INFORMATION SERVICES REVIEW

Library Staff Consultation Session: 98/12/08

Liaison Librarian Programs

These notes from the Consultative Forum on Information Services attempt to provide an unbiased, accurate and unfiltered record of the meetings.  Attendees were invited to engage in discussion of their observations, concerns, proposals, ideas and questions related to Information Services.

While members of the Information Services Review Group were present as observers, a neutral facilitator managed these discussions among UW Library staff stakeholders.
 

Comments, Questions, Discussion re Liaison Librarian Program and Activities:

• How do Librarians balance different roles: Reference - Liaison – Selection – Education?

• Clear communication lines through Liaison Librarians with Faculty and Departments are very valuable.

• But there isn’t much we can do with the information re curriculum, student needs, etc. that we gather / learn …because we lack the resources to act on it.

• Liaison Librarians can’t work independently to respond to Curriculum / Collection needs. …And the Library collectively seems to respond more and more on a crisis management basis (e.g. re Serials Cancellation, etc.)
• There seems to be a lack of co-ordination, lack of ability to plan.
• There used to be more management attention to co-ordination of collection issues.
• "Work in progress" at the Information Resources Committee level is aimed at addressing those needs, clarifying roles. Information about that will be more widely available soon.

• Some librarians have been given additional liaison responsibilities due to staff reductions.
• This has been extremely challenging.
• Some feel they can’t do as well as before.
• They lack time and flexibility.

• The liaison model is based on subject or discipline specialization.
• That did and could still work well.
• But inadequate staff numbers (support and librarians) and changes in Information Technology work against effective use of liaison model.

• Some like the duality of liaison work.
• Contact with Faculty re Collections issues can be good basis for engagement on User Education issues.
• Discussions of "budget" were a good basis to focus on many other issues with Faculty.
• Is there a need for the "Collection hook" as a basis for engaging on other concerns such as User Education?

• RE: Budget:
• There hasn’t been a review of the basis of dividing Acquisitions/Collections Budget for 10 years.
• Cost increases, especially in Sci-Tech have impacted everywhere.
• Faculty are aware of our lack of a budget re-allocation mechanism.
• We lost a valuable exercise when we ceased the annual "Budget Request Document" meetings with Faculty.
• Reduced buying power means it now takes longer to spend (less) money well.

• "New Course" & New Program" process / forms are now by-passing the Library (or at least the Liaison Librarians). That means a loss of Library input in the planning process.
• Some librarians are at least copied on the forms. Is this inconsistent?
• There is still a "form" and a place where the Liaison Librarians are supposed to sign/approve. But it seems to be a rubber stamp process now.
• The University is ignoring the consequences of inadequate information resources and there is no consequence in Collection Budget terms.
• Is the situation the same with the Davis Liaison Librarians?
• Davis Librarians do see the "new course" forms. But typical input is "Additional resource needs will be filled by ILL and Document Delivery."

• Another problem is the loss of a management role focused on Co-ordination of collection issues. This has led to a lack of planning information for the liaison librarians.
• There have been some operational changes: e.g. we have changed the method of ACAP Assessment despite because of the lack of support staff.
• RE: new courses and programs: the Library does have input at the Faculty Council level through Information Services Department heads.
• RE: New course / program checks: Librarians no longer check what used to be considered the "standards" (e.g. Choice lists, other catalogues, etc.) It is now too time consuming to check with Serials Agents re what new important serial resources exist.
• Would more support staff resources help?

• RE: Liaison & Interdisciplinary Areas:
• Regarding Government Publications: there is a need to be involved across many disciplines. Much falls between the cracks now because of insufficient Budget and time.
• The Gov. Pubs. Collection Policy should guide all funds and all selectors re these resources. But G.P. staff fears much is missed.
• It could be better if all selectors looked at some core lists like the Ontario Government monthly list.
• Regarding English selectors and role in large courses/programs such as "English for Applied Health Sciences" or the course for "entrepreneurs": The English selectors are encouraged to be involved in basic courses, but there is lack of consensus re who should be involved in User Education for such large, basic courses. They are not really English Department courses.
• Does "Interdisciplinary" mean it is likely to fall in cracks between Liaison Librarians?
• Faculty make assumptions re Students’ skill level; especially if the course doesn’t fall in a standard area?
• E.G. in Film Studies there is a proliferation of Courses not done by the Film Studies Department. E.G. there is a great deal of "film" content in areas such as in German, Religious Studies, etc. Where does liaison librarians responsibilities for Film Studies fit regarding these courses? There are other liaison librarians with responsibility for German, for Religious Studies, etc.
• Is there a parallel with how Gov. Doc’s works with other liaison librarians? They often work together. This seems to work well with Gov. Pubs. They work together where possible.
• Does this need different or extra support?
• What are the benefits of a team approach in interdisciplinary areas?
• It may take more time overall (sometimes less) but is beneficial to students.
• Most Interdisciplinary / crossover areas fall to Porter Librarians.

• RE TUG Issues:
• Liaison librarians can also work with colleagues throughout the library and also TUG-wide. This is growing.
• Are the right support mechanisms in place?
• We need to learn more about the other TUG libraries’ collections
• TUG is old news for the G.P. Librarians. They have a good relationship but it does take more time.
• The focus must be ‘to benefit our users". Working together (teams, collaboration) does not necessarily always have that focus.
• It would be useful to have an up-to-date list of "liaison" staff assignments readily available for all three Universities. Even internally at UW we are sometimes not sure about our own liaison assignments.
• Should we be focusing more on areas where there are clear overlapping responsibilities, e.g. on joint programs?

• RE: TUG Data Resources:
• IN the past UW has filled a need in this area for WLU users. There is less need for that now because of the TUG Data Resources service.

• RE: ILL/IBIS /DD and liaison?

• Liaison suffers from trying to balance / juggle the roles.

• Some areas (e.g. Accounting) have managed to find external funding re some key Resources.

• RE: Reference / Information Desk Work and liaison:
• Some really enjoy it, but is it primary to the liaison role?
• Does it relate to or support other areas of the liaison job?
• Is it an important part of our jobs?
• Reference is different from Consultation.
• The special or discipline knowledge of liaison librarians the special knowledge is not so important in a reference context.
• Reference wastes valuable time.
• Reference is a valuable way to get feedback re the collections, re how they are used. A reservation: directional and routine questions are a waste of reference staff time.
• Some Liaison Librarians consider that they do a lot of "reference" when they are not on "desk duty", e.g. in their offices, in the departments.
• It is very rewarding and useful to provide individual liaison to students.
• This also provides good feedback re Collections, especially re Fine Arts, Film, Architecture.
• Yes, Desk hours are very valuable for liaison/selector role.
• Some would value more desk time and more discussion with liaison colleagues, but such communication and research takes time, which is in shrinking supply.
• What would help re "lack of time"?
• Many things can’t be delegated. Many things are not getting done. There is not enough staff. Some things cannot be handed off to support staff. Juggling can only go so far. We are down to the bare minimum.
• Some Liaison Librarians disagree re Reference Desk Hours. They do not find reference as valuable as other duties / roles.

• If we could get more staff, we should increase librarian numbers, not support staff numbers. That is where the need is.
• The liaison role can be as heavy with a small department as with a large one.
• Is this true in Davis as well?
• Davis has very different size Departments, much larger (e.g. >100 Faculty in some).
• That means a very different type of interaction with faculty and very different impact on Library impact.
• Some areas, such as math have very little use of Library.
• There is also less use of support staff in Davis except on Reference Desks.
• Bib searchers in Davis do not work on Reference. This does mean some lessened flexibility.

• General agreement: there is not enough time to sit back and assess.
• We don’t get feed back regarding how we are doing.

• Faculty doesn’t give a hoot about TUG in the context of the hardcopy collections.
• They don’t see value of WLU/UG Collections, especially UG. It is seen as too physically remote.
• They want it "here" and this will be hard to change.

• Is the current organizational structure working? (E.g. current split Information Services Departments?)
• It would be useful to share ideas more across the Library System.
• Could we have some combined reference / Information Services meetings? There are many common agenda issues. This could raise awareness and share information. Minutes are not always universally shared among the Libraries.
• There is a lack of communication among disciplines causes some inefficiencies.
• But, the basic structure works.

• Concern expressed re procedures for selection of electronic media?

• IRMC is currently discussing this and preparing procedures.
• It is mostly liaison librarians doing this for IRMC.
• Information will be out to all liaisons’ soon.

• Re other Committees: Which help and which hinder the Liaison role?

• TUG Data Resources & TUG Gov Pubs work well and help UW on the liaison front.
• Others expressed need for more clarity regarding the roles and mandate of TUG Data Resources and TUG Gov Pubs.

• IRMC is addressing some issues but there are parts missing which would support liaison roles.
• e.g. Collections Policies haven’t been updated.
• Some Liaison Librarians feel these policies cannot be effectively addressed one at a time but should be done in a coordinated fashion.
• Others asked if these could not be done one by one.
• Doing them all at once would be a huge job.
• But perhaps it should be given higher priority.
• Coordination would be essential.
• There is a relationship between up-to-date Collection Policies and budget allocation.
• Is planning possible re Collection Policy review? Perhaps it would be possible to develop a plan for a five year review cycle?
• They have been critically neglected, as has a budget review.
• Don’t know who is responsible for some things since Bruce and David’s departures.

• More attention should be given to User Education Role.
• This role takes a lot of time.
• It is as important as Reference & Collections.
• It is how we are most well known.

• We need much better assessment of our effectiveness, especially re how effective or communication is with Faculty. For example, how effective was our introduction of TRELLIS? Whose responsibility is it to evaluate this?
• Some responsibility is with the Liaison librarians, but some is more general (managerial, administrative, publicity?).
• We need some greater clarity re the communication, PR, and assessment roles played by Publications / Public Relations and Library Administration.

• RE: Doing To Faculty vs Doing With Faculty:
• "Doing to" leads to flak (e.g. the storage issue several years ago).
• Liaison librarians critical to "doing with".
• Partnership with Faculty is critical.
• A trusting relationship is important with Liaison Librarians and Faculty.
• Liaison Librarians carry some loyalty to the Departments as well as to the Library.
• Liaison librarians should be advocates for both the Library and Departments.
• This can be a tricky balancing act but it should not lead to a conflicted role.
• However, if faculty is ignorant of Information Technology realities and of budgetary realities, they will of course they react. But are we (Liaison Librarians) much more informed?

• Marketing & Promotion Issues:
• Even if we inform Faculty as well as possible, there will be variance among Departments as to how much attention they give to information needs and issues.
• We can’t expect them to dance to same tune.
• We also have competition now in some areas / disciplines. For example, Accounting relies heavily on electronic resources and hire technicians as support staff. There is a natural tendency to begin relying on these non-library I.T. staff for content and reference type assistance.
• This is linked to the issue of access to Networked Resources across the campus and in fact from anywhere.
• This is affecting the value of Library as place.
• How can we maintain the value of Library staff to the University, if not of the Library?
• Some schools / universities don’t give passwords to some Electronic Resources until they’ve take a library course.
• Libraries may be by-passed with the networked availability of Electronic Resources.
• Will users ever come back to Library / Librarians?
• Should we focus on developing online teaching tools?
• If Librarians are out of the loop, the IT technical staff being used doesn’t have librarians’ knowledge of the breadth and depth of information resources…. But who will know this?
• Use of technical staff to ‘replace’ librarians will lead to a narrow view of what resources are relevant and available.
• Who will teach students to make educated critical information resource choices.
• Would "being in the Department" help (e.g. as we do re Psychology)?

- This really focuses on Majors and Grad Students.

- This doesn’t hit the broad needs of undergraduates.

• What are the Pros and Cons of making networked information resources widely available?
• Our communications avenue is largely through the liaison- faculty route.
• Reference sees users at "Panic Time". This is not a "Teaching Opportunity".

• Are there any recommendations for change to liaison librarian program over the next 5-year period?

• Basic messages to I.S. Review:
• We need more liaison librarians.
• There would be chaos if we reduced numbers of liaison librarians or dropped the model.
• This would lead to more user alienation.
• We are facing major curriculum changes in the University (some factors: Harris Government, Information Technology, etc.).
• The Library has to be responsive to those changes.
• We haven’t been keeping up.
• How can we keep up? How can we involve the library in curricular change.
• Why is the Library trying to get involved so late in the day?
• We have to make the Library more central to the Academic Mission of the University.
• If the Library is not perceived as important to research and teaching then the liaison role becomes more and more difficult.
• Communication on multiple levels is critical:
• liaison librarian level (with Departments),
• but also with Faculty / Dean’s Councils?
• The Campus needs to hear more about the Library at all levels.
• Any 5-year plan should promote the liaison program, not just information technology and electronic resources.
• Encourage Faculty / Librarians Partnerships (on Collections and Classroom / Teaching issues).
• We need to increase our knowledge of Faculty needs and concerns.
• We have common cause with faculty and can work with faculty on our mutual concerns (e.g. re the narrowing of Goals of University).
• What will be the impact of private sector influence?
• How could TUG affect liaison roles (and liaison roles affect TUG?)?
• Rationalization /collaboration could benefit users (but it will be more work).
• We could develop joint efforts in User Education in some areas / disciplines.
• We can share expertise.
• This will be made easier by joint Catalog.
• Could we develop joint publications? Some prototypes are being developed, for example re ERL database guides.
• Gov Pubs librarians and staff have explored working together, e.g. on web resources guides. They have found they can do a better job together.

University of Waterloo Library | 200 University Ave. W. | Waterloo, Ontario Canada | N2L 3G1 | 519.888.4567 | www.lib.uwaterloo.ca

University of Waterloo Library
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
519 888 4883

contact us | give us feedback | privacy statement | © 2011 University of Waterloo