Library/Computing Center Relations: A Comprehensive State University View Copyright 1994 CAUSE. From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 17, Number 3, Fall 1994. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact Julia Rudy at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: jrudy@CAUSE.colorado.edu VIEWPOINT LIBRARY/COMPUTING CENTER RELATIONS: A COMPREHENSIVE STATE UNIVERSITY VIEW by Jack Widner and Andrew Lawlor The relationship between libraries and computing centers in institutions of higher education has been discussed in the literature for some time, especially the advantages and disadvantages of combining these organizations and their differing approaches to information issues. With the growth of information resources available through campus networks and external connections to the Internet, the roles and responsibilities of libraries and computing centers are changing. In addition, the recent decline in financial and human resources on many campuses means that to reach common goals the two organizations may have to work more closely together than they have in the past. A review of the literature reveals that much of what has been written about library/computing relationships has emanated from research universities and/or well-endowed colleges. These institutions have struggled with developing cooperation between libraries and computing organizations, and the results reported appear to be successful. Being from a state comprehensive university, we wondered how far along the continuum institutions like ours are, whose primary mission is to teach the masses and whose resources are more limited. Are we facing the same concerns, and how successful have we been at overcoming them? BARRIERS TO COOPERATION From our personal experiences as a reference librarian and an academic computing staff member at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, as well as an informal phone survey of several peer institutions in our state system,1 we have identified three barriers to cooperation that appear to be common in our environment. Organizational Autonomy Do organizational structures affect library and computing center collaboration and cooperation? From our experience and investigation, we believe that administrative placement of libraries and computing centers under one vice president or another has less impact on level of cooperation and collaboration than their relative autonomy within their organizations. Both libraries and computing centers tend to be specialized enough that those to whom they report are unlikely to question their directions or lack of collaboration with other campus units. Those directors or other staff who initiate contacts, hold meetings, and discuss mutual concerns are likely to take full advantage of the partnership. But without an external force driving the two units together (and we did not detect that those under the same vice president have any more driving forces at work than those under separate vice presidents), successful cooperation is notably influenced by leadership of individuals who make a concerted effort to overcome inherent tendencies toward autonomy. Status of Personnel Another barrier along the route to greater cooperation that we observed between libraries and computing centers is the status afforded by the academic enterprise itself. In our state system, librarians have faculty status and hold minimally an MLS degree. Thus, they see their mission in the same general terms as other faculty, i.e., a teaching role in support of and in conjunction with students and faculty. The staff of computing centers, however, do not hold the same status, as computing professionals in the commercial realm are measured not by degrees but by their expertise. While the lack of advanced degree standing does not diminish the importance of their contribution to the University, they either are afforded less consideration or perceive themselves to have a lower status and respond accordingly. However, it is widely perceived that computing personnel talk their own technical lingo, wear pocket protectors, and communicate in strange codes. That, too, provides them with the status of technical guru, and since these attributes are foreign to most outsiders, gives them their own unique status that may add to the tension between the two parties. Roles and Responsibilities The third barrier we observed was the failure to clarify roles and responsibilities. With the infusion of technology within the library (online catalogs, CD-ROM databases, Internet Gopher and Mosaic), the one major advantage to the patron is the ability to find needed resources without relying on the reference librarian. Additionally, as networking becomes more sophisticated and information sources digitized, patrons do not have to step inside the library to obtain their information. Empowering patrons may have the unwelcome effect of reducing the role of librarians to technicians. This understandably concerns librarians, as the definition of their role as a service provider is changing. Conversely, if library staff are losing control (or even if this is only a perception), the computing personnel are perceived as rapidly gaining it. Computing center staff are increasingly in the role of service provider, and with the expansion of computers in areas such as labs, offices, and (surprise!) libraries, they are kept busy responding to the ever-increasing demands for "information" services, as opposed to computer cycles. A related source of tension is the emerging role of the librarian with technical expertise. As such expertise becomes a requirement for library personnel, they will become more a source of technical assistance, and may be perceived as competing in this area with computing professionals. At one peer institution we contacted, for example, users tend to go to the library for computing assistance rather than their computing center. At others, libraries maintain their own mainframe and other computer equipment, and clearly have carved out a new role in the computing business. Computing centers would charge, however, that the libraries are duplicating services that the computing centers can provide and have more experience providing. Technology, then, is forcing a change in the role of the library and its staff while generally increasing the computing center's role in providing information services. Unless the library staff "reinvents" their role from knowledge expert (_where_ to find information) to process expert (_how_ to find information) and the institution recognizes that roles should be clearly defined in such overlap of services, this tension between library and computing center will probably continue. OVERCOMING BARRIERS These barriers are not so easily overcome. Whether of the particular departments or within the broader university administration, collaborative models need to be examined that best suit the individual campus. The impetus for this ought not to be only financial exigencies; instead, a refocus on the service ethic of the two areas might lead to ways of improvement in both cooperation and service. At Edinboro we have made progress by establishing closer ties between the library and computing center. The ways in which we are seeking to overcome our barriers might apply to others as well. Chief among these is a willingness to seek improvement by articulating the value of cooperation and encouraging collaborative thinking. We found particular issues that served as catalysts for discussion. We made allies of key personnel that led to administrative support. The library created a vehicle to streamline communications with the computing center and provide a regular forum for librarians to discuss the issues, as well. We have sought to overcome the "language" of specialists and to articulate more clearly the needs, desires, and possibilities that lead to results. We have learned that teamwork is based on mutual respect; we have not allowed faculty status (or lack thereof) to become an issue because we recognize common goals in addressing university service. The degree to which our two departments remain autonomous emphasizes the importance of substantive, regular communication and willingness to solve problems together. Efforts to explicitly define the role of each organization have helped us work together on joint projects. Keeping in mind a common mission--service to the user community--has helped to reduce tensions among the staff, while at the same time determining what each other's role should be in information delivery. CONCLUSIONS In the end, we have realized that as a comprehensive university, Edinboro seems to be going through the same evolutionary process as research universities and better- endowed private colleges when it comes to the level of cooperation between libraries and computing organizations. The major difference is that we are not as far along the continuum. Recognition of this fact can be beneficial--we can study and learn from the experiences of others who began sooner and thus have made more progress to date. We believe the key to reversing the inhibiting factors cited here is strong leadership. Simply restructuring the organization is not the answer. Regardless of the suggested models, those in administrative positions with libraries and computing centers reporting to them should make it a priority to examine these issues and work towards resolving them. If comprehensive colleges and universities are going to offer the access to information and technology required by students in the twenty-first century, we must explore and implement collaborative models based on the mutual concerns of libraries and computing centers. ================================================= FOOTNOTE: 1 Our survey consisted of conversations with both directors of libraries and computer center directors at half a dozen peer institutions, in which we discussed organizational structure, planning and communications processes, and attitudes and personalities. ************************************************* Jack Widner is Reference Librarian and Coordinator of Bibliographic Instruction at Baron-Forness Library, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. He also chairs a library staff committee that keeps abreast of technology and its impact on library reference services. Andrew C. Lawlor, formerly Assistant Director for Academic Computing Technology, is now Interim Associate Vice President for Academic Programs and Dean of the University College at Edinboro. He is responsible for academic program planning and assessment, and provides oversight of University College functions. ************************************************* Library/Computing Center Relations: A Comprehensive State University View