Copyright 1998 CAUSE. From CAUSE/EFFECT Volume 21, Number 1, 1998, pp. 35-41. 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 Jim Roche at CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301 USA; 303-939-0308; e-mail: [email protected]
Computer Center-Library Relations at Smaller Institutions: A Look from Both Sides
by Larry Hardesty
The relationship between libraries and computer centers at smaller academic institutions has become increasingly important in recent years. This article looks at that relationship through a series of ninety-one interviews of leaders of both kinds of units. It reports on differences and similarities found and offers recommendations based on the interviews.
Introduction
When the organizer of a panel discussion on "The College Library and Computer Center" at the 1997 American Library Association conference proposed the subtitle, "Marriage, Good Friends, or the War of the Roses?" none of the participants -- all librarians -- demurred. While the organizer suggested the provocative subtitle mostly to gain an audience, none of the participants considered it a misleading characterization of the range of relationships between the two units. In fact, during the resulting discussion, participants described situations at their own institutions that covered the full spectrum of relationships suggested by the subtitle. To borrow an analogy from a popular book on relationships between the sexes, one might wonder if at some institutions the two units are from different planets.
Relationships between computer centers and libraries have become more important as presidents, deans, and others have focused their attention on the connections and overlap between the two units, particularly when there is a vacancy in the leadership position of either. With increasing frequency, senior college officers have sought to move the computer center and library from the "good friends" arrangement to some form of "marriage." What do the parties most directly involved (computer center administrators and library directors) think about this trend? Do they see it as resulting in "a War of the Roses" between the two units, or a blissful, highly productive union?
This study was prompted by concern among computer center administrators and library directors at small colleges over changing roles and the relationships between their two units. From January 1994 to October 1996, with the financial support of the Council on Library and Information Resources,1 forty computer center administrators and fifty-one librarians (forty-nine library directors) at fifty-one small colleges throughout the United States agreed to interviews.
Mergers, the creation of chief information officers, and similar amalgamations of computer centers and libraries often met with considerable concern and apprehension from both sides. As a computer center administrator at a well-known midwestern college explained during an interview, "You may use the word 'merger,' but many of us [computer center administrators] will translate that into 'takeover' as you speak." From the other side, a library director from a comparable institution candidly observed, "My counterpart in computing and I both feel uneasy about the other's aspirations and what responsibilities will be left for us in the future. I have a feeling that, in the end, one or the other of us will lose out."
Why are many computer center administrators and library directors so uneasy about changes in formal structures that bring them closer together? "Is it possible," a dean of a southern college asked, "that the hesitancy, even resistance, to structural changes of this sort from library and computer center directors has more to do with issues of control and autonomy than with the validity of the conceptual model?" Or, in fact, do computer center administrators and library directors have insights into the relationships between the two units not readily perceived by senior college officials and others? Are there two different cultures that do not mix well? It is hard to answer this question without the risk of perpetuating images that, as Patricia Battin wrote in 1984, "continue to keep us apart."2
As described in published reports 3 and during these interviews, some institutions have changed the organizational relationships between the two units with positive results. On the other hand, some have made changes, and then, often with little or no publicity, reverted to more traditional organizational structures. Still others have continued the new organizational relationships despite reports of resignations, early retirements, considerable personnel stress, and other evidence of a dysfunctional organizational structure. One computer center administrator at a small college described his perception of a well-publicized reorganization of the relationship between the library and computer center at a large university: "It wasn't really a merger. The library took control of computing. Then, most of the computing folks quit and went elsewhere."
Library directors who were interviewed had varying degrees of administrative responsibility for the computer center. When they were asked to identify the head of the computer center unit with whom the library director worked the most, they offered a variety of individuals on the computer side, including academic computer center directors, administrative computer center directors, computer center administrators with day-to-day responsibilities for both academic and administrative computing, and chief information officers -- who often had few day-to-day computer center responsibilities.
Background
The history of mergers is relatively short -- as is the history of computer centers. Beginning in the early 1980s, several observers began predicting the convergence and even the merging of libraries and computer centers.4 Such interest existed in the topic that Richard Dougherty, then dean of libraries at the University of Michigan, founded a publication, Libraries & Computing Centers: Issues of Mutual Concern, to explore library and computer center relationships. Nevertheless, by 1989, the movement seemed to have lost momentum, and Dougherty discontinued this publication. Writing in the last issue, Pat Molholt reported, "Predicted merger [of libraries and computer centers]�has evolved into a kind of functional cooperation."5
By the mid-90s, however, the movement had regained momentum, particularly among smaller colleges. Gettysburg College provided the most notable example when the library and the computer center administratively and physically merged to form an academic unit called the Division of Strategic Information Resources.6
Other colleges, such as Berea, Bucknell, Carthage, Coe, Connecticut, Eckerd, Kalamazoo, Lake Forest, Macalester, Mount Holyoke, and Wellesley, in the mid-90s created formal organizational structures to bring the library and computer center closer together.7 At this point it's difficult to know whether these colleges are on the leading edge of changing the relationship between computer centers and the libraries, or whether these are simply grand experiments that will exist only briefly on the landscape before passing from the scene.
Findings
Most computer centers and libraries at small colleges have neither merged nor closely converged. When they have moved more closely together, the driving force generally has come from outside the units. As Gene Engeldinger and Edward Meachen reported regarding the mergers at Carthage College and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, "In neither case did the reorganization result from a grassroots or rank-and-file staff initiative."8 The impetus most often (but not always) comes from the top administration.
The library directors and computer center administrators interviewed generally came from dissimilar backgrounds. While the library directors all had the same graduate degree -- the masters in library science -- computer center administrators did not have a common degree. As one computer director described the situation: "Librarians represent a profession in which you have an accepted degree. You have an organization -- a librarian association that makes you a profession -- and we are not. We all came to computing by the back door -- almost all of us. We are just a ragtag group of folks who are doing some interesting things. I think we are quite professional, but we do not belong to a profession."
Undergraduate and graduate degrees in the social sciences and humanities predominated among the library directors. Undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics and the sciences (both virtually nonexistent among degrees held by library directors) predominated among the computer center administrators, although a few had degrees in the social sciences and the humanities. There were even a few computer center administrators who did not have any advanced degrees -- something not found among the library directors. Without an academic socialization process similar to that librarians have, computer center administrators may lack ready networking opportunities made possible through sharing of common experiences. The lack of common academic socialization process does not facilitate development and reinforcement of widely shared values among computer center administrators.
Unlike the educational path to becoming a library director, there is no formal educational path to becoming a computer center administrator. Many computer center administrators were once classroom faculty members interested in technology. A fairly typical comment by a computer center administrator was, "Computer services started here with me. I did everything. That meant I cut the wires. I soldered the wires. I planned the budget." Ten to fifteen years later, such individuals find themselves overseeing complex and rapidly evolving organizations -- challenging even the best-prepared managers. The above-quoted computer center administrator, for example, noted, "Now we have six people and I see that there will be more." Computer center administrators at many other small colleges have experienced a similar growth in their responsibilities, often evolving from one-person operations to heading dynamic units with ten, twenty, or more individuals with disparate backgrounds. As a library director observed of his counterparts in the computer center, "It is a newer field, and the people who are fixing the engines in the biplane are still at the stage of becoming presidents of the company." Two sets of individuals with generally quite different preparations for their positions will tend to bring dissimilar perspectives to their responsibilities, making effective communications between the two groups challenging.
Members of both groups are aware of their dissimilarities. One computer center administrator, with tongue in cheek, described stereotypical images of the two groups: "There is the view of computer people as being bearded, long-haired, wearing flannel shirts, sitting in a room at 1 a.m., and playing with computers. And librarians as being stiff, prim, and proper and keeping everything down to the finest detail." Such stereotyping, of course, can do a disservice to members of both groups. Nevertheless, interviewees noted them with sufficient frequency to reasonably concluded that either the differences exist or, at least, many individuals from both units believe they do. Perceptions, accurate or not, often drive behaviors.
When questioned about differences and similarities of perspectives between librarians and computer center personnel, library directors often mention the long tradition of libraries, the closeness of the library to the academic enterprise, and the service orientation of librarians when defining their role. They seemed to be more concerned than computer center administrators about preservation issues, standards, and what will happen to information ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. Both computer center directors and library directors often expressed the view that librarians tended to evaluate decisions more carefully before embarking on a new direction. A computer center administrator observed, "They [the librarians] would like to see things settled and tied up and permanent and regulated before they will allow anyone to have access to it. I want to be able to provide access if people want access."
Library directors typically held that librarians know how people search for information and should actively provide information seekers with needed guidance and instruction. Library directors described "service" as a core value of the library profession. As one library director stated, "The service aspect in librarianship is really fundamental." He continued, however, "I think this is not nearly as true in the computer area. They do not draw that identity from their professional vocation." Another library director commented, "The library feels responsible for supplying ongoing support." In contrast, he elaborated, "Their [computer center personnel's] view is often, 'Let's try that, and see if people want it.' If they don't want it, they're ready to walk away from it, and even sometimes when they do want it, they leave it to others to support." Another library director declared more strongly, "Supporting and educating is not in their vocabulary. There is also a sense that solutions are seen as providing hardware and connectivity."
This is not to imply that many computer center administrators are not service-minded or that all library directors are. The common professional education of library directors appears, however, to have socialized them to a strong service-orientation. Responses by some computer center administrators tended to support the view that the service orientation of the two groups differs. A computer center administrator noted, "The library has taken an attitude of being aggressively helpful, and I have taken an attitude, 'If you ask me, I will help.'" Another computer center administrator remarked, "There is a tendency I see in my staff to pass on the responsibility for seeking [information] to the client. 'Here is a tool; try it. Here are a bunch of good sites. Go play with them and discover all that you can.'" Yet another computer center administrator observed, "I would say that our concern is much more with getting access, and we do not fret about the uses."
On the other hand, some computer center administrators expressed concerns about the philosophy and motives of librarians. A computer center administrator observed, "While our views are extremely charitable toward the users, theirs [the librarians] are overly compensatory." He added that among librarians, "There is almost the presumption of the user being lost. 'You cannot do without us.'"
The kinds of students with which each group primarily deals may explain these different approaches. Computer center personnel may tend to form their particular views because they may more frequently observe students who take it as a challenge to figure out a computer program and, as one computer center administrator put it, "read technical manuals for fun." Librarians may tend to form their particular views because they may more frequently observe students who want to walk away from a computer-based catalog or index if it is not immediately obvious how to use it. Computer centers contrast with libraries in other ways.
Computer centers are a relatively recent addition on campus and so they do not have a long history as stable organizations. The rate of change is generally faster in their area. Computer center personnel appear more likely to revisit decisions, change them, and then move on -- sometimes without ever reaching closure. One computer center director colorfully described the mode in his area as "slash and burn." He explained, "We move over and chop down the trees, plant a crop, and, if we are lucky, we stay long enough to get the first yield." Another computer center administrator commented, "We shed yesterday's new stuff for today's new stuff very readily." From the computer side, the librarians appear to move more slowly and cautiously. As one computer center administrator put it, "The librarians have all these standards, and they cannot possibly break from these standards." Another observed that libraries are "very structure laden, very tradition laden."
A frequently reported dichotomy by both parties is "content versus conduit." "I see the computer center as simply a delivery mechanism," responded one midwestern library director. Another library director commented, "It is like the electricity and plumbing. It needs to be running, or none of us can do our work." Most, but not all, computer center administrators accepted this analogy. Typically, a computer center administrator stated, "They [the librarians] do the intellectual side. We do the technical side. We make sure that the connections work, but we are not in the information providing business." Sharing this view, a computer center administrator observed, "My staff and my strength will never be in saying, 'This is good information.'" This difference can be a source of tension. With some exasperation, a library director responded: "I just listened to three computer center fellows talk with me yesterday about the Internet and so on. While I was trying to get at content and evaluation and the material that is there, they were not interested in that at all.The documents themselves had no intrinsic interest for them."
This feeling led one midwestern college librarian to say, "This may appear smug, but I see librarians more as educators and computer people more as technologists."
Whatever caution librarians may have regarding technology, it has presented them with a myriad of avenues to enhance library services. On the other hand, whatever interest computer center personnel have in facilitating the use of new technology, it has presented them with formidable challenges in meeting the needs of their various clienteles -- including the librarians. Few computer center directors would declare that they have sufficient staff to keep up with the growing demands -- even from the supposedly more cautious librarians.9 As one computer center administrator remarked somewhat wearily, "You are looking at an overworked [computer] staff, and the librarians have a lot of new ideas." Tension, exacerbated by the lack of understanding between the two groups, can be the result.
Many individuals on both sides referred to the differences as strengths rather than weaknesses. One computer center administrator contended, "You need the computing folks to be a leavening and say, 'Let us try this,' and you need the library folks to have some reservations and say, 'Have you thought about...?" Another observed, "If I think of librarians as being the epitome of organization, and computer people as being the epitome of disorganization, there are strengths in both." He added, "The key is understanding each other."
Engeldinger and Meachen wrote, "Those who suggest that the cultures and missions of computing services and library services are too different to merge successfully are, we believe, mistaken."10 The individuals interviewed provided considerable evidence of successful cooperation and collaboration between the library and the computer center through traditional structures. Frequently at small colleges, personal friendships (and occasionally even marriages) exist between members of each unit. Occasionally, the two have successfully merged. Nevertheless, it is important not to underestimate the differences between the two units and the challenges involved in bringing them closer together. We should consider not just if the two units can be brought more closely together but, more importantly, why and at what costs -- both monetary and human.
While creating better service may be the primary impetus for most "marriages," a few senior college administrators expressed their hope that some economies will result from the new relationship. It is not clear, however, how this will occur. One library director-turned-CIO adamantly stated, "Every time I talk with an administrator about [mergers], the first thing I try to get out of their head is that they are going to save money!" As one wit put it, "How can you save money by combining the old 'bottomless pit' [the library] with the new 'black hole' [the computer center]?" Interestingly, interviews with more than three dozen small college academic deans involved in a similar project almost ten years ago revealed that none viewed the computer as a way to save money.11 Perhaps increased economic pressures in recent years have forced college administrators to seek economies in their computer operations.
Regarding the CIO position, a computer center administrator at a wealthy northeastern college reported that to attract an individual with the necessary skills, "They may have to talk about the $100,000-and-up price range." Another institution concluded the costs of a CIO office would run $100,000 to $125,000 a year. Given such costs, many computer center administrators and library directors said the faculty would be unlikely to support the creation of another senior administrative position.
There are other, perhaps less obvious costs -- the human costs. Some institutions have simply put either the current computer center administrator or (more frequently among small colleges) the library director in the CIO position. At small colleges, however, the directors of both units typically also have operational responsibilities. Individuals may find themselves, as one library director-turned-CIO reported, "doing a job that previously they were paying one-and-a-half people to do or one-and-two-thirds people to do." As a result, some responsibilities are unmet or left to become responsibilities of other members of the unit -- occasionally to the dismay of the library director and perhaps to others. One library director commented, "One thing I left behind with this is serving on the reference desk. I miss that terribly."
The selection of the director of one unit to administer both units creates another challenge. Members of one unit may view an inexperienced CIO as an interloper, while the members of the other unit may view the individual as negligent for not fulfilling previous responsibilities. The increased challenges are not to be approached lightly. One individual who had been through a merger thought carefully before responding to a question about mergers, and said, "Anybody who is taking on the process of a merger of this kind ought to be prepared to give much of himself into it for a few years."
Interestingly, only a few library directors said they eagerly seek the position of CIO. In fact, most library directors in the CIO position candidly admitted they felt pressured into assuming the CIO responsibilities by their institution's administration. Many of these same library directors, however, also tended to believe a librarian in the CIO position offered some opportunities to the library. Interviewees who strongly supported the creation of a CIO position along with the merger of the two units typically had backgrounds in the humanities or social sciences, and served as assistant deans or vice provosts. Perhaps even more important is that they had only general responsibilities for the computer center. The combination of those attributes may have provided them with the time and broader perspective to reflect on the future of the two units without being preoccupied by (or sensitive to -- depending on one's perspective) the day-to-day operational demands.
Toward a solution
Most of the individuals interviewed believe the key to an effective organization is not the structure, but the people involved. "If the personalities and styles of operation do not fit, then no matter how good it looks on paper, it will not work," responded one computer center administrator. Another computer center administrator observed, "Taking people with different training and stuffing them in the same organization -- is that really going to change anything at all?" No doubt personalities are important at any institution, but at small institutions with fewer personnel they may be particularly important.
What are the solutions to the challenges of creating and sustaining good computer center and library relations at small colleges? There are no simple and quick answers. In the short term, most computer administrators and library directors at the colleges provided considerable evidence that they want to, and will continue to, collaborate and cooperate closely with their counterparts through traditional organizational structures. Many felt, as one computer center administrator colorfully put it, "We will not make good bedfellows if we snuggle too closely together."
In the long term, most of the individuals interviewed thought the two units are likely to evolve and work more closely together. Leaders of each unit seemed to look to their counterparts for the needed skills and abilities. Library directors typically answered that they needed more technical knowledge (although not highly technical skills). Computer center administrators usually responded that they needed better management and communication skills. Observed a computer center administrator, "There comes a point in the operation when the need for management skills overshadows the need for technical skills." Or, as one computer center director more bluntly put it, "I do not manage a computer center. I do not manage hardware. I manage emotions. That is what I do, day after day after day. All the technical background in the world is not going to help manage emotions."
One should not underestimate the importance of increased technological sophistication among library directors. Nevertheless, increasing emphasis on service, management, and communication skills during a computer center administrator's education is the most important single component in the equation for better relations and services. As those computer center administrators whose primary preparation and interest is in the technology return to the classroom or retire, increasingly many colleges will seek to employ computer center administrators possessing softer skills relating to leadership, educational vision, and interpersonal relations. This is already occurring. Reported a former senior administrator, "When we looked for a computer person [to direct the computer center], we were looking for compatibility with faculty mission and a mindset about what education is all about." The writer also agrees with the library director, now a CIO, who commented during an interview about the service and leadership skills of computer center administrators, "I have met a lot of heads of academic computing, and many of them are really outstanding." Nevertheless, it is an area in which computer center administrators themselves believed they needed the most improvement to lead the computer centers of the future.
In addition, as computer centers develop longer histories and test various organizational structures and management styles, models may emerge, as they have among academic libraries. The variety of reporting and organizational structures found among college computer centers suggests they are still seeking appropriate models.
Conclusions
Libraries and computer centers face similar challenges. Numerous related factors drive both computer centers and libraries to provide better service and to seek economies. More and more students are showing up on campus expecting to plug in their computers to access the growing variety of electronic resources from their dorm rooms, yet they are still unprepared to use information in the traditional formats that now predominate in libraries. More and more faculty members are incorporating computer technology into their teaching and research, while still publishing in print sources. Both computer centers and libraries are trying to respond to a diverse and demanding clientele. At the same time, both computer centers and libraries are experiencing problems associated with increased costs, rapid technological change and obsolescence, and decreased resources. No doubt cooperation and collaboration between the two units may help alleviate some of these problems. Nevertheless, no organizational structure will solve all, or even most, of these challenges.12
Most of the computer center administrators and library directors interviewed felt some concern about organizational structures that might be imposed on them. In seeking solutions to the challenges that computer centers and libraries encounter, we make little progress if we ignore differences between the two units. Organizational structures imposed without considering these differences can result in expensive, dysfunctional units that add to the stress and anxiety of dedicated individuals. We must define carefully the problems we seek to solve and consider individual and group differences before hastening to solutions that may prove to be only temporarily fashionable. Many of those interviewed shared the thoughts of one computer center administrator who commented, "Right now, they [mergers] are going to create all kinds of new problems for us to solve." Or, as one wit put it, "Creating CIOs and mergers may be like getting married and having a spouse help you with problems you would not have if you had not gotten married."
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Evan Farber, head librarian emeritus at Earlham College; Jamie Hastreiter, coordinator of technical services at Eckerd College; David Henderson, coordinator of instructional services and collection management at Eckerd College; David Kaser, distinguished professor of library and information services emeritus at Indiana University/Bloomington; and John Sheridan, head librarian at Colorado College. I also want to acknowledge the financial assistance of the Council on Library and Information Resources in support of the research that resulted in this article.
Endnotes
1 This project was largely funded through a contract with the Council on Library and Information Resources.
2 Patricia Battin, "The Electronic Library: A Vision of the Future," EDUCOM Bulletin 19 (Summer 1984): 12. Battin headed what was probably the first merger between a library and a computer center in the early 1980s at Columbia University.
3 The following authors describe positive results at Carthage College and the University of Wisconsin-Parkside: Eugene A. Engeldinger and Edward Meachen, "Merging Libraries and Computer Centers at Small Academic Institutions," Library Issues 16 (January 1996): 1-4.
4 Robert Plane, the president of Clarkson College of Technology, wrote an early article on the topic, "Merging a Library and A Computer Center," Perspectives in Computing 2 (October 1982): 14-21. From the library side, Patricia Battin provided the rationale for the most prominent early merger of the two units (Columbia University) in her article (see Battin, "The Electronic Library," 12-17, 34).
5 Pat Molholt, "What Happened to the Merger Debate?" Libraries & Computer Centers: Issues of Mutual Concern 13 (May 1989): 1.
6 Robin Wagner, "The College Library and the Computer Center: Marriage, Good Friends, or the War of the Roses," Panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Library Association, ACRL, College Libraries Section, Leadership Committee Discussion, San Francisco, California, 29 June 1997.[In late June 1997, Robin Wagner, head of the Delivery Team at Gettysburg College, reported that Gettysburg soon would separate the two units. This was done effective August 1, 1997.]
7 Connie Dowell, dean of Information Services and librarian of the college, Connecticut College, e-mail to the author, 22 July 1997.
8 Engeldinger and Meachen, p. 2.
9 Attraction and retention of qualified computer center personnel to provide user support at colleges are difficult challenges. See Lisa Guernsey and Jeffrey R. Young, "As Use of Computers Surges, Colleges Scramble to Provide Technical Support, The Chronicle of Higher Education, XLIV (September 5, 1997): A35; Jeffrey R. Young, "Colleges Complain They Can't Hire -- or Keep -- Enough Computer Specialists," The Chronicle of Higher Education, XLIV (September 5, 1997): A36.
10 Engeldinger and Meachen, p. 4.
11 Larry Hardesty, "The Bottomless Pit Revisited," College & Research Libraries 52 (May 1991): 219-229.
12 CAUSE has just released a professional paper that offers a pragmatic analysis of comparative institutional experience in integrating the two functions. See Arnold Hirshon, Integrating Computing and Library Services: An Administrative Planning and Implementation Guide for Information Resources, CAUSE Professional Paper Series 18 (Boulder, Colo.: CAUSE, 1998).
Larry Hardesty ([email protected]) is college librarian at Austin College.
![[Comments]](/ir/library/html/cem/comments.gif){kind=small}
![[Search]](/ir/library/html/cem/search.gif){kind=small}
![[Home]](/ir/library/html/cem/home.gif){kind=small}