College and Research Libraries Information Support for Academic Administrators: A New Role for the Library Peter G. Watson and Rebecca A. Boone The concept of a direct information support service for academic administrators by librarians is presented. The costs and benefits of such an undertaking are discussed, and the results of a test are reported, tog~ther with the model and rationale for a service. The test supported the hy- pothesis that demand for this type of service does exist, once administrators are apprised of the possibility for it, and that they are highly pleased with the results and with the librarians for offering it. The paper concludes with a presentation of issues in library service, technique, and philosophy that were identified during the test. everal recent authors, most no- tably Charles Martell in The Client-Centered Academic Li- brary, 1 have explored the con- cept that the actual needs of user groups · could influence the design and organiza- tion of library services much more than they have in the past. One obvious exam- ple is the fee-based services designed as a response to pressures from noninstitu- tional groups (especially business and in- dustry) for improved access to their local academic library. Another is the emer- gence of document delivery systems on campus, usually directed toward faculty and organized research teams. This paper discusses a further example of client- centered service in the college or univer- sity library, namely, a library/information support service for administrators. Our · working hypothesis is that it would be a benefit to both the academic library and its parent institution for the library to provide a specialized, direct, information support service to identified senior administrators of the college or university. We will present a rationale and a model for such a service and identify some of the benefits, costs, and major procedural, service, ad- ministrative, and professional issues in- volved. Online and manual literature searches produced only one document squarely on this topic: a SUNY -Buffalo library pro- posal (1973) that was not implemented. 2 The following exposition, therefore, stems largely from our discussions with administrators, our experience as library public service managers, and an in situ test of the basic concept. RATIONALE FOR ESTABLISHING A SERVICE A small test by one particular library is useful but may not by itself provide the necessary professional foundation that would enable other libraries to develop this new concept in their own operating Peter G. Watson is University Librarian, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho, 83209-0009. Rebecca A. Boone is Associate Dean at the College of Arts and Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson 85721 (on leave, 1988-89, as Administrative Intern, Arizona Board of Regents, Phoenix, Arizona 85012) . The authors wish to thank Judith A. Sessions, former university librarian, and Frederick W. Ryan, former deputy university librar- ian, California State University-Chico, for their administrative and professional support of the test. 65 66 College & Research Libraries environments. In this section, therefore, we attempt to provide a wider profes- sional framework for having the academic library serve administrators, a rationale that has general applicability. 1. As part of the broad-based move- ment of the modern profession of aca- demic librarianship toward an active ser- vice posture, librarians are looking afresh at the needs of their client groups and de- vising strategies and products to meet those needs. Like many service institutions, the li- brary is being modernized while its essen- tial continuity. of function and purpose is being maintained. Banks, for example, have recently developed a whole series of new services segmented toward specific groups. So, too, have academic libraries begun to provide students and faculty with such innovations as computerized literature searching, bibliographic instruc- tion, fee-based information services, and document delivery. Academic librarians should give serious thought to extending this approach to another group that also has demonstrable need for useful, effec- tive information support: namely, the campus administration. 2. Campus administrators are almost exclusively drawn from the teaching and research faculty ranks and are not fully aware of the library's potential for sup- porting administrative work. The faculty, including those who move into academic administration, are the "core group" in the management of any college or university. 3 In terms of their need for, and use of, information services, the faculty can occupy a surprisingly large number of different roles, of which this paper examines just one, that of academic administrator. 4 Even though academic administrators are not actively teaching, they retain the typical faculty relationship with the li- brary, its resources, staff, and services: namely, a solitary interaction between themselves and the materials that embody their area of research. 5' 6 Their view of li- braries and librarians has not changed as their administrative responsibilities (which may even include the library) have evolved. What this will often mean, in January 1989 practical terms, is that the administrator still knows and uses libraries in only one way-by paying a personal visit, consult- ing a few tried and trusted sources, brows- ing the stacks, and in general doing every- thing directly, for oneself, by oneself. After all, as a scholar, one is expected to know the library, and not to have to ask for assistance. The academic disciplines are the basis for the organization and services of aca- demic libraries and for the faculty mem- ber's interaction with them. But the disci- plines do not constitute an easy key for addressing administrative concerns such as how other universities are responding to political pressure to change the balance between teaching and research functions or what faculty salary and benefit struc- tures are used in peer institutions. Admin- istrators are seldom seeking pure research or a sequence of analytical or interpretive articles in periodicals; they are much more likely to require applied research, current policies and procedures from other insti- tutions, and raw data brought together into a useful whole. In addition, administrators will often -simply lack the time to walk over to the li- brary and embark on a lengthy search for information. If the scholar turned admin- istrator cannot find the needed informa- tion fairly quickly in person, or at most with an occasional question to a reference librarian, the information is probably not going to be pursued within the library. The library as an information system quickly becomes functionally unusable; administrators have simply accepted the idea that the library (as they conceive it) is not a tool used for administrative pur- poses. 3. Those who administer the complex corporate structure of the modern college or university need and deserve more ac- tive, relevant, information service support from the library, and the library is now much better equipped than, say, fifteen years ago, to respond vigorously to such a challenge. Academic administration has become much more information-dependent for the fulfillment of many standard adminis- trative tasks (planning, coordinating, evaluating, decision making, etc.), while concurrently the information service capa- bilities of academic libraries have ex- panded enormously. For our present pur- poses this is most strikingly evident in two broad areas-the computerized searching of bibliographic, numeric, and even full- text databases and the electronic tying to- gether of the nation's system of interli- brary cooperation. Other advances in modern librarianship also contribute, such as the advent of the online catalog, enabling access to a library's holdings from home or office, not merely from within the library walls. 4. As an institution, the academic li- brary is under considerable strain and re- quires its own well-informed support base on campus. Partly due to the very success of their new, electronically based systems for re- trieval and access, many academic li- braries are experiencing a surge in the amount and intensity of demand. At the same time, they are constrained to operate with budgets that are functionally much tighter than a decade ago. Higher-than- average inflation of book and journal prices, higher salaries, the need for large- scale automation-these and other un- avoidable cost components all take their slice of the budget, often leaving little true discretionary money in the hands of the li- brary director. This part of the rationale sounds like a reason not to start a new service, rather than the reverse. But the library is in acute competition with other campus agencies for dollars and (equally important) for ad- ministrative support. Its role as a neces- sary service for most faculty and students does not give it a built-in claim on the at- tention of administrators. Provision of a direct, personal service to those adminis- trators might enlarge and enhance the li- brary's institutional position and role in their minds, at the same time increasing its relevance both to themselves and to the college or university as a whole. COSTS AND BENEFITS Costs Obviously there will be costs associ- ated with any new service, especially in Information Support 67 libraries that already feel stretched just to stay in control of their existing work- load. Regardless of size or type of library, the main cost components will include: 1. Librarian time 2. Support staff time 3. Online searching 4. Document procurement (copying, ILL, mail, etc.) 5. Supplies and other miscellaneous operating expenses Additionally some libraries will need to account for: 6. Opportunity cost (of resources di- verted from other tasks) 7. Overhead The Califprnia State University-Chico (CSU-Chico) test (described below) was performed at relatively low cost. Of the four types of direct costs that could be identified in advance (computer search- ing, photocopying, interlibrary loan charges, and mail and long-distance tele- phone), only the first two materialized during the test: computer searching aver- aged $12.44, and photocopying averaged $3. Total staff time per question was about one hour (roughly estimated as forty-five minutes of librarian time, fif- teen minutes of support staff time). Li- brarian time was calculated from initial consultation to presentation of results. The time taken to explain the purpose and scope of the test on the initial visit is not included in this, because it is depen- dent upon the interests of both the ad- ministrator and the librarian. We estimate that the inclusion of labor costs would add $15-20 to the transaction cost, at current rates for an upper-range li- brarian and a middle-range paraprofes- sional. Costs for supplies and other miscellane- ous operating needs were negligible. Overhead and opportunity costs were not computed but would be institution- specific. Within this framework, the total identi- fiable cost of providing the service appears to be about $30-35 per question-probably very close to the cost of other types of in- depth library service offered on a limited scale. 68 College & Research Libraries Benefits In assessing what benefits there are and could be, we believe it is important to rec- ognize (a) that this is a service whose ben- efits should be viewed strategically rather than tactically; (b) that the actual costs may not be very great overall, and the ben- efits will likely be substantial; therefore (c) that in terms not just of cost or benefit, but of the cost-benefit relationship, this may turn out to be one of the most valu- able initiatives the academic library could decide to undertake. Thus the discussion of costs and benefits very quickly becomes a reassessment of library priorities. Benefits to the Institution Better informed administrators. Suppose that administrators can use the library ef- fectively: in most cases, they would rather not have to do this, and a librarian could probably do it better. At the very least, therefore, the benefit here is precious time saved for the administrator. More often, we believe, having the library undertake this service will provide an improved in- formation flow to administrators, as well as saving them time. Better administrative performance. Among the important functions that can be as- sisted by a better foundation of informa- tion are planning; decision making; estab- lishment of mission, goals, and policies; program evaluation; use of funds; compli- ance with legislation; development of grant proposals, etc. We emphasize that a library support ser- vice for administrators is by no means a panacea; it will not create good adminis- tration where such does not exist, any more than solid information support for scholarship will create good scholarship- but, as is true with scholarship, there will be a better chance of good performance if there is an improved level of information support. Erroneous or unproductive courses of action can be avoided, and par- ticularly suitable or relevant solutions from outside can be more speedily evalu- ated and adopted. The universally shared aim of achieving the best administrative practice can be brought substantially closer to realization. More effective fulfillment of the institution's January 1989 academic mission. Although the institu- tional mission statement is usually a broad, sweeping generalization of intent, it does embody the college or university's definition of itself. Better informed admin- istrators can participate more fully in the institution's various activities, leading to a more comprehensive realization of the mission statement. They can, for example, uphold the institution's position more ef- fectively in outside forums if they are given the appropriate facts, figures, or analyses in advance. At the institutional level, the teaching, research, community service, and other components of academic life blend to- gether. It is our belief that, in time, the ex- istence of such a service will be assumed, and its regular use taken for granted, and that this in t~un will contribute strongly to a greater cohesiveness in the college or university's response to mission-related matters. Better administration of the library by col- lege or university officers. Closer involve- ment by senior administrators in theJife of the library will enhance their awareness of its needs, goals, and problems. Along with this will come an awareness of the overall interrelationship of various campus information services (usually the library, computer center, and instruc- tional media)-thus giving fresh impetus to increased administrative coordination among them. This too can be useful to the library in mutually clarifying roles and missions with those agencies, to which any academic library is nowadays inex- tricably linked in the provision of informa- tion service to the institution. Benefits to the Library A more informed appreciation by senior campus administrators of the professional role and skills of the librarian as an infor- mation specialist. One result should be a better administrative understanding of the rigor, imagination, scholarship, logic, experience, judgment, and knowledge of the field that the good public service li- brarian brings to bear upon the compli- cated, ever-changing modern world of in- formation production and dissemination. This could be invaluable, for example, when librarians are reviewed for reten- tion, tenure, promotion, merit awards, sabbaticals, etc. Unobtrusively assisting administrators to experience, or "get a handle on" the modem academic library, will lead to administrators who are much better informed about the library, who can empathize more with the dynamics of li- brary management, and who henceforth can speak with more authority in campus or external discussions about the impor- tance of information, libraries, resources, and even national agencies such as LC, OCLC, and CRL. This is to the library's advantage. A better image for the library and thus an improved climate of support for the li- brary. Administrators want very much to be proud of "their" library, and usually are. The high immediate impact of a direct support service from the library will give them an additional reason to be so. Ad- ministrators will welcome library initia- tives that fit with their concepts of the in- stitution's goals and needs. Among one administrator's initial reactions to the pi- lot test was the interesting observation that he appreciated this effort to utilize the library ''to the full'' -even though, as far as we know, the idea of the library doing this had never before occurred to him. As regards actual procurement of funds, just starting to provide administrators with information support may well raise the possibility of new sources of funding for the service itself, such as an increase in the library budget to enable the service to continue. Or it could help foster an im- proved climate of support for some quite different long-term needs of the library, such as a new building, or an across-the- board increase in the materials budget. Increased utilization of the librarian's time on clearly professional tasks, assuming that any tasks that must be deferred, transferred, or abandoned, will be 'low end' tasks of mar- ginal professional content, merely things that the librarian was doing because it was felt someone had to do them. Enhanced self-image of librarians as profes- sionals. We believe that any time librarians work directly with senior campus admin- istrators, they will perceive themselves as contributing significantly to the life of the Information Support 69 institution and should experience higher self-esteem thereby. A parallel to this is the rise in professional self-esteem that took place among academic reference li- brarians .all across the land ten to twelve years ago as they assumed the role of com- puterized search specialists and began to work more directly with the faculty's in- formation needs. MODEL OF A LIBRARY I INFORMATION SUPPORT SERVICE FOR ADMINISTRATORS The basis for the series of steps that com- prise this model is a test conducted by one of the authors during the 1986-87 aca- demic year at CSU-Chico. 1. The library administration first agrees to devote some of its personnel and other resources to the direct, immediate support of information requests made by senior academic administrators. 2. The library decides upon at least one librarian who will perform the initial ser- vice. The persons selected must be: (a) equipped with up-to-date skills in general reference service, including the ability to perform computerized litera- ture searches on a broad range of topics, especially higher education; (b) well respected outside the library and fairly senior in terms of rank and service on the campus; (c) able to cultivate a continuing confi- den~ial relationship with campus ad- ministrators; (d) able to maintain flexibility -in their schedules. 3. The library director sends a letter to, or meets personally with, a small number of senior administrators, introducing them to the general idea and inviting them to participate. It is advisable also to em- phasize that the library realizes that each person's information needs are private, and that confidentiality will be closely guarded. We suggest a small group of ad- ministrators to begin, so that the library can acquaint itself with the dynamics of such a venture before any large-scale pub- lic commitment is made, and we suggest senior administrators simply in recogni- tion of good campus politics and greatest unmetneed. 70 College & Research Libraries 4. The participating librarian is then as- signed to cover four to six administrators, no more . A general allocation of time in which to perform the service should be agreed within the library in advance. About two hours per week is suggested as an average. 5. The librarian visits the offices of those administrators in her or his group, explains the concept and the general procedures, and, as soon as the administrator begins to respond, takes notes with old-fashioned paper and pencil. Tape recorders are not recommended-they will inhibit free- ranging conversation, which is one of the most valuable communication devices in operating this type of a service. The Chico test revealed at an early stage the value of listening for unstated, implied needs or concerns, in addition to the overt topic of the information request. Any time admin- istrators talk more than briefly about a work-related matter, it is likely that they are thinking through a current problem or situation (perhaps an issue from an imme- diately preceding meeting) and that some ingenious information support, provided before it was even formally requested, would be a welcome surprise. The librari- an's unstated approach should not be "What is the question?" but "What's on your mind?" It is also worth recognizing from the outset that busy administrators are not going to consent to be served if there is the penalty of filling out a form, so no effort should be expended in designing one, nor should the client be constrained to deal with existing library forms (e.g., for a computerized search, or for microform copying). This is indeed a type of service which, if it is to stand any chance of suc- ceeding, must go significantly beyond the traditional modus operandi in which the li- brarian starts users off, then leaves them to do the rest. The librarian has to be commit- ted first and foremost to delivering a prod- uct that is usable and must therefore be will- ing to remain flexible enough to employ procedures that will contribute to this end: to follow the opening offer of service with "Sorry, but the library does not do (has never done) that" obviously will not gain the library much credit with senior admin- istrators. January 1989 6. The librarian carries out the search. This will normally involve analyzing the question (including checking the meaning of terms where necessary); identifying sources; performing a computerized liter- ature search if appropriate; and obtaining selected documents from the library's col- lections. High priority should be given to making photocopies for the administrator to retain, where allowed and appropriate, and to requesting other needed docu- ments from a remote source (via ILL, or, more innovatively, via phone to a human source). In the pilot test, responses to the request usually took one of two forms: 1. photocopied pages of the needed material with pertinent sections marked with a highlight pen, or 2. a specially marked printout from a computerized search, inviting the admin- istrator to check off any citations that looked interesting, and returning the list to the library so document procurement could begin. After two months, the evidence began to suggest that the latter was not, by itself, sufficient, as no administrators retl!rned their list for document procurement to be- gin, although in at least some cases, the extensive ERIC abstracts were sufficient. The main reason for not immediately proceeding to search out and send the documents cited in a computer search was the newness of the venture, and the librar- ian's initial unfamiliarity about which of the citations would be highly pertinent to the need, and which would not. As a longer cooperative relationship devel- oped, both the administrators and the li- brarian came to expect that the latter would routinely employ professional judgment and select the most useful mate- rial without very much risk of being wildly wrong or of raising concerns about exer- cising censorship. Incidentally, the CSU-Chico library does not have a formal document delivery service, but it was apparent from the out- set that for the test to have any real utility, an ad hoc process of document delivery would have to be built in. The only alter- native would have been to adopt the time- honored library posture of assuming that the users would walk over to the library, find for themselves any materials they wanted, and be sure to bring their library cards, and their wallets (or an account number). This was unacceptable, for the reasons discussed earlier. 7. Forpurposesofcontinuity(e.g., pos- sible follow-up of questions or billing of charges), as well as for program assess- ment, basic records are kept by the librar- ian. Similar in scope and level to records kept for other types of personalized li- brary service such as ILL or computerized literature searching, these should show the nature of the -question, date received, date needed, sources consulted, time spent, and levels of personnel involved. It is desirable for entries in the log to be ar- ranged in simple numerical order. The designated librarian can maintain his or her own cross-index showing which ad- ministrators asked which questions. An example, using a log sheet for reference transactions derived from California's North State Cooperative Library System, is shown as appendix A. Note that this is a log of the search and retrieval processes only, and does not reflect total project ac- tivity. 8. After a suitable period, say one aca- demic year, a brief evaluation is per- formed. The reason to keep it brief, resist- ing the temptation to ask all conceivable questions that it might be useful to have answered, is that busy administrators generally do not respond well to long questionnaires. The cover letter needs to be tactfully phrased as a request for assist- ance and should express appreciation for the respondent's time, etc. Reactions to the Test The details of the test results have been reported elsewhere. 7 There was nothing very remarkable or innovative about the actual searching. The librarian merely did for the requesters what he would have done for himself, had the questions been his own: find the information. He searched through some secondary sources, identified some relevant-looking primary sources, and obtained working copies thereof. Incidentally, we found it significant that in not one case out of the Information Support 71 fifteen undertaken was the end result a book checked out of the library. We feel it important to convey to library managers and administrators the warmth and enthusiasm with which the idea, and the test itself, were received. In a word, the recipients were ecstatic (their term, on more than one occasion). Within an hour of receiving the announcement, the uni- versity president was on the phone; then the vice-provost submitted a question. The provost immediately wrote a highly laudatory note praising the general con- cept, and later sent another one express- ing appreciation for information deliv- ered. The vice-president for student affairs said she had several likely topics we could utilize. The president, after using the information from his first request in a public debate that was locally reported and broadcast, then presented some other questions. In a little less than two semes- ters, fifteen questions were handled from four administrators of the six originally approached, and from two of their princi- pal subordinates. The provost, into whose area of report- ing responsibility the library falls, later ex- pressed specific interest in exploring the potential of the library as an administra- tive support tool, and asked the librarian to give a presentation about this (as yet nonexistent) service to the dean's council. He voiced his concern that administration was often performed on a too-narrow base of information, and that the library might assist not only in its own right but also as a coordinating agency for improving ad- ministrative access to the myriad other sources which we all know exist on campus-enrollment data, planning infor- mation, institutional research findings, etc. One generally didn't go over to the li- brary with these administrative informa- tion needs, he added. First, one didn't have the time, and second, one was reluc- tant to put more work on the librarians. The test demonstrated that this reaction is fairly typical, and perfectly sensible, from a senior academic administrator. ISSUES Any library embarking on this type of service can expect many new and fascinat- 72 College & Research Libraries ing issues of library service to be raised, and to be debated con brio among the li- brarians. The issues will span the range from philosophical to technological, from organizational to logistical. Among the more substantial ones unearthed by our initial test are the following: 1. The library's role. Should the library be providing this level of service? Apart from the practical considerations (the bur- den of time and expense) should we not also ask whether the role of personal infor- mation specialist is one that the librarian can or should play? Will not administra- tors, like other clientele such as students, be better served by seeking their own in- formation in their own way, without a third party, which inevitably leads to less than perfect transmission and communi- cation? This issue has a certain theoretical valid- ity, but in practice most people simply cannot be, nor are they willing to be, their own information specialists. Doubtless there will always be those few who can and do perform this role for themselves, but the vast majority of scholarly and pro- fessional people are more in need of the highest available level of information sup- port than ever before. If there is some loss in information because of transmission through an intermediary, it appears to us to be minor and easily surmountable, given high-quality performance by the in- formation professional. 2. Time per question. Can this level of ser- vice be sustained and built into normal li- brary operations? The time commitment required for each question is substantial; forty-five to sixty minutes seems to be usual, and two hours should be expected occasionally. There will be only a rela- tively small number of questions submit- ted in any given month, so that with some rescheduling of regular tasks the overall burden on the librarian is not drastic. Also, one might ask, "What are the pro- fessional librarians doing with their time that can be shown to have equal benefits for the library? Can some tasks be trans- ferred to a competent library assistant? To a secretary or even a student assistant?" 3. Sources. Among the more crucial li- brary resources for support of such a ser- January 1989 vice are government publications, online searches, printed reference sources, col- lege catalogs, university archives, and state and federal laws and regulations governing higher education. One must, in addition, be willing to go a little further afield. This could include contacting other people on campus or in the local commu- nity; calling other colleges and universi- ties for comparable data and asking those institutions to send by express mail some internal document, charged to the receiv- ing library's account; and/or signing on to BITNET or some equivalent electronic net- work for the academic community. 4. Continuity of personnel. Given the shorthand with which most people speak (and many of these information requests will come via the spoken word), it is im- perative to avoid forcing administrators to deal with a new person for every informa- tion request they may have. A long-term relationship is clearly called for, allowing the librarian the opportunity to learn the terms and concepts of the client and to un- derstand thoroughly that person's typical information needs as well as the kind and level of response that will meet them. This implies that each librarian should work only with a small number of administra- tors. 5. Confidentiality. This is an absolutely critical issue because of the multiplicity of roles both parties could have. The kind of , confidentiality issues that surface will tend to be different from standard "refer- ence transaction" confidentiality which bears upon any user's right to privacy; these issues will bear more upon internal administrative confidentiality. We sug- gest that each library use existing codes of library professional ethics8 and, in addi- tion, develop clear local guidelines for handling issues of administrative confi- dentiality. 6. Sensing the real need. Apart from the overt request, it will often be possible, just . by listening carefully to what a time- pressed administrator talks about, to pick up other leads that might be the subject of the librarian's subsequent efforts . For ex- ample, in a meeting in which the adminis- trator conveys a straightforward request for information about enrollment trends, she or he might keep coming back to the thought that more campus coordination of information resources is needed, and that the campus' institutional research results are not being disseminated satisfactorily to the deans or department chairs. Follow- up recommendations from the librarian on ways to strengthen the institution's in- formation dissemination channels could be extremely helpful. Taking notes on the administrator's whole response, not merely on the overt ·request for informa- tion, is of inestimable value. 7. Type of questions. Will the questions that can effectively be handled by such a service prove to be self-selecting? In the pilot project, they were almost all at one end of the spectrum-the long-term, com- plex issue, demanding study and eventual resolution in the form of a new campus position, regulation, or policy. Conspicu- ous by its absence was the short-term in- formation need, where certain key facts and figures are required to meet a dead- line "this afternoon." In terms of an ac- ceptable response time, "three weeks" was frequent during this test; "three hours" was never encountered. Is such self-selection occurring because of the ad- ministrator's prior conception of what li- braries and librarians are capable of, or ''good for?'' Is it because the implicit ori- entation of the Chico test created analo- gies with scholarly information-seeking (i.e., the research model)? One perfectly legitimate reason why ad- ministrators do not appear to need the li- brary to handle the short-deadline ques- tions is that they, or their immediate support staff, can quickly find the answers themselves. Every office engaged in aca- demic administration keeps a set of indis- pensable tools of the trade on the shelf; these are, in effect, the ready-reference sources for higher education administra- tion, and will provide answers to a large percentage of the daily need for names, numbers, facts and figures. 8. Is such service size-dependent? That is, will it prove unworkable on large cam- puses, the one having thirty or forty thou- sand students? Assuming that the librari- ans performing the service can only succeed by limiting their spans of _ service Information Support 73 to a few administrators, and assuming also that the number of available librarians is fairly small, "is this tantamount to saying that a support service for academic admin- istrators is feasible only on a small, or at most a medium-sized, campus? Obviously we may anticipate that the larger the campus, the larger (in most cases) ~he library and staff. But we know too that beyond certain basic minima, li- brary strength does not steadily increase along with geometric or even exponential increases in the size of the student or ad- ministrator population. Those who study physician or attorney distribution speak in terms of there being one physician or at- torney for every x thousand people in a given area-so far, there appears to be no real discussion of, much less agreement on, the need for one librarian per x faculty or administrators, althou&h ACRL' s For- mula B for college libraries does endeavor to link the size of a library's staff to the size of the student FfE and of the collection. One approach would be to extend the number of administrators each librarian covers and provide assistance for, or di- version of, some of the other tasks for which the librarian is responsible (in other words, look for ways to cut down the amount of time a librarian spends on mar- ginally professional tasks). Another ap- proach would be to limit arbitrarily the other variable, namely the number of ad- ministrators who are considered eligible. Instead of extending the service to the level of department chairs, stop at deans- a tricky proposition, given the indications of high value that those who have been ex- posed to this type of intensive personal in- formation support place upon it. The li- brary is in effect saying ''we only have a staff large enough to serve this many ad- ministrators.'' But it may make the differ- ence between starting a service and not starting one. CONCLUSION At the beginning of this paper, we hy- pothesized that a client-centered library/ information support service for adminis- trators would provide benefits to both the academic library and its parent institution. . We believe that this working hypothesis 74 College & Research Libraries was amply validated by the test and that similar results could be expected by most academic libraries embarking upon such a service. For the amount of time, money, and effort expended, the test was an un- qualified success at CSU-Chico. It seems to have provided useful information to top administrators, to have helped specifically in positively influencing administrators' perceptions about the library and the role of the librarian, and to have contributed to improving the long-term climate of sup- port for the library. We believe that further research and testing by other librarians could help answer unresolved 'questions such as: • Assuming that the library can provide such a service, how far through the ad- ministrative structure should that ser- vice extend, and what are the limits (if any) to the librarian's ability to adapt the role of the library to include that of information support agency for aca- demic administrators? January 1989 • What are the major determinants of that role: librarian's time? library funding? library service philosophy? administra- tors' expectations of library and librari- ans' capabilities? • Can such a service work at a very large university or college, which may have a very different ratio of administrators to librarians than its smaller neighbor? • On what types of information sources do academic administrators rely most heavily in their work? What precisely is the role of the "working collection"? • Can or should academic librarians add a regular alerting service ("SDI") to the answering of one-time questions, as is often done to handle the permanent or long-term interests of researchers? For the reasons discussed throughout this paper, we would strongly encourage other academic librarians to begin an ad- ministrative support service, at least in a test mode with a view to creating a perma- nent service for campus administrators. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Charles Martell, The Client-Centered Academic Library (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1983). 2. Mary B. Cassata and Roger C. Palmer, Proposal for an Information Service for University Administrators: Office of Specialized Services-Implementation (SUNY -Buffalo Libraries, 1973). ED 077 540. 3. A notable Supreme Court decision (Yeshiva, 1980) found the faculty at one institution to be "the management" of the university, and thus ineligible to organize into a bargaining unit. 4. There are at least eight different roles that a faculty member may adopt, all of which arguably have different information needs and different information-seeking patterns: teacher, researcher, leader (i.e ., manager) of a research team, student advisor, administrator, consultant, faculty employee (with faculty committee assignments), and private citizen (the academic library often functions as their public library). 5. Rebecca Kellogg, "From the President, " RQ 25:9-10 (Fall1985). 6. Rebecca Kellogg, "Beliefs and Realities," College & Research Libraries News 47:492-96 (Sept. 1986). 7. Peter G. Watson, "Information for Administrators," College & Research Libraries News 49:5-6 (Jan. 1988). 8. "A Commitment to Information Services : Developmental Guidelines . " Prepared by the ALA/RASD Evaluation of Reference and Adult Services Committee, 1979, rev. 1985, sect. 6.3. 9. "Standards for College Libraries, 1985." Prepared by the College Library Standards Committee of ACRL. College & Research Libraries News 46:247 (May 1985). PW = Peter Watson Libn = Other Librarian APPENDIX A: SAMPLE LOG SHEET LA = Library Assistant SA = Student Assistant (Continued on next page) I J,PPEtlOIX l. Sample Lou-Sheet AI JlJr ·evialiurr s : P~J Pete r Hatson OLI1er Librarian LA SA Library Assistant Student Assistant I illlr L I OlfAHY t • A"T l!: [JCAil suuJECT OF TIIC ncouE~T I P/\TE I SOUUC£:: OF Atf5W Eri r-on BEQUEST TIMF. SENT TO A~ll) DATF.: On llEQU£'iT ncco Llfll::: An:::twn SF' LilT ADDITIONAL COMMENTS r'UMEJER Mins. 1%6 Salary & compensJtion I -- rilrrqes & cri t e n a - l'tJll1ication s of tt1e 8ureau 90 PW Searc l1 i ng 1. 9/26 10 /3 se l ected profes~, i O il S 9/30 of Labor Stats 30 plro t.ocopy i ng Ca 1 if. Code requirements 30 P~/ Cl1eck i ng CO( Ie & catalogs 2. 9/ 30 l 0/24 tor CSU qraduaLion !0 /20 CSLJ Campus catalogs 90 SA look - tJP & co py Textbooks in field of 10 Libn. Annotated 3. !0/!6 - l.lusirress Law 10123 ll!P On I i ne; El~ I C 10 PW print-out sent Textbook s in field of 10 Libn. Annotated 4. !01 16 - International Law 10123 l3IP Orr! ine; ERIC !0 PW print-out sent Textbooks in fi e ld of I 0 Lion. Annotated 5. 10/16 - Corroratiorr Law 10/23 BIP Online; ERIC I 0 PW print-out sent Uridergrad. progr ams 10 Libn. Annotated 6. 10/16 - in Po 1 yrner Sci If ec ll. !012 3 Etnc 10 PW print-out sent 10 PW Sent annotated Dissemination of LA print-out & 2 copies 7. 10/!6 - in sti tulior.dl r·esearclr 10/ 27 ER IC 20 SA from MF IU f-'1~ ::,ent annotated Alternatives to the print-out 8. 101!6 - 3-uni l cour se l 0124 ER IC 20 4 articles copied Academic/Corporate relationships -public 15 PW 87 citat'ions; 9. 10116 - universities 12/15 ERIC patron wanted a 11 --- - ·--- -·-,a- -Pw Sent annotated Summer programs for print-outs 10. II I 4 !215 native /\111. s l.tHi ent s !! I!! ERIC I 0 SA 2 articles CQJ?iecl __ ·--- -- ----- - --- ----· r~e thudolo9y fur sludyinu 30 PW Annotated II. II I 4 1215 special studerrls I I I I 4 FRIC print-out sent ---- --- --- ----- 12. 1114 Microcomputer use by I I /21 10 PW Annotated - Slud . Aft. professionah ERIC ___ J2!::.iot=.,gut. sent ___ l'JB/ -- - 10- LA Retrieval CSU Clrico's firsl Univ ersity archives 20 P\~ (addinu nront11Iy 13. 3/30 4/7 bud ~Je L (for cerrlerlll iil I) 4/3 190UI09 first available year accounts ! ) telephoned