries," College & Research Libraries News 4:102 (Apr. 1979). 6. Robert L. Burr, "Evaluating Library Collections: A Case Study," Journal of Academic Librarianship 5:256-60 (Nov. 1979). 7. Richard P. Palmer, "Integrating Library Acquisitions with the Curriculum," (Arlington, Va. : ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1974) . (Microfiche ED 140 804). 8. James 0. Lehman, "Library-Faculty Liaison in the Small College," Southeastern Librarian 20:101-2 (Summer 1970). 9. Garold L. Cole; "The Subject Reference Librarian and the Academic Departments: A Cooperative Venture," Special Libraries 65:260 (July 1974). 10. Jerold A : Nelson, "Communication Between Reference Librarians and the Faculty in Selected Cal- ifornia State Colleges" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of California-Berkeley, 1972), p.l19. 11. David Kaser, "Planning in University Libraries; Context and Processes," Southeastern Librarian 21:212 (Winter 1971). 12. Edward G. Holley, "Effective Librarian-Faculty Relationships," Illinois Libraries 43:732-33 (Dec. 1961). 13. Manuel D. Lopez, "A Guide for Beginning Bibliographers," Library Resources & Technical Services 13:465 (Fall1969). 14. Marion L. Buzzard, "Writing a Collection Development Policy for an Academic Library," Collec- tion Management 2:324 (Winter 1978). 15. Problems in University Library Management (Washington, D .C.: Association of Research Libraries, · 1970), p.24, 43-44. 16. Robert M. O'Neil, "The University Administrator's View of the University Library," in Priorities for Academic Libraries, ed . Thomas J. Galvin and Beverly P. Lynch (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982), p .7. 17. William A. Moffett, "What the Academic Librarian Wants from Administrators and Faculty," in Priorities, p .19,21. 18. Diane C. Parker and Eric J. Carpenter, "A Zero-Base Budget Approach to Staff Justification for a Combined Reference and Collection Development Department," in New Horizons for Academic Li- braries: Papers Presented at the First National Conference of the Association of College and Research Li- braries, ed . Robert D . Stueart and Richard D. Johnson, (New York: K. G. Saur, 1979), p.477-78 . Involvement in Curriculum Change 13 19. General Libraries, University of Texas at Austin, Bibliographers Manual: Guide to the General Li- braries Collection Development Program, (Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, 1982), p.14. 20. Mary B. Cassata and Gene L. Dewey, "The Evaluation," p.452. 21 . Faculty Handbook (Albuquerque, N .M.: Univ. of New Mexico, 1983), p .A-14-A-23. 22. Univ. of New Mexico, "Minutes of the Library Committee. 1936-1966. II 23 . Paul Vassallo, personal communication, Nov. 1984. 24. Kaser, "Planning, 11 p.212. APPENDIX A: SURVEY ON SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR BIBLIOGRAPHER/SELECTOR AWARENESS OF CURRICULUM CHANGE Question 1: Does your library have a current (revised within the last five years) collection develop- ment policy? 30 (38 .0%) Yes 22 (27.8%) No 27 (34 .2%) Yes, for some parts of the collection If yes, is it updated on a regular basis (at least every five years)? 27 (44.3%) Yes 13 (21.3%) No 21 (34.4%) Yes, for some parts of the collection Question 2: Does the library have representation on the university curriculum committee, i.e., com- mittee charged with discussing curriculum concerns such as degree requirements, course changes, etc.? 23 (29 .5%) Yes, always 13 (16.7%) Occasionally 6 ( 7.7%) Seldom 27 (34.6%) Never 9 (11.5%) Not applicable. Please explain:-------------------- Question 3: Do librarians at your institution have faculty status? 39 (49.4%) Yes 6 ( 7.6%) Academic Status 34 (43.0%) No If yes, do you feel that there has been a change in bibliographer/selector awareness of course changes (additions/deletions/modifications) due to obtaining faculty status? 7 (20.6%) Yes, greater awareness 1 ( 2.9%) Yes, less awareness 26 (76.5%) No, no change due to faculty status Question 4: Do bibliographers/selectors have knowledge of proposed course changes in their area(s) of responsibility before they are implemented? 6 ( 7.9%) Yes, always 24 (31.6%) Yes, often 37 (48.7%) Sometimes 9 (11.8%) Rarely 0 ( 0.0%) Never Question 5: Are selectors at your institution allowed an opportunity to officially comment on how proposed course/program changes will affect materials selected? 33 (44.0%) Yes 37 (49.3%) No 5 ( 6.7%) Seldom If yes, what form does this take? 14 College & Research Libraries January 1986 If no, do you think they would benefit from this opportunity? 23 (52.3%) Yes 1 ( 2.2%) No 19 (43 .2%) Only for major program changes 1 ( 2.2%) Other. Please explain : ----------------------- Also, if no, do you think the university would benefit from the librarians having this opportunity? 24 (60.0%) Yes 1 ( 2.5%) No 14 (35.0%) Only for major program changes 1 ( 2.5%) Other. Please explain : ----------------------- Question 6: Potentially how useful to the bibliographers/selectors are each of the following methods for learning about courses/programs offered at your university? Course catalogs Course schedules Department-produced lists of classes Bookstore textbook lists Reserve booklists Departmental bulletin boards Campus/student newspaper Campus/faculty newspaper Meeting with department liaison Attendance at general faculty meetings Attendance at departmental faculty meetings Other __________________ __ Most 6 5 22 28 10 15 10 11 1 3 8 20 1 2 3 5 3 9 48 17 4 14 22 23 Usefulness Least Not applicable / 4 3 2 1 Not available 13 6 2 3 2 14 13 10 12 2 15 8 9 6 17 15 10 18 19 9 17 14 10 4 3 5 15 19 25 8 9 12 20 22 5 8 16 11 12 14 7 2 0 0 2 6 6 17 10 16 8 6 4 3 8 Question 7: What methods not currently available to your selectors would you like to see available for their use? Question 8: Potentially how useful to the bibliographers/selectors are each of the following methods for learning about changes (additions /deletions /modifications) in courses/programs offered at your university? Course catalogs Course schedules Department-produced lists of classes Bookstore textbook lists Reserve booklists Departmental bulletin boards Campus/student newspaper Most 6 5 12 20 11 13 9 9 1 2 8 18 3 2 3 9 Usefulness Least Not applicable / 4 3 2 1 Not available 9 81111 3 12 9 10 15 2 11 10 9 13 13 13 10 14 25 8 9 13 11 12 2 6 17 14 23 8 6 11 14 25 6 l Involvement in Curriculum Change 15 Usefulness Most Least Not applicable/ 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not available Campus/faculty newspaper 3 10 8 15 8 14 14 Meeting with departmenlliaison 46 16 7 4 0 1 2 Attendance at general faculty meetings 8 12 8 5 11 8 18 Attendance at departmental faculty meetings 26 22 6 4 3 2 10 Lists of proposed course changes routed specifically to library 28 4 3 1 0 0 26 Other Question 9: What methods not currently available to your selectors would you like to see available for their use in learning about changes? Question 10: Your title : ----------------------------- Optional: To update my name /address file, could you also give the following. Your name: ________________________________ _ Address: _________________________________ _ Feel free to comment on the topic of this questionnaire in the space below. Please mail survey by November 15, 1984 to : Catherine E. Pasterczyk Science Reference /Collection Development Librarian Zimmerman Library The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA Thank you very much!