mozenter.p65 432 College & Research Libraries September 2000 Restructuring a Liaison Program in an Academic Library Frada Mozenter, Bridgette T. Sanders, and Jeanie M. Welch New technologies, an expanding universe of knowledge, and a more sophisticated user base influence not only how we provide access to information, but also how we define and organize ourselves in relation to the public. The J. Murrey Atkins Library of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte has endeavored to strengthen the relationship between the library and the teaching faculty by restructuring the library’s liaison program. Concurrently, but independent of this redesign, three experienced reference librarians assessed their effectiveness as liai­ sons by conducting a survey of selected departments. A review of the development and implementation of the library’s program, together with an assessment of the faculty survey, confirm that specific elements are prerequisites of an effective liaison program. ibrarianship has undergone a rapid evolution since the ad­ vent of new technologies that provide both instant and re­ mote access to information sources. New technologies, distributed learning, and distance education have altered the con­ cepts of what libraries are and what aca­ demic librarians do. According to the “In­ formation Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), “Academic librarians coordinate the evalu­ ation and selection of intellectual resources for programs and services; organize and maintain collections and many points of access to information; and provide instruc­ tion to students and faculty who seek in­ formation.”1 At the same time as this elec­ tronic revolution, academic libraries are undergoing organizational changes—re­ defining and reassigning responsibilities throughout the organization. One area that libraries are examining in light of chang­ ing roles and expectations is the concept of liaison services to teaching faculty. A re­ structuring of the library liaison program at a state university provides an example of organizational change within this rap­ idly changing technological environment. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) is a compre­ hensive, regional institution that gained university status within the University of North Carolina System in 1965. At present, it has approximately 16,000 stu­ dents. The campus is served by the J. Murrey Atkins Library, a centralized li- Frada Mozenter is a Professor and Reference Librarian, Bridgette T. Sanders is an Associate Professor and Reference Librarian, and Jeanie M. Welch is a Professor and Reference Librarian in the J. Murrey Atkins Library at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte; e-mail: flmozent@email.uncc.edu, btsander@email.uncc.edu, and jmwelch@email.uncc.edu, respectively. 432 mailto:jmwelch@email.uncc.edu mailto:btsander@email.uncc.edu mailto:flmozent@email.uncc.edu Restructuring a Liaison Program in an Academic Library 433 brary facility with a small branch collec­ tion in the College of Architecture. The J. Murrey Atkins Library houses more than 694,000 volumes and almost 900,000 gov­ ernment documents, and carries almost 5,000 current subscriptions. The library staff consists of twenty-four librarians. A restructuring of the liaison program at Atkins Library prompted a review of the previous liaison program, a survey of se­ lected academic departments, and an analysis of the new program’s implemen­ tation. Literature Review and Online Survey of Academic Library Liaison Programs As a result of the implementation of a re­ structured liaison program, one of the au­ thors conducted a literature review of li­ aison responsibilities, including guidelines for liaisons.2 The ARL Office of Management Services developed the most extensive survey of liaison respon­ sibilities in 1992.3 Four major areas were reviewed: the liaison within the organi­ zational framework, the definition of li­ aison, coordination of liaison services, and the responsibilities of the liaisons. Al­ though collection development was iden­ tified by most libraries as their primary activity, the survey revealed that most of the guidelines documenting liaison activ­ ity contained common themes. These in­ cluded statements of purpose, identifica­ tion of a target group the liaisons were to serve, the role of departmental represen­ tatives, statements covering communica­ tion between liaisons and departments, and summaries of the range of services the liaisons were to provide. All these points can be extended to liaison services beyond that of collection development. Another important aspect of the ARL sur­ vey was recognition that the need for, and scope of, liaison services expands as physical collections make way for elec­ tronic collections available via remote ac­ cess. Decentralizing collections and changing from print to electronic re­ sources require more communication and more instruction. Other surveys reported on the liaison program as an important promotion and marketing device.4 According to Cynthia C. Ryans, Raghini S. Suresh, and Wei-Ping Zhang, “a liaison programme is designed to provide a communication link between the library and the academic community to enhance the image of the library.”5 But liaison work goes far beyond that defini­ tion. Liaison programs provide commu­ nication to teaching faculty about new li­ brary services and strengthen the role of the librarian in facilitating access to the wide range of resources that are available. To examine current liaison programs, one of the authors sent out a query on the listserv LIBREF-L. Nine responses were received (eight from U.S. institutions and one from a foreign institution).6 Of the eight U.S. institutions, five were compa­ rable in size to UNC Charlotte. All of the libraries had established some type of li­ aison program. Although it was not al­ ways clearly stated which staff members were involved, it appeared that about half of the respondents restricted these re­ sponsibilities to reference librarians and the rest included both public services and technical services staff. Three respondents specifically noted that liaison assignments were based (as much as possible) on aca­ demic degrees, work experience, and/or interest, a finding also reflected in the lit­ erature survey. Most reported a full range of responsibilities, although not all re­ spondents provided detailed information. Duties that were noted included: general communication with the teaching faculty in their department(s), including appris­ ing them of library resources and policies and keeping the library administration abreast of departmental needs; assistance with budget reports, collection develop­ ment, and library instruction; assistance with accreditation reports; and special­ ized help, when needed. Previous Liaison Responsibilities of Librarians at UNC Charlotte Prior to implementation of the new pro­ gram at UNC Charlotte, all liaison respon­ sibilities were handled by eight subject 434 College & Research Libraries September 2000 specialists within the Reference Unit. Al­ though liaisons differed in their ap­ proaches, traditional liaison responsibili­ ties have been, and continue to be, the following: • in-depth reference/research service; • electronic search services; • library instruction; • course proposal and accreditation reports; • reference collection development. In-depth reference and research service encompasses assisting teaching faculty and students with extensive research, in­ cluding electronic literature searching, ci­ tation searching, and discussions of re­ search methodology. In-depth reference service has become more imperative as the growth in electronic resources has in­ creased patron awareness of and access to resources. The liaison librarians are considered the “experts” in their disci­ plines and are expected to keep abreast of new resources and emerging technolo­ gies. The electronic services segment of the liaison program has three major compo­ nents: selecting new services; training staff, teaching faculty, and students; and providing mediated searching to teach­ ing faculty. Recommendations for new electronic search services are handled by the library’s Electronic Collections Advi­ sory Committee (ECAC). Liaisons may initiate action by contacting a teaching faculty member and seeking input or by forwarding a request to ECAC. In other cases, teaching faculty suggest the service to the liaison. ECAC compiles a list of rec­ ommendations, but the final decisions rest with the director of library services. However, consortial agreements on the purchase of electronic search services have priority over local recommenda­ tions. The reference unit coordinator of electronic search services coordinates training for such services within the unit. When a new service is acquired, the co­ ordinator contacts the appropriate subject specialist and requests development of an end-user guide and staff training. Subsi­ dized mediated searching of DIALOG databases also is provided by liaisons for the teaching faculty. However, because Web-based services permit easy access, most teaching faculty search files them­ selves. Liaison responsibilities for elec­ tronic search services include keeping teaching faculty informed of new services or changes to existing services, dissemi­ nating passwords, and assisting teaching faculty with search strategies. Library instruction remains an impor­ tant part of the liaison program and an important service to the library’s patrons. The goal of library instruction is to pro­ vide instruction that effectively supports university programs of teaching, research, and service for teaching faculty and stu­ dents. Formal instruction facilitates effec­ tive research through lectures and dem­ onstrations of print and nonprint re­ sources for individual class assignments and programs supported by the univer­ sity. In most cases, teaching faculty ini­ tiate requests for library instruction. Other liaisons initiate the call for instruc­ tion each semester, using print or e-mail notification and request forms. Teaching faculty and liaisons work together to de­ termine the best format and resources for providing the needed information to stu­ dents. Whenever possible, the instruction is based on a specific research assignment and may include the preparation of print handouts, webliographies, or class-spe­ cific Web sites. Another form of library instruction is that of general library tours conducted by the liaisons. The review of course proposals and the preparation of accreditation reports in­ clude assisting departments in planning new courses and programs and ensuring that supporting resources are available. UNC Charlotte has campuswide curricu­ lum committees, and all proposals for new courses or new programs or any changes to existing curricula or programs must be submitted to a committee for ini­ tial approval. When the proposal is be­ ing prepared at the departmental level, it also must be submitted to the liaison li­ brarian to determine if sufficient re­ sources are available. Restructuring a Liaison Program in an Academic Library 435 In general, collection development re­ sponsibilities are restricted to the print ref­ erence collection, which consists of ap­ proximately 20,000 monographs and in­ dex volumes. Reference collection devel­ opment is under the direction of a refer­ ence librarian who serves as reference col­ lection development coordinator. There is a separate budget for reference materials that is allocated to the subject areas. Sub­ ject liaisons select titles to be added to the collection, and titles are approved by the reference collection development coordi­ nator. Additions to or deletions of print indexes are recommended by the subject liaisons with the final decision made by the reference librarians as a group. In terms of collection development for the circulating collection, the titles are approved by the library represen­ tatives from the teaching faculty within each department or college and are purchased using funds that had been allocated on a formula based on enroll­ ment. However, two exceptions to this arrangement are business and women’s studies. Titles for the circulating collec­ tion of the Belk College of Business Ad­ ministration are selected by the busi­ ness subject specialist within the Ref­ erence Unit. The selection process is done through the conventional meth­ ods of reviewing publishers’ catalogs and standard reviewing sources (e.g., Choice cards), requests from the college library representative, and a review of standard acquisitions lists such as the Harvard Business School Core Collection. The women’s studies program at UNC Charlotte offers a minor degree pro­ gram. Unlike departments that have funds allocated to them, monies for the women’s studies collection come from a general fund and stay under the library’s auspices. Two major review sources are consulted on a regular ba- sis—The Women’s Review of Books and Choice. The book review sections of Psy­ chology of Women Quarterly, Women’s Studies, Signs, Journal of Women’s His­ tory, and Gender and Society also are con­ sulted.7 The Restructured Library Liaison Program In 1998, a working group consisting of the head of technical services, the head of collection development, the coordinator of reference services, and the head of re­ search data services was charged by the library director with developing recom­ mendations for strengthening the role of library liaisons. The working group for­ mulated a two-page list of thirty-one re­ sponsibilities that expanded the defini­ tion of liaison responsibilities to include any subject-oriented contact with depart­ ments and colleges. The Reference Unit reviewed this document, organized it into functional areas, and suggested changes to meet concerns of balance and account­ ability. The final report was approved by the Library Council, which consists of the library director and senior managers. It also was endorsed by the university-wide Library Advisory Faculty Committee. A report was issued that delineated li­ brary liaison responsibilities, using the outline suggested by the Reference Unit. It included the following goals:8 • to develop a strong collaborative program between the library and aca­ demic units; • to develop a collaborative frame­ work to support the library’s instructional mission; • to provide a conduit for the library to communicate and discuss library issues and concerns with the faculty; • to develop a proactive stance to­ ward information resources for the larger university community; • to participate in and support faculty development efforts with regard to elec­ tronic and other information resources. The report listed liaison responsibili­ ties in the following categories:9 • general responsibilities (e.g., com­ munication and training); • reference service; • library instruction; • collection development and man­ agement; • curriculum development (curricu­ lum proposals and accreditation reports). 436 College & Research Libraries September 2000 The working group assigned librarians and support staff from all library depart­ ments as liaisons or adjunct liaisons, set up a model for governance based on a Liaison Steering Group, and outlined a training program. (Adjunct liaisons did not have all of the responsibilities of the primary liaisons.) Library liaisons and adjunct liaisons were organized into three liaison subject groups—sciences, social sciences, and humanities and architec­ ture. Conveners were appointed for each group to serve on the Steering Group and to provide leadership for their subject group. The Steering Group included the heads of collection development, techni­ cal services, and the information com­ mons, and the conveners of the liaison subject groups. The month-long training program con­ sisted of four two-hour sessions, with handouts provided for each session. The first session overviewed the program’s goals, expectations, and financial infor­ mation, including the materials budget, the accounting system, and budget access and interpretation. The second session overviewed all aspects of acquisitions, including monograph and serials order­ ing, collection management tools (e.g., Blackwell’s Collection Manager), elec­ tronic products, the university approval plan, gifts, and preservation issues (reor­ dering or replacement of damaged mate­ rials). The library recently had revised its collection development policy, stating that “The library will define, develop, and manage its collection in cooperation with each academic unit through a mutually acceptable mechanism.” It further stated that “Different arrangements may result among departments.”10 The third session overviewed library services in collection access (circulation), interlibrary loan, the OPAC (the library was implementing a new Web-based OPAC while training was under way), government documents, special collec­ tions, and document delivery (e.g., UnCover Reveal). The fourth session overviewed reference services, biblio­ graphic instruction, and the handling of new course and program proposals and accreditation reports. A brief evaluation survey was distributed two months after the training had been completed. Infor­ mation sessions for deans, department chairs, and library representatives from the teaching faculty also were conducted. After the four training sessions had been completed, three experienced librar­ ians reviewed the new program’s devel­ opment and implementation. The review concentrated on four areas: • organization; • communication; • training; • evaluation. As with the restr ucturing of any librarywide program, the first thing to do is to adopt a thorough organizational plan. This affects both individual respon­ sibilities and the program’s general op­ eration and structure. In terms of the re­ structured liaison program, the liaison areas, responsibilities of the conveners, and the Steering Group were well de­ fined. However, input from experienced liaisons may have facilitated resolution of the following questions about liaison qualifications and responsibilities: • What are the criteria for appoint­ ment as a liaison or adjunct liaison (e.g., professional experience, education, present job responsibilities)? • What are the responsibilities on nonpublic services staff in terms of refer­ ence assistance and library instruction? • Can liaisons select their responsi­ bilities, and what effect might this have on public services? • Can liaisons unilaterally opt out of the program (and, if so, how)? • What is the relationship between liaisons and adjunct liaisons? Second, it is important to address the issue of both internal and external com­ munication. As with any complex, librarywide initiative, changes in person­ nel (e.g., unexpected vacancies and new hires) affect the composition of the liai­ son program. Notifying liaisons that there have been changes in their responsibili­ ties or that personnel changes necessitate Restructuring a Liaison Program in an Academic Library 437 reassigned liaison responsibilities must be a high priority. In terms of external com­ munication with the campus community, administrators of a restructured liaison program must have a clear policy on com­ munications with colleges and depart­ ments. Communication considerations include: • campuswide publicity (e.g., an­ nouncing the program, announcing any personnel changes); • guidelines for liaisons when com­ municating with individual colleges and departments. To ensure that the new program meets its stated objectives, evalua­ tions must be timely, comprehen­ sive, and informative. Third, issues related to training must be addressed. Both experienced and new liaisons attended the same training ses­ sions. Although it was stated that the four training sessions were to ensure the same core competencies for all liaisons, they were repetitive for experienced liaisons. A suggested structure might be an intro­ ductory session for everyone, informa­ tion-based workshops geared to the new participants, an “update” session for ev­ eryone on new policies and services be­ ing introduced, and, finally, a session for everyone detailing future training within their liaison groups. Areas in which train­ ing may be needed include: • use of collection management sta­ tistical tools; • use of selection resources; • library instruction; • reference sources (both print and electronic) and reference assistance; • collection analysis for course pro­ posals and accreditation reports. Fourth, there is the issue of evaluation. To ensure that the new program meets its stated objectives, evaluations must be timely, comprehensive, and informative. First, evaluation should be an ongoing process, preceded by a needs assessment for both faculty and liaisons. Second, the training received by liaisons also needs to be assessed. Such assessment should include the quality and scope of the work­ shops, perceptions of their effectiveness, and the impact of the training on the skills that liaisons brought to the program. In addition, evaluation should include a means for liaisons to request specific ar­ eas and types of sessions for further train­ ing.11 Third, a separate evaluation of the teaching departments should be con­ ducted to include the effectiveness of all aspects of the program and satisfaction with liaisons. Both such evaluations should be built into the structure of the liaison program, with all aspects under­ going periodic review and analysis. One of the first evaluative issues may be that of collection development. The present policy allows each department and liaison to develop its own process.12 The impact of such an open policy will need to be assessed. How do multiple arrangements affect liaisons (especially liaisons with a number of departments, each handled differently)? How do dif­ ferent arrangements impact the overall quality of the collection? And how do new liaisons from nonpublic service areas in­ corporate liaison responsibilities into their jobs? In summation, progress must be made on a number of issues. To ensure the vi­ ability of the new program, the Steering Committee must develop additional training sessions for liaisons constructed within a framework best suited to each application. The sessions should be timely and include specific goals, objectives, and activities; provide better communication; better define and document policies and procedures; refine organizational struc­ ture and processes; and develop well-con­ structed assessment tools. Survey of Teaching Faculty Concurrent with, but independent of, li­ aison training, three experienced liaisons were interested in taking the opportunity to assess their effectiveness as liaisons. A ten-question survey was developed and sent to the teaching faculty (n = 118) in ten departments, nine in the College of http:process.12 438 College & Research Libraries September 2000 TABLE 1 Results of Faculty Survey Information Provided by Liaisons Percentage of Faculty Reporting Receiving Information Infornation about electronic services 86.2% (n = 25) Library instruction 75.8% (n = 22) General library infornation 68.9% (n = 20) Mediated searches 48.2% (n = 14) Notification of new titles in the reference collection 48.2% (n = 14) Resources related to respondents' research 44.8% (n = 13) Other (e.g., Web links and assistance with ILL) 20.6% (n = 6) Arts and Sciences and one in the Belk College of Business Administration. Sur­ veyed departments comprised the liaison groups of three of the researchers of this study and one other experienced liaison. The departments were selected on the basis of past stability in relation to their liaison, as well as on the proposed pro­ gram changes. The liaisons of the sur­ veyed departments had held liaison re­ sponsibilities for periods ranging from two to nineteen years. In addition, all li­ aisons had a graduate or undergraduate degree in one of their areas. The survey was sent to all full-time teaching faculty, both tenured and untenured, and to the chairs of the de­ partments of criminal justice, dance and theater, foreign languages, marketing, music, philosophy, political science, so­ cial work, and sociology/anthropology. Three weeks were given for completion. To ensure candor, questionnaires were bundled by department and returned to a liaison other than the one for that de­ partment. The questions were based pri­ marily on the traditional liaison services currently provided at UNC Charlotte. The questions focused on four major areas: • communication; • library instruction; • general assistance; • professional competency. Respondents were asked to check the appropriate answer (e.g., “Satisfactory” or “Needs Improvement”). Space also was provided for suggestions for im­ provement or general comments.13 Of the 118 questionnaires sent, forty- seven were returned (a return rate of ap­ proximately 39.8%). Of the total, 61.7 per­ cent (n = 29) indicated that they or their department had been contacted by their liaison. Of these, 58.6 percent (n = 17) said they were contacted “very often” and 37.9 percent (n = 11) “somewhat often.” The most frequent form of communication was e-mail (89.9%) (n = 26). Eighty-seven per­ cent responded that the liaison had kept them informed of services. The type of in­ formation provided is shown in table 1. Twenty of the forty-seven respondents (42.5%) reported that the liaison had pro­ vided library instruction for their students, and eighteen of them (90%) were satisfied with the teaching and presentation skills of the librarian. Eighteen of the respon­ dents (90%) indicated that a Web page or handout had been developed for the class, and nineteen (95%) reported satisfaction with the handouts or Web pages. The necessity of communication was made clear by both the critique of the restructured program and the evaluation of the survey. Overall, respondents appear satisfied with the service level offered by their li­ aison. Of the twenty-nine respondents who said they had received some form of communication (and one who did not receive communication), all indicated they see the liaison as “available and ap­ proachable”; twenty-six (89.9%) re­ sponded that the liaison was “available http:comments.13 Restructuring a Liaison Program in an Academic Library 439 to their students.” All stated that they re­ garded their liaison as “satisfactory” as to the level of knowledge in respect to information sources in their discipline. Twenty-seven (93.2%) rated the liaison as “satisfactory” in the areas of reference competency and communication skills. Twenty-six (89.9%) reported satisfaction with the quality of work provided by the liaison. Overall, all respondents who had contact with their liaison rated them as “satisfactory.” Some respondents pro­ vided written responses to questions when they did not think the existing cat­ egories were adequate. Others provided additional information as “comments.” The respondents in departments with the most liaison interaction indicated the highest satisfaction level in the most ar­ eas. Although the departments surveyed had very different needs, the survey re­ sults seem to support the thesis that, in general, a proactive liaison provides the greatest satisfaction level to respondents. Conclusions and Recommendations A critique of the planning and implemen­ tation of the restructured library liaison program, together with an assessment of the faculty survey, affirms that certain el­ ements are prerequisites for an effective liaison program. These include a compre­ hensive vision statement, clear and con­ cise goals and objectives, a well-organized and detailed process for executing the proposal, a distinct framework within which the program operates, well-defined responsibilities, focused training, and regular evaluation of the liaison program’s internal processes and teach­ ing faculty satisfaction. One final element, and perhaps of greatest import, is that of communication. The necessity of commu­ nication was made clear by both the cri­ tique of the restructured program and the evaluation of the survey. In regard to the library program, too often critical infor­ mation was not disseminated. In turn, the survey seemed to support the thesis that proactive liaisonship provides the great­ est satisfaction, even when allowing for the departments’ individual needs and the varying skills and styles of the liai­ son. In summation, an effective liaison program should be comprehensive, yet detailed. It should be structured, yet pro­ vide room for flexibility. It should be well grounded in theory, yet based on proven experience. It also needs to be reevaluated on a regular basis and restructured to meet the changing needs of the teaching departments. Notes 1. ACRL Task Force on Information Literacy Competency Standards, “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” (Chicago: ACRL, 2000). Cited April 6, 2000. Avail­ able online from: http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilintro.html. 2. Reference and Adult Services Section, Collection Development and Evaluation Section, Liaison with Users Committee, “Guidelines for Liaison Work,” RQ 32 (winter 1992): 198–204; Connie Wu, Michael Bowman, Judy Gardner, Robert G. Sewell, and Myong Chung Wilson, “Ef­ fective Liaison Relationships in an Academic Library,” College & Research Libraries News 55 (May 1994): 254, 303; Marta A. Davis and M. Kathleen Cook, “Implementing a Library Liaison Pro­ gram: Personnel, Budget, and Training,” Collection Management 20, no. 3–4 (1996): 157–65. 3. Liaison Services in ARL Libraries (Washington, D. C.: ARL Office of Management Services, 1992). 4. Ibid. 5. Cynthia C. Ryans, Raghini S. Suresh, and Wei-Ping Zhang, “Assessing an Academic Li­ brary Liaison Programme,” Library Review 44, no. 1 (1995): 14. 6. Jeanie M.Welch, “Liaison Librarians,” in Discussion of Library Reference Issues. Cited Octo­ ber 21, 1999. Available online from: libref-l@listserv.kent.edu. 7. For further information on collection development in women’s studies, see Meghan Conway, Stephanie Gonder, and Michele Butler, “Women’s Studies in Academic Library Collec­ tions,” Current Studies in Librarianship 19 (spring–fall 1995): 70–84; Mark W. Emery, “Consider­ ations Regarding Women’s Studies Collection Development in Academic Libraries,” Collection Management 10, no. 1–2 (1988): 85–94; Cynthia Faries, “Collection Evaluation in Women’s Stud­ mailto:libref-l@listserv.kent.edu http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilintro.html 440 College & Research Libraries September 2000 ies: One Model for Learning the Process,” Collection Building 13, no. 4 (1994): 1–7; Women’s Stud­ ies Collection Development Policies (Chicago: ACRL, Women’s Studies Section, 1992); Susan Hildenbrand, ed., Women’s Collections: Libraries, Archives, and Consciousness (New York: Haworth Pr., 1986). 8. J. Murrey Atkins Library, “Library Liaison Program” (Univ. of North Carolina at Char­ lotte, 1999, photocopy), 1 9. Ibid., 3. 10. ———, “Collection Development Principles: Explanations and Recommendation” (Univ. of North Carolina at Charlotte, n.d., photocopy), 2. 11. For a discussion of the practical aspects of staff training, see Deborah Grealy, Lois Jones, Kostas Messas, Kathleen Zipp, and Lise Catalucci, “Staff Development and Training in College and University Libraries: The Penrose Experience,” Library Administration & Management 10 (fall 1996): 204–9. 12. J. Murrey Atkins Library, “Collection Development Principles,” 1–2. 13. For another recent survey of faculty perceptions of liaison service, see Zheg Ye (Lan) Yang, “Uni­ versity Faculty’s Perception of a Library Liaison Program: A Case Study,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26 (Mar. 2000): 124–28.