Spotlight on the Subject Knowledge of Chemistry   Librarians

  	
  	
  	
  


	Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship  	Summer 1999  


	DOI:10.5062/F4W9574V


    

 	 URLs in this  document have been updated.  Links enclosed in {curly  brackets} have been changed.  If a replacement link was located,  the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not be  identified, the broken link was removed.



      

Spotlight on the Subject Knowledge of Chemistry Librarians:   Results of a Survey
      Christopher Hooper-Lane
  Arthur Lakes Library
  Colorado School of Mines
  Golden, CO 80401
chooperl@mines.edu    

Abstract
    A survey of academic chemistry librarians concerning how they obtain and maintain  subject knowledge found that 86% took college level chemistry courses, 64% have a  science degree, and 43% have a degree in chemistry. To continue their education,  respondents spend an average of 4 hours and 42 minutes each week on professional  development activities such as scanning core science journals, subscribing to  science discussion lists, surfing the World Wide Web, attending lectures,  conferences, and workshops, and personal contact with academic faculty and  scientists. Of these activities, discussion lists, personal contact, and scanning  core journals were the most frequently utilized resource types. A ranking of the  top resources exploited by the respondents is also included.     

Introduction
    
"The special librarian has specialized subject knowledge appropriate   to the business of the organization or the client"
  - SLA's Competencies for Special Librarians of the 21st Century
    Much to the surprise of the organizers and presenters, the session entitled  Chemistry and Chemical Librarianship for Non-Chemists at the '99 Special  Libraries Association attracted a jam-packed standing-room-only crowd. Many of us  in the room, however, suspected this session would be popular. Science  librarianship without comprehensive specialized subject knowledge is challenging,  if not formidable, and few librarians of sci-tech libraries can describe their  understanding in the sciences as comprehensive (Mount 1985,   Storm & Wei 1994).   Most would agree that having and maintaining subject knowledge is an invaluable  component of librarianship. The library literature is peppered with articles  reporting the benefits of employing librarians with subject expertise for all  facets of science librarianship (see Herubel 1991, Stuart & Drake 1992, Wiggins  1998, Williams 1991). Researchers have also reported that   sci-tech librarians with  a grounding in science tend to receive more professional respect from clients, thus  enhancing the library image, and have less job anxiety and burnout (Hallmark   1998, Slutsky 1991). Stuart and Drake (1992)   posit a possible severe consequence of hiring non-science librarians: 

    

  Scientists and engineers often presume that if the librarian has no grounding in   the discipline there is no personal knowledge base to aid the researcher and no   common frame of reference, [therefore] reliance on librarians will not occur if   there is no perceived benefit. The individual involved in research will acquire   information from [other] proven sources. 
    Those affiliated with the field of chemistry fully understand the importance of  knowing the subject. The integration of chemistry research and the chemistry  literature, or as Krieger (1994) puts it in a recent  Chemical and Engineering News piece "the growing interconnectedness of  laboratory research activities with molecular modeling, computational chemistry,  and molecular analysis, database searching, and general information retrieval"  exacerbates the need for us to understand the core terminology and principles of  chemistry and keep up with the current research of the field -- an impossible task  considering the nearly three quarters of a million or so new articles, patents,  reports and other documents published annually in the field of chemistry.     SLA's Competencies for Special Librarians of the 21st Century (1996) provides three practical examples of how we can attain and  maintain subject knowledge: (1) obtain a subject degree at the undergraduate and  postgraduate levels, (2) monitor and scan core journals and other key sources, and  (3) take additional courses, workshops, etc. in subjects related to their host  organization. The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on how and to what  extent librarians in the field of chemistry employ these three tactics to ensure  competency as a special librarian. 

    

Methodology
    A short survey was designed to determine the academic backgrounds of chemistry  librarians and identify the resources they use, and the time they spend on these  resources, to keep up with the scientific/chemistry fields. A questionnaire was  mailed to sixty-seven librarians in United States academic institutions.   Individuals were identified through campus web sites, scanning of relevant mailing  lists, and Who's Who in Special Libraries (SLA membership directory).  Of the sixty-seven, thirty-five usable questionnaires were returned, a response  rate of 52.2 percent. Data was coded and analyzed using Microsoft Excel.     The questionnaire included personal questions to obtain the respondent's library  position, the highest level of education in the sciences, and the years experience  in a science/technology (sci-tech) library, as well as questions to illuminate the  respondent's weekly patterns (during the academic year) of continuing education in  the sciences. Respondents were asked to record and estimate the amount of time per  week they spent keeping informed of current chemistry topics (research,  bibliographic products, etc.) using print, electronic, and other scientific  sources. The questionnaire also instructed the respondents to list and rank the  print and electronic sources they consistently perused to stay current in chemistry  topics. 

    

Findings & Discussion
    Respondents
    The distribution of respondents by library position and years of experience in  sci-tech librarianship is shown in Table 3. By no means a formal scientific  analysis, this study was designed to examine a cross-section of library  professionals in the field. Responses were received from individuals representing  a variety of library positions: chemistry or physical science library directors,  chemistry librarians, science bibliographers, and reference librarians with  chemistry department liasion responsibilites. The sci-tech experience of the  respondents ranged from new to the profession to three years (25.7 % of the  respondents), four to eleven years (28.6%), twelve to twenty years (25.7%), to  twenty-one plus years (20.0%).     

Academic Background in Chemistry
    Few would disagree that the best way to get a grounding in science is to get a  degree in it. One of the primary issues in science librarianship involves the  academic background we bring to the job. The scarcity of librarians with science  degrees continues to concern the information profession. Mount (1985) found that half of librarians in the sci-tech libraries of  sixteen colleges did not have degrees in the sciences. A decade later, Liu and Wei  (1993) reported that nearly two-thirds (62.7%) of sci-tech  librarians at both the University of California (nine campuses) and California  State University (twenty campuses) did not possess an academic science background.  Results from this survey, however, indicate that chemistry librarianship might be  in better shape (see Figure 1 and Table 4). Although the responses varied from no  science coursework in college to a Ph.D. in chemistry, nearly two-thirds (63%) have  a degree in one of the science disciplines, and ninety-four percent had at least  some college-level coursework in the sciences. As expected, the numbers are not  quite as impressive when looking at the respondents' backgrounds in chemistry (see  Figure 2 and Table 4). Although eighty-six percent of the respondents have had at  least some college chemistry coursework, only forty-three percent received a degree  in chemistry and less than half of these were at the graduate level. Stuart and  Drake (1992) propose that we have three alternatives to satisfy  this gap: (1) continue training librarians without science or engineering degrees,  (2) hire graduates with chemistry degrees to provide subject specific information  to clientele or (3) train scientists to do a better job of finding information for  themselves.     

Time Spent on Continuing Education in Chemistry/Science
    It is often stated that the shelf life of a college degree is three to five years;  if true, we need to continue our learning through an array of formal and informal  channels regardless of our academic backgrounds. The second part of the survey  concerned the amount of time spent per week keeping up with the field using  traditional sources (journals, personal contact, classes) and electronic sources  (discussion lists, World Wide Web). Table 1 summarizes the responses received  relating to the types of resources used and the average time per week spent on  these sources.     


Table 1 - Source types and time commitment (average per  week per respondent)
  for scientific/chemical information    	Source Type  	Average time (percent)  
	Discussion Lists  	72.4 minutes (25.6)  
	Personal Contact  	69.0 minutes (24.4)  
	Science/Chemistry Journals  	56.0 minutes (19.8)  
	WWW Resources  	55.2 minutes (19.5)  
	Classes or Lectures  	13.1 minutes (4.6)  
	Other  	16.7 minutes (5.9)  


      Overall, respondents spent on average 282 minutes (four hours and forty-two  minutes) per week keeping up with chemistry/science topics. The electronic  discussion list was the top resource type used. Respondents averaged one  hour and twelve minutes each week, more than one quarter of the total time,  reading and corresponding to an electronic discussion list. Personal  contact with scientists/faculty was next with an average of 69 minutes per  week, followed by browsing/reading the science journals (56 minutes), World  Wide Web resources (55 minutes), and taking classes or attending lectures  (13.1 minutes).

    Aside from the astounding amount of time spent keeping current in the field, nearly  five hours a week, the popularity and significance of the electronic sources is  quite notable. Respondents spend more than two hours a week on discussion lists or  the web specifically for scientific information. Monty and Warren-Wenk (1994) suggest reasons why the ranking turned out the way it did. For  one, electronic sources (and personal contact) can be tapped at the convenience of  the user. When the need arises, subscribers can satisfy the information need by  distributing a query on a discussion list or surfing the web. The discussion list  also allows for feedback, coinciding with Stevan Harnad's (1991)  lament "the written medium is hopelessly out of synch with the thinking mechanism  [for its inability to] support the requisite rounds of feedback, in tempo giusto."  Certainly, convenience and feedback contribute to the popularity of personal  contact also -- an information need can be met just by picking up the phone.  Discussion lists also allow for cross-fertilization among many fields from a world  wide audience. A good example is CHMINF-L, a forum for professionals at all levels  in academia (librarians, students, faculty), business, government, and others  interested in chemical information, thus providing a greater wealth of knowledge  drawn from its wide spectrum of participants. A final reason for the emergence of  the electronic resources may be cost, or lack thereof. Many of the traditional  avenues such as conference attendance, journal subscriptions, and coursework  require institutional support (financial and/or release time). Discussion lists and  mining the World Wide Web reduces the reliance on this type of support.

    Despite the popularity of the electronic sources, the age old process of   monitoring and scanning the journal literature continues to be an established   method to keep atop the field of chemistry.  Respondents, on average, spent nearly   an hour (56 minutes) each week reading or scanning three different science   journals.  However, the range of responses varied greatly: one respondent reported   spending four hours per week on seven different science journals, whereas several   (ten) reported that they simply do not have time to read science journals.  Other  traditional means of keeping up with the subject included attending   classes/lectures or conferences/workshops.  The average respondent attended one   fifty-minute class per month (generally consisting of sitting in on a class on a   specific topic or a talk given by a guest speaker).  Conferences and workshops   comprised the Other category with eighty-six percent of the respondents attending   at least one chemistry-related conference or workshop in 1998.

    

Sources for Continuing Education in Chemistry
    The second part of the survey was designed to allow respondents to list the  top resources they use on a consistent basis (weekly) to self-educate in  the field of chemistry. Table 2 is a ranking of the discussion lists,  science journals, and conferences/workshops attended.    


Table 2 - List of sources by percentage of the respondents  who use that source
    

  	Electronic Discussion Lists (percent)  	Journals Sources (percent)     
	CHMINF-L (60.0)
  STS-L (33.3)
  PAMnet (30.0)
  Local lists (20.0)
       	
Science (63.3)
C & EN (53.3)
Nature (43.3)
Scientific American (23.3)
J. of Chem. Education (20.0)
J. of the ACS (16.7)
New Scientist (16.7)
American Scientist (10.0)
Science News (10.0)
J. of Chem. Information (10.0)


	Conferences/Workshops (percent)  
	  SLA Annual (45.7)
  Database Workshops (31.4)
  ACS National Meeting (28.5)
  Nat. Chem. Inf. Symp. (14.2)
  ACS Regional Meeting (8.5)
     


      CHMINF-L, the {Chemical Information Sources Discussion List} was the top discussion list by a wide margin. Three out of five respondents subscribe to CHMINF-L, which provides a platform to obtain answers to chemical information questions and keep up with new and traditional information products and reference sources in chemistry. It is quite clear to subscribers that contributors to this list include some of the best chemistry librarians and chemical information specialists in the world. One can argue that CHMINF-L alone may be the reason why respondents spent more time on discussion lists than any other type of resource. STS-L, the discussion list maintained the {Science & Technology Section} of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) of the American Library Association (ALA), was a distant second with one-third of the respondents reading or contributing to this list. PAMnet, sponsored by the {Physics-Astronomy-Mathematics (PAM) Division} of the Special Libraries Association also garnered nearly one-third of the responses. And finally, twenty percent of the respondents noted that they subscribe to local lists (i.e., lists limited by department, institution, or in some geographic way).

    Three weekly news journals were clear favorites and dominated the responses.  Eighty-four percent of the respondents who say they scan journals listed one of these three as their top journal. Science, published by AAAS, and Chemical and Engineering News, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), attracted the readership of more than half of the respondents (63.3% and 53.3%, respectively).  Not far behind was the British publication {Nature} with 43.3 percent. Other notable journals that had at least ten percent readership (see Table 2) included: Scientific American, the Journal of Chemical Education, Journal of the American Chemical Society, New Scientist, {American Scientist}, Science News, and the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences.

    Seventy-seven percent of the respondents attended a chemistry-related  conference or workshop in 1998. Of these, sixty percent attended the  annual conference of the Special Libraries Association, thirty-seven  percent attended an ACS National Meeting, nineteen percent attended the  National Chemical Information Symposium, and eleven percent attended an ACS  Regional Meeting. In addition, nearly one third of the total respondents  (31.4%) attended at least one of the many chemistry/science database  workshops (either STN, Beilstein, ACS-SciFinder Scholar, or DIALOG).

    It is interesting to note that although respondents on average surfed the web  nearly an hour each week (55.2 minutes) to keep atop the chemistry field, most were  hesistent to list the web sites they consistently exploit. An explanation could be  that the respondents press into service any one of a number of web sites depending  on the information they need. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of  good, yet disparate, chemistry web sites, thus making it very difficult to select  or recall the ones that are often used. {ChemWeb}, the global web club for chemistry  researchers produced by ChemWeb Inc., and ACS's ChemCenter were the only two web sites  included on more than one of the returned questionnaires. Both of these provide  comprehensive information resources for chemical research and communication via  electronic publishing, databases, and scientific forums.

    

Conclusion
    In a recent op-ed piece, Darlene Weingand (1998) postulates that we   live in "a society where success is increasingly predicated on access to  appropriate information -- and the means of access also continue to  evolve. Such a dynamic environment requires that continuing education be  held as a requirement for ongoing competence...The library's customers have  the right to expect that library staff are competent, current, and  customer-service oriented." This study confirms that many librarians  affiliated with the field of chemistry act as if they believe this  statement. On average, respondents expended twelve percent of the work  week on some form of self-education in chemistry -- an hour each day spent  tapping into discussion lists, monitoring journals, surfing the web, or  attending a lecture or class, specifically to assure they have the subject  knowledge to be competent at their jobs. Taking into consideration the  complexities and geometric growth of scientific information, is this  enough?    

References
    Hallmark, J. 1998. Education for the successful   geoscience information specialist. Science and Technology Libraries  17(2):81-91.    Harnad, S. 1991. Post-Gutenberg galaxy: the fourth  revolution in the means of production knowledge. Public Access Computer  Systems Review 2:39-53. [Online]. Available: {http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pr/v2/n1/harnad.2n1}  [August 6, 1999]. 

    Herubel, J.V.M. 1991. To "degree" or not to  "degree": academic librarians and subject expertise. College and Research  Library News 52(7): 437.

    Krieger, J.H. 1994. Computer-aided chemistry edges  further into chemical mainstream. Chemical and Engineering News  72(37):21-27.

    Liu, M.X. & Wei, W. 1993. Science/Technology  Librarians in California: Their Background, Performance and Expectations.  Presented at the Special Libraries Association Annual Conference, Cincinnati,  Ohio.

    Monty, V. & Warren-Wenk, P. 1994. Using the  Internet as a professional development tool: an analysis. Education  Libraries 16(1):7-10.

    Mount, E. 1985. University Science and  Engineering Libraries. Greenwood, Westport, Connecticut.

    Slutsky, B. 1991. How to avoid science anxiety  among science librarians. Science and Technology Libraries  12(1):11-19.

    Special Libraries Association. 1996.  Competencies for Special Librarians of the 21st Century [Executive Summary]. Special Libraries Association. [Online]. Available:  http://www.sla.org/content/learn/comp2003/97comp.cfm} [Revised edition, 2003:  http://www.sla.org/about-sla/competencies/] [July 20, 1999]. 

    Storm, P. & Wei W. 1994. Issues related to the  education and recruitment of science/technology librarians. Science and  Technology Libraries 14(3): 35-43.

    Stuart, C. & Drake, M.A. 1992. Education and  recruitment of science and engineering librarians. Science and Technology  Libraries 12(Summer): 79-89.

    Weingand, D.E. 1998. Continuing professional  education: luxury or necessity? Journal of Education for Library and  Information Science 39(4): 332-333

    Wiggins, G. 1998. New directions in the education  of chemistry librarians and information specialists. Science and Technology  Libraries 17(2):45-58.

    Williams, L.B. 1991. Subject knowledge for  subject specialists: what the novice bibliographer needs to know. Collection  Management 14(3/4): 31-47.

    

Appendix
       Table 3 - Respondent Position and Background (n=35)    	Position type  	Number of Respondents (percent)  
	Chemistry/Science Librarian		  	11 (31.4)  
	Library Director/Head			  	8 (22.8)  
	Asst. Director/Coord.  	6 (17.1)  
	Chemistry Liaison (Reference)  	4 (11.4)  
	Bibliographer/Subject Specialist  	4 (11.4)  
	Other  	4 (11.4)  
	  Experience in sci/tech librarianship  
	0-3					  	9 (25.7)  
	4-7  	5 (14.3)  
	8-11  	5 (14.3)  
	12-20  	9 (25.7)  
	21+  	5 (14.3)  
	Other  	2 (5.7)  


    

  Table 4 - Respondent academic background (n=35)    

    

  

	Academic background in science	  	Number of Respondents (percent)  
	None  	2 (5.7)  
	Some college coursework  	11 (31.4)  
	B.A./B.S. degree  	9 (25.7)  
	Some graduate study  	0 (0)  
	M.A./M.S. degree  	8 (22.8)  
	Ph.D. level coursework  	1 (2.9)  
	Ph.D. degree  	4 (11.4)  
	Academic background in chemistry  
	None  	5 (14.3)  
	Some college coursework  	15 (42.9)  
	B.A./B.S. degree  	6 (17.1)  
	Some graduate study  	2 (5.7)  
	M.A./M.S. degree  	3 (8.6)  
	Ph.D. level coursework  	1 (2.9)  
	Ph.D. degree  	3 (8.6)  


      

  
    We welcome your comments about this article.