College and Research Libraries Robbing Peter . . . Balancing Collection Development and Reference Responsibilities David G. Null This article examines some of the problems faced by librarians who have both collection development and reference responsibilities. Major concerns include balancing demands on one's time, unclear supervisory lines, and misunderstanding of the collection development process. Suggestions include establishing formal reporting lines for both reference and collection development, increasing communication among supervisors, training selectors more effectively, and heightening awareness of the necessity for better organization in collection development. cademic librarianship, like many other academic fields, seems to be becoming less spe- cialized, at least in many medium- and small-sized libraries. In- creasingly, librarians face a multiplicity of jobs, e.g., reference work, collection de- velopment, cataloging, and teaching. Most literature on library jobs, however, tends to present librarians as single-task · specialists. In reality, librarians regularly perform two or more jobs. The problems inherent in trying to juggle multiple re- sponsibilities are of considerable concern. One of the most common arrangements is the combining of reference and collection development. This dual responsiblity usually takes one of two forms: bibliogra- phers (subject specialists) who also do ref- erence, or reference librarians who also do collection development. Several articles have recently focused on dual assign- ments from the point of view of a collec- tion development officer. 1 This article however, examines reference librarians who have selection responsibilities. Laurie Linsley, in a paper given at the third Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) conference, lists the ref- erence/collection development split as the most common dual assignment in the seventy-two academic libraries she sur- veyed. A study conducted in 1983 by Nancy Emmick and Luella Davis shows that 37.9 percent of academic reference li- brarians also perform collection develop- ment work, and 70.3 percent have liaison assignments with faculty. A 1983 survey by the Discussion Group on Reference Services in Large Research Libraries shows that two-thirds of the reporting ref- erence departments had librarians with substantial collection development du- ties. A 1987 article on training new refer- ence librarians reports that these people spent about 12 percent of their time on col- David G. Null is Head, Reference, and Coordinator of Social Science Collection Development at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131. 448 lection development activities. 2 Obvi- ously, many reference librarians also have collection development duties, and from the recent interest in this topic, perhaps best exemplified by the newly formed Col- lection Development and Evaluation Sec- tion (CODES) within the Reference and Adult Services Division (RASD), many li- brarians are experiencing the pressures of handling more than one responsibility. Having one person do several jobs in the lihrary is not necessarily dysfunctional. In the last several years there has been a good deal of discussion about an inte- grated model of academic librarianship, particularly in medium- and small-sized li- braries. In such a model"subject special- ists or scholar librarians do collection de- velopment and provide in-depth reference service including bibliographic instruction and online searching in their fields of expertise. ''3 While many librari- ans find the integrated approach appeal- ing, Patricia Swanson points out that "there is a contradiction in the integrated model in that on the one hand, we are ex- pected to do everything and on the other hand quality work environments are sup- posed to identify and nurture our individ- ual talents and strengths. " 4 In other words, although all of us do not do every- thing equally well, and probably do not want to, we often are expected to do so, and we are evaluated as though we do. This problem is compounded in the ref- erence and collection development split by the fact that reference has a long and fairly stable tradition. Reference librarians know what they are expected to do and how to do it. This is not the case for collec- tion development. Not long ago, the trend in collection development was toward subject bibliographers, but today that structure is not as prevalent. Indeed, as a recent article by Jeanne Sohn points out, there is no clear pattern of how collection development is organized in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries. Not only is there no clear pattern, but almost half of the collection development officers who responded to Sohn' s survey were dissatisfied with the way collection devel- opment was handled in their institu- tions-even if that structure had changed Robbing Peter 449 recently. 5 One can argue, and many peo- ple have, for or against full-time bibliogra- phers as opposed to part-time selectors, but the reality is that man1librariaris have multiple responsibilities. There are several problems inherent in attempting to handle multiple responsibil- ities in a library or any other type of work- place. One of the most significant and dif- ficult is managing all of the demands on one's time. Most reference librarians work at a reference desk, perform online litera- ture searches, give library instruction ses- sions, and prepare handouts or bibliogra- phies. In addition to these responsibili- ties, one might find such other duties as collection development, interlibrary loan, and government publications. 7 What almost always happens in such situations is that when push comes to shove, collection development gets shoved. Collection development rarely has the immediacy of reference work. One can always order a book tomorrow or next week, but one cannot always put off a tour, or an online search, or one's regu- larly scheduled hours on the reference desk. A 1979 study of public services li- brarians conducted at Brigham Young University shows that "few generaliza- tions can be made except that all four types of [public service] librarians spend less time on acquisitions than on refer- ence."8 The other major problem is supervision. Usually a reference librarian who also does collection development reports to a head of reference. Rarely does a reference librarian report to a collection develop- ment officer. Sohn' s article points out that this is a major problem for collection de- velopment officers without official super- visory authority who must coordinate the work of many part-time selectors. 9 Some librarians are fortunate enough to report formally to a head of reference for refer- ence duties and to a collection develop- ment officer for selection responsibilities, but that administrative pattern is not prev- alent. Formal reporting lines for collection de- velopment, however, can help to legiti- mize selection and allow selectors whose primary assignment is elsewhere to feel 450 College & Research Libraries more secure about the time that they de- vote to collection development. Such re- porting may also help librarians with se- lection and reference responsibilities to be relieved of some reference duties if they can show that they officially are doing col- lection development. Similarly, clearly defined reporting lines may help with matters such as access to support staff. Anyone who does collection development knows that much clerical work is needed. Reporting to a collection development of- ficer may make it easier to get support staff outside of the reference department to help with such tasks. Formal reporting lines and job descrip- tions allow librarians with selection and reference responsibilities to know which criteria they are being evaluated on and what they must do to meet their supervi- sors' expectations. Such reporting also helps assure the selector of more input into decision and policy making. This is especially important when one person is reporting to, and being evaluated by, two or more supervisors. Clearly, the head of reference and the collection development officer must know each other's goals and objectives. They need to check for comple- mentary or opposing goals and objectives, and they should attempt to see whether a librarian doing both reference and collec- tion development is able to meet all of the stated objectives. Similarly, selectors who are primarily reference librarians, and do not report to a collection development of- ficer, should somehow be involved in goals and objectives planning for collec- tion development. There also has to be good communica- tion and coordination at the higher levels of administration, either department head or assistant/ associate dean level. A prob- lem with collection development is that, on the one hand, it is becoming more visi- ble, often through promotion of a person to an assistant/ associate dean in charge of collection development; while on the other hand, this person often has little au- thority or line responsibility. 10 This may be due to an unwillingness of traditional li- brary administrations to change. In order for a person to be made an associate/ assis- tant dean for collection development and September 1988 given line responsibility for selectors, someone else in the organizational struc- ture must relinquish some authority and power. Administrators may need to think more about how their roles affect those be- low them and the library as a whole and not so much about their own power ba- ses.11 One potential way of handling multiple reporting lines is through matrix manage- ment. Indeed, according to one article, "the dominant characteristic of matrix structure . . . is the dual reporting rela- tionship."12 There are several difficulties with a matrix structure, however, includ- ing a tendency to defer making decisions, and a danger of power struggles among multiple bosses trying to gain control of li- brary units. David W. Lewis has sug- gested an organizational paradigm using a modified professional bureaucracy in which middle management is reduced and a large support staff is provided to free professionals from routine tasks. This structure might allow greater freedom for a librarian to do more than one job. 13 In addition to clear reporting lines, the mention of collection development duties in a librarian's job description and assign- ment of a percentage of a person's time or work load to collection development may be a good idea. Not that one should feel compelled to follow slavishly the percent- age named, but once again a clearly de- fined amount of time devoted to collection · development allows a selector to feel bet- ter able to give that time to collection de- velopment. An assigned amount of time might also lead administrators to realize that a person is officially doing collection development, and, just as importantly, it may help part-time selectors to under- stand that administrators have a real com- mitment to collection development. Supervisors should be aware that clear goals, objectives, and job descriptions cre- ate a positive effect on an employee's mo- rale and performance. Personnel litera- ture is inconsistent about what causes job stress and dissatisfaction, but at least one library study suggests that role conflict (where expectations are in conflict) and role ambiguity (unclear expectations) ad- versely affect job satisfaction. 14 Unfortunately for those who must bal- ance both reference and collection devel- opment duties, helpful literature is sparse. There is considerable literature on time management, but it appears to focus primarily on how to keep one's desk clean and affords few hints on how to juggle two or more primary tasks. Much of the problem for part-time selec- tors is showing how much time they de- vote to collection development and the value of that investment. Reference work has a long history and an established im- portance in librarianship, and it is some- what easier to quantify than collection de- velopment work. One can fairly easily put into figures the amount of time spent on the reference desk, running an online search, and talking to a class. Attempting to quantify collection development work-time spent consulting catalogs, re- views, approval plans, talking to faculty and students, and examinin~ books on the shelves-is a difficult task. 1 This ignores times when one is doing both functions, e.g., going over approval slips or book re- views while sitting at the reference desk. Often the problem is to convince people who have never done collection develop- ment that such activities are worthwhile and essential for the library as a whole. Part of the problem may lie with those who do collection development. One of the oddities is that while almost everyone will admit it is a central mission of the li- brary, many librarians and administrators seem to feel anyone can do it, it does not take much training or background, and Robbing Peter 451 one does not really need to pay a lot of at- tention to it. While it may be true that any- one can do collection development, just as anyone can do cataloging, not everyone can do collection development well. Per- haps those of us in collection development or management have not done enough to train selectors thoroughly in the tech- niques of good collection development, evaluation, and management. Nor have we done enough to convince library ad- ministrators that collection development is an important, time-consuming and not easily accomplished fact of librarianship. 16 Particularly in the difficult financial cir- cumstances that many libraries face, hav- ing capable selectors doing good collec- tion development is essential. The library needs to have a well-defined, rational, jus- tifiable collection development policy, and everyone-selectors and nonselec- tors, administrators and nonadministra- tors-needs to be aware of and supportive of that policy. Selectors need to be well trained in the art of collection develop- ment and in the needs and goals of the li- brary and the parent institution. If selectors are also reference librarians, they need to feel that the time they devote to collection development is well spent and not time taken away from important reference activities. While striking a bal- ance between collection development and reference duties is not an easy task, some compromise must be struck if we are to give part-time selectors the time and sup- port they need to develop and manage good, coherent, well-planned collections. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. See Bonita Bryant, ''Allocation of Human Resources for Collection Development,'' Library Re- sources & Technical Services 30:149-62 (Apr./June 1986); Bonita Bryant, "The Organizational Struc- ture of Collection Development," Library Resources & Technical Services 31:111-22 (Apr ./June 1987); Jeanne Sohn, "Collection Development Organizational Patterns in ARL Libraries," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 31:123-34 (Apr./June 1987). 2. Laurie S. Linsley, "The Dual Job Assignment: How It Enhances Job Satisfaction," in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges (Chicago: The Association, 1984), p.148; Nancy J. Emmick and Luella B. Davis, "A Survey of Academic Library Reference Service Practices: Preliminary Results," RQ 24:74-75 (Fall1984); Paula D. Watson, "Organization and Management of Reference Services in Academic Research Libraries: A Survey," RQ 23:408-9 (Summer 1984); Karen Y. Stabler, "Introductory Training of Academic Reference Librarians: A Survey," RQ 26:366 (Spring 1987). 452 College & Research Libraries September 1988 3. Phillis E. Jaynes, "Organizational Response to a Changing Environment: The Library's Brave New World,'' in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges, (Chi- cago: ACRL, 1984), p .100. Many people would also include cataloging as one of the functions in an integrated approach. See also Charles R. Martell, Jr., The Client-Centered Academic Library: An Or- ganizatonal Model (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1983) and Judy Reynolds and Jo Bell Whitlach, ''Academic Library Services: The Literature of Innovation,'' College & Research Libraries 46:402-17 (Sept. 1985). 4. Patricia K. Swanson, "Traditional Models: Myths and Realities," in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges (Chicago : ACRL, 1984), p.90. 5. Sohn, "Collection Development," p.130-31. For actual organization charts, see Collection Develop- ment Organization and Staffing in ARL Libraries, SPEC Kit 131 (Washington, D.C.: Assn. of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, 1987). 6. See, for example, Sharon W. Propas, "Cincinnnati Collection Management and Development In- stitute, November 6-9, 1983 the LAPT Report," Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 8:58 (1984) on Ross Atkinson's defense of full-time bibliographers, and Larry Earl Bone, "Noblesse Oblige: Collection Development as a Public Service Responsibility," Reference Librarian 9:65-73 (Fall/Win- ter 1983) as a defense of the joint responsibility. 7. Emmick, "Survey," p. 75. See also Bryant, "Allocation," p. 151. For a discussion of some of the problems in defining reference work, see Joanne R. Euster, "Helping the Manager Manage: De- fining Reference Services," Reference Librarian 3:35-37 (Spring 1982). 8. Anthony W. Ferguson and John R. Taylor, "'What Are You Doing?' An Analysis of Activities of Public Service Librarians at a Medium-Sized Research Library," Journal of Academic Librarianship 6:25 (Mar. 1980). 9. See Sohn, "Collection Development" p.128. 10. Ibid., p.126-27. 11. For an interesting discussion of power and authority in libraries see Charles Martell, "The Nature of Authority and Employee Participation in the Management of Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 48:110-22 (Mar. 1987). 12. Joanne R. Euster and Peter D. Haikalis, "A Matrix Model of Organization for a University Library Public Services Division," in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges (Chicago: ACRL, 1984), p.358. See also Nancy A. Brown, "Managing the Coexistence of Hierarchical and Collegial Governance Structures," College & Research Libraries 46:478-82 (Nov. 1985). 13. Euster, "Matrix," p. 359-60, and David W. Lewis, "An Organizational Paradigm for Effective Academic Libraries,'' College & Research Libraries 47:337-53 Ouly 1986). The Lewis article is also one of the best on the management alternatives available to academic libraries. 14. Bette Ann Stead and Richard W. Scamell, "A Study of the Relationship of Role Conflict, the Need for Role Clarity, and Job Satisfaction for Professional Librarians,'' Library Quarterly 50:310-23 Ouly 1980). This article provides a good overview of the major personnel literature on role conflict/ ambi- guity as does Harold V. Hosel, "Academic Librarians and Faculty Status; A Role Stress-Job Satis- faction Perspective," Journal of Library Administration 5:57-66 (Fall1984). Two ofthe better person- nel articles are Jone L. Pearce, "Bringing Some Clarity to Role Ambiguity Research," Academy of Management Review 4:665-74 (Oct. 1981) and Ricky W. Griffin, Ann Welsh, and Gregory Moorhead, "Perceived Task Characteristics and Employee Performance: A Literature Review," Academy of Management Review 6:655-64 (Oct. 1981). 15. Diane C. Parker and Eric J. Carpenter, "A Zero-Based Budget Approach to Staff Justification for a Combined Reference and Collection Development Department,'' in New Horizons for Academic Li- braries: Papers Presented at the First National Conference of the Association of College and Research Li- braries Boston Massachusetts Nov. 8-111978, ed . Robert D. Stueart and Richard D . Johnson (New York: K.G. Saur, 1979), p.478. 16. Maureen L. Gleason, "Training Collection Development Librarians," Collection Management 4:1-8 (Winter 1982) is one of the better articles on training for collection development.