ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 7 9 0 /C & R L News with users. This will re q u ire entirely new arran g e­ m ents for professional w ork assignm ents, re p o rt­ ing, a n d evaluation, w h e re em phasis will b e p laced prim arily on d istrib u ted control a n d in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t a n d decision-m aking rela te d to ever- changing needs. A final p ro b le m to b e solved, and o n e a b o u t w hich little n eed s to b e said o th e r th an its necessity, has to do w ith educational program s. At th e p re s e n t tim e, library e d u c atio n program s th a t supply p ro ­ fessionals for academ ic rese a rc h libraries are d eep ly c o m m itted to th e o ld e r paradigm . Program s o f this so rt will n o t b e very useful to th e new er p aradigm w ith its u s e r o rientation. Steps m u st b e taken to develop th e p a tte rn s o f thinking, ju d g ­ m en t, and m ethods th a t will s u p p o rt th e new focus. O f highest im p o rtan ce in this re sp e c t w ould b e th e d ev e lo p m en t o f essential courses th a t b e g in w ith th e exam ination a n d exploration o f users n eed s and behavior in finding and m aking use o f inform ation. Conclusion W h at has b e e n suggested as p ro b le m s to b e a d d ressed or solved in o rd e r to im p le m e n t a new op eratio n al p aradigm for ac ad e m ic rese a rc h lib ra r­ ies could doubtless b e g reatly ex p an d ed and w orked o u t in g re a te r detail. I t is h o p e d , how ever, th a t th e points m ade will pro v id e a beg in n in g for th a t process, assum ing, o f course, th a t th e analysis o f th e academ ic rese a rc h library on th e basis o f operational p aradigm s was ac cu ra te to beg in with. The future o f reference II: A response B y Cheryl K nott M alone Reference Librarian, Perry-C astañeda L ibrary U niversity o f Texas at A u stin W h e n I read an advance copy o f F ra n M iksa’s p a p e r I confess to feeling som ew hat alarm ed th a t in o n e sh o rt y e a r o f R IS C program s, it se em e d w e had g o n e from ab a n d o n in g th e re fe re n c e desk to o ver­ throw ing th e library as we know it.1 Professor M iksa first c o nstructs a m odel o f th e co lle ctio n -c e n te red library, th e n describes th e d e ­ veloping anom alies re p re se n tin g u se r-c en te re d - ness: in terlib rary service, reso u rce sharing s tra te ­ gies, d o c u m e n t delivery, and so on. In holding this m odel up for o u r insp ectio n h e m akes us aw are o f two im p o rta n t fea tu re s o f o u r w ork lives. F irst, w e a re o p e ra tin g in a transform ative p e rio d as w e shift o u r gaze from th e collection to th e users. A nd second, h e helps us to u n d e rsta n d th e conflicts we face on th e job as a result. I w an t to explore th ese conflicts as a living e m ­ b o d im e n t o f th em , for I am b o th a u s e r-o rie n te d refe re n c e librarian and a collection-oriented b ibli­ o g rap h e r— o r vice versa, d e p e n d in g on y o u r in te r­ p re ta tio n o f th e paradigm . A nd I also w an t to add a n o th e r e le m e n t, for th e se conflicts o c c u r w ithin 1"T h e F u tu re o f R eferen ce: A P anel D iscussion H e ld at th e U niversity o f Texas a t A ustin, Spring 1988." C & R L N ew s 49 (O c to b e r 1988): 57 8 -8 9 . com plex organizations. In ad dition to th e historical tre n d s M iksa m en ­ tioned briefly, collection d e v e lo p m en t a n d re fe r­ e n c e activities have ch a n g ed in th e last several years. C ollection d e v e lo p m en t generally has m oved o u t o f th e hands o f faculty a n d into th e library. T h e re w e re several reasons for this tran si­ tion: th e increasing p re ssu re on faculty to "publish o r p erish" and th e resu ltin g lack o f tim e to handle library collection building; dissatisfaction with skew ed collections th a t reflected a specialist’s p e r ­ haps narrow interests; th e professionalization o f li- brarianship. F u ll-tim e bibliographers w orking for th e library b eg a n to h a n d le selection, m aking d e c i­ sions b a sed on form al policies.2 M ore recently, th e p lace o f collection d evelop­ m e n t has shifted again, in resp o n se p artly to th e increasing q u a n tity and com plexity o f th e m aterials b ecom ing available. F u ll-tim e biblio g rap h ers had little o p p o rtu n ity in th e ir daily w ork to in te ra c t with th e p a tro n s using th e collections th ey w e re b u ild ­ ing. T h e e sta b lish m e n t o f reliable approval plans 2T hom as F . O ’C o n n o r, “C ollection D e v e lo p ­ m en t in th e Yale U niversity L ibrary, 1865-1931," Journal o f L ib ra ry H istory 22 (S pring 1987): 164-89. 7 9 2 /C & R L N ew s moved labor-intensive, title-by-title selection to an outside party, at least for maintaining a core collec­ tion. C onsequently, large academ ic/research li­ braries have begun distributing selection to librari­ ans with some subject expertise who work in o th er capacities.3 At the same tim e, referen ce librarians have begun to work few er hours at th e desk. Tw enty years ago reference librarians spent at least half of their workdays at the desk. Today they spend more tim e elsew here. It is not th at we have becom e less user-oriented, b u t m ore— as th e paradigm sug­ gests. W e are now engaged in online searching, bibliographic instruction, individual patron consul­ tations, and collection m anagem ent. D istributed selection seems more heavily weighted in the p u b ­ lic services. And I suspect one reason for that is the formal and regular opportunities reference librari­ ans have for discerning p atro n needs. O n some level, we recognize th at th e collection itself is a public service. The reference librarian who also has duties as a subject bibliographer rep resen ts a m icrocosm o f th e kinds o f conflicts Miksa has alluded to. O ur interactions with patrons inform our selection decisions, not only for reference materials, but for o th er areas o f the collection as well. O ur assess­ m ents o f th e strengths and weaknesses o f th e col­ lection enable us to steer users to acceptable local alternatives or refer them to translocal collections. We mix the p attern s th at constitute Miksa’s p a ra ­ digm in com plicated and am biguous ways: we consider specific as well as am orphous user needs w hen approaching collection m anagem ent. We focus on the collection when we serve patrons. The converse is also true: we focus on the collection as an entity when making decisions that may build on the strengths or fill in o r exacerbate th e w eak­ nesses . We handle user needs without regard to the local collection, or to any collection whatsoever, at times. O ur m ultiple roles m uddle th e model. As a referen ce librarian I have an obligation to serve th e needs o f “g en eral” users, w hoever they are. As a history bibliographer, I serve those teach­ ing, learning, and doing research in th at field. But it is a significant source o f conflict w hen a large academ ic library strives to serve th e masses o f students fulfilling im m ediate course assignments and the individual scholars undertaking challeng­ ing, long-term projects. At th e reference desk, it is a daily re lief to be able to say to u m p teen p a tro n s: “Com pany annual rep o rts? Yes, we have them downstairs on m icrofiche.” As a bibliographer, it A ssociation o f R esearch Libraries, Office o f M anagem ent Studies, C o lle c tio n D e v e lo p m e n t O rg a n iza tio n a n d S ta ffin g in A R L L ib ra rie s, SPEC Kit #131 (W ashington, D .C .: ARL, 1987). pains me to have to tell a history graduate stu d en t that, no, th e library cannot afford to purchase the microfilm collection you need to write your disser­ tation. A cynic would say it is th e equivalent of giving the business students a governm ent bailout while expecting th e history stu d en t to rely on the private sector for travel funds. I f th at sounds outrageous, th en I ’ve made my second point: w hen we attem p t to do w hat is best for th e collection and for patrons, we operate w ithin a bureaucratic stru ctu re w here decisions about allocating lim ited information resources are inherently—b u t not only—political. The large o r­ ganization’s routines are designed for efficiency and econom y o f scale. Those routines, along with lim ited resources, may som etim es thw art user needs. The paradox is th at the large bureaucratic structure also makes our mission doable. And th a t stru ctu re itself is undergoing change. No longer strictly hierarchical, no longer the kind o f organization th at “defends th e status quo long after th e quo has lost its status,” as Laurence P eter has described it.4 The reorganization o f collection m anagem ent and reference has b lu rred reporting lines; it can help develop staff collegiality and coop­ eration. Still, it is difficult to imagine one o f Miksa’s suggestions: abandoning the library as place while retaining influence on the library as political entity. Every working collection changes every day as individual items circulate, get added, get lost, go to th e bindery. Every working u ser changes as well, developing new needs as th e collection changes and as interaction with th e collection creates new needs and interests. And every working librarian changes as she assesses th e collection, assimilates inform ation from individual users, addresses groups o f patrons, and tackles what Goldia H ester last year called the m etaquestions. Miksa’s p ara­ digm describes what Daniel Boorstin calls a “fertile verge,” a creative era w hen th e new clashes with and transforms the old.5 At this juncture, we should neither ignore user needs in favor of the collection nor subm it to user dem ands however they alter the collection. Instead, we should continue to focus our gaze on th e place w here public service librarians have al­ ways focused, on th e place w here collections and users come together. 4M ichael Jackm an, C r o w n ’s B o o k o f P o litic a l Q u o ta tio n s (NewYork: Crown, 1982), 14. 5Goldia Hester, “The F uture of Reference Serv­ ice: A Response,” C & R L N e w s 49 (O ctober 1988): 584; D aniel J. Boorstin, H id d e n H is to r y (N ew York: H a rp er & Row, 1987), xiii.