johnson.p65 Laying a Foundation 275 275 Laying a Foundation for Comparing Departmental Structures between Reference and Instructional Services: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey Kristin Johnson and Kathleen Carlisle Fountain Kristin Johnson is an Information Literacy/Instruction Librarian and Kathleen Carlisle Fountain is the Political Science and Social Work Librarian in the Meriam Library at California State University-Chico; e-mail: kajohnson@csuchico.edu and kfountain@csuchico.edu, respectively. Public services librarians in academe juggle multiple duties, with refer- ence and instruction being the two most common and visible. A survey of midsized academic libraries measured the departmental relationship between librarians who provide reference services and librarians who provide instruction services. Results indicate that services are generally organized in one department and instruction coordinators are prevalent. Regardless of departmental structure, reference and instruction librar- ians have similar jobs; they nearly all teach classes and work at the reference desk. Summarization of the subjective commentary reveals underlying satisfaction levels with various organizational arrangements and insight into the pros and cons of maintaining integrated or separate reference and instruction services. eference work and library in- struction are responsibilities common to many academic public service librarians in the twenty-first century. In fact, because job responsibilities so closely overlap, the distinction between reference librarian and instruction librarian is often only one of semantics. Many academic librarians are expected to perform the multiple func- tions of departmental liaison, collection development specialist, reference desk staff, and classroom teacher, regardless of their title. However, this is a fairly new trend. Although instruction occurred at some level throughout the history of the library profession, librarians increasingly became responsible for reference and in- structional duties around the late 1960s and early 1970s when the instruction movement began to be formally orga- nized.1 These duties continue to be blended in the library profession today. In addition, the library profession con- tinues to address instruction and refer- ence together as well as separately in the various professional venues. Job adver- tisements often highlight the need for li- brarians to both teach classes and work at a reference desk. With the exception of Research Strategies, public services profes- sional journals maintain a “reference” focus in their titles (Reference Services Re- view, The Reference Librarian, Reference and 276 College & Research Libraries May 2002 User Services Quarterly) whereas instruc- tion articles comprise the majority of their content.2 Conversely, professional elec- tronic mailing lists make a clear distinc- tion between reference and instruction (DIG-REF—digital reference, LIBREF-L— general library reference, FYE-LIB— freshman orientation and library instruc- tion, BI-L—bibliographic instruction). In addition, instruction-focused confer- ences, such as LOEX and LOEX-of-the- West, occur in an independent forum whereas reference programs are pre- sented only at larger “umbrella” forums such as ALA conferences. Reference and instruction librarians also can find use- ful, separate professional organizational “homes” within the ALA network.3 Ex- amples of these groups include the Li- brary Instruction Round Table or Refer- ence and User Services Association. These channels of communication for librarians demonstrate that reference and instruc- tion librarians can have both distinctive and comparable interests—work that can- not be easily regarded as a finite set of duties and responsibilities. During the past decade, the informa- tion literacy movement has increased in prominence as college campuses have shifted to a student-centered learning model with accountability and assess- ment serving as buzzwords for effective- ness. For public services librarians in academia, this movement may have fo- cused attention toward classroom instruc- tion and campus outreach and away from the traditional reference desk instruction. Because instruction and information lit- eracy efforts are increasingly visible ele- ments of library services in academe, does this mean that the duties of reference and instruction librarians are more clearly separated? If so, have instruction depart- ments been created independently from reference departments as a result? One might consider studying library depart- ment structures to answer these ques- tions. After all, organizational structure plays a key role in laying the foundation for implementing best practices for refer- ence and instruction services. Survey Rationale and Literature Review This research arose initially out of a need for information to make an organizational decision within the Meriam Library at the authors’ university. A discussion centered on whether to combine reference and in- struction services, which at the time of this writing were organizationally separate. In the Meriam Library, instruction serves as an essential facet of the library’s mission. The goal of maintaining an autonomous instruction program is to foster innova- tive outreach efforts, expand the reach of course-related instruction, and participate in the three-credit, general education In- troduction to University Life course by providing a strong information literacy component. However, as the instruction program evolved from its inception twenty years ago, reference librarians became increasingly active classroom teachers, and the distinction between the normal duties of the instruction and ref- erence librarians blurred. To facilitate the decision-making pro- cess, a literature search was conducted. The literature is replete with articles dis- cussing pedagogical techniques for in- struction or best practices for reference desk service, but little was found on the relationship of these two services in terms of departmental structure. In fact, out of an entire issue of a 1984 Reference Librar- ian devoted to the theme of library in- struction and reference services, only one short article discussed the administration of a bibliographic instruction (BI) pro- gram. In this theoretical article, Maureen Pastine discussed the pros and cons of managing an instruction program within the reference department. She concluded with a recommendation, stating: [The] shift in bibliographic instruc- tion responsibilities and activities calls for a re-examination of how bibliographic instruction programs should be administered, and in my view strengthens the position of bib- liographic instruction as a separate service, equivalent to other library- Laying a Foundation 277 wide priorities. I anticipate that in the future there will be no question that a bibliographic instruction pro- gram should be administered out- side of the confines of the reference department, or public services divi- sion.4 Another article discussed the refer- ence/instruction departmental relation- ship from a more practical standpoint. It described a reorganization that took place in the Colorado State University library reference department, which moved from “responsibilities by subject” to “division by function” and thus created a separate instruction group.5 Recent library literature on reengineering academic library public services focused on bigger administrative issues, such as com- bining library reference with campus com- puting services. For example, applying a corporate administrative model to library services is the theme of an insightful 1994 article that concentrated on user services to the library patron.6 However, what this and other articles lack is a practical ad- ministrative approach to the realities of the duties assigned to reference and in- struction librarians. It appears, then, that an important aspect regarding the link be- tween reference and instruction has here- tofore been overlooked in the professional literature: the departmental or organiza- tional relationship between these two ser- vices. Because the library profession has had no documented models or bench- marks regarding the relationship between reference and instruction departmental organization, it seems, then, that the ad- ministrators of these services have been acting either in isolation or within infor- mal networks of communication. One recent article addressed some of the same concerns as this article. In ana- lyzing job advertisements in selected years over a twenty-year period, Beverly P. Lynch and Kimberley Robles Smith found that all reference librarian an- nouncements in 1993 and 1998 required the successful applicant to teach instruc- tion courses. However, they found no in- struction librarian position announce- ments.7 Lynch and Smith hoped to evalu- ate the changes in administrative struc- ture with their methodology but offered no conclusive results. However, they did point to an increasing reliance on team management or, at the very least, team decision-making procedures. These findings are consistent with the tone of many articles focusing on the changing nature of reference work. The assumption found in the literature is that reference librarians universally accepted the role of instruction as it developed in the academic library, despite its chal- lenges.8 In 1984, William Miller cited in- struction as one of the significant new additions to the roster of reference librar- ian duties and a cause of consternation.9 Audrey D. Moore’s 1996 article described library instruction as one of three endur- ing reference service categories, the other two being informational services and reader ’s advisory services.10 In the early 1990s, librarians debated how reference services ought to incorpo- rate instruction. Some librarians explic- itly rejected formalized instruction in fa- vor of offering instruction services with the reference interaction.11 The opposite opinion asserted that the advent of tech- nology and library instruction should mean the end of the reference desk ser- vice.12 Most, however, seemed to regard instruction as a natural extension of the work of reference librarians and refer- ence departments. Because of this theo- retical conflict, some administrators en- couraged the creation of instruction ser- vices organized separately from the ref- erence departments. David F. Kohl re- marked on his experiences that “instruc- tion programs can not adequately or fully develop as ‘little sisters’ [of reference] . . . they need a room of their own.”13 There- fore, questions arise concerning the prevalence of separation and what it means for the responsibilities of the li- brarians. The literature, then, did not offer in- formation on the number of separate ref- erence and instruction departments, ra- 278 College & Research Libraries May 2002 tionales for their organization, and the subjective reaction of librarians regarding the pros and cons of various departmen- tal structures. Data did not surface to help determine whether the departmental structure at the Meriam Library was typi- cal or an aberration. Instead, it posed ad- ditional questions that could not be an- swered by existing research. The dearth in the literature led to the decision to con- duct a survey to gather the needed infor- mation. The results were expected to be useful in the decision-making process to possibly revise the Meriam Library’s ref- erence and instruction departmental structure. After further consideration, the authors realized that results of such a sur- vey also would be useful for the academic library community at large. Research Expectations/Hypothesis Because of increased emphasis on infor- mation literacy nationwide, the authors surmised that a recent library trend would be the organization of reference and in- struction services into distinct departments in an effort to place greater emphasis on campuswide information literacy efforts. Based on the argument against formalized instruction, it also was hypothesized that within institutions where reference librar- ians rarely provide bibliographic instruc- tion because of an expressed dislike of classroom teaching, reference and instruc- tion would be more often organized into two separate departments. In those aca- demic libraries where reference and in- struction librarians had overlapping du- ties (i.e., reference librarians teach and instruction librarians work at the reference desk), reference and instruction services were expected to be combined in the same department. In addition to numeric data, the authors expected to gain insightful subjective commentary from the survey respondents that might aid them in facili- tating discussions regarding change in their own library. Methodology Proceeding on the assumption that a university’s size and makeup would help determine the character of the library and reference/instruction program, a discrete survey population was identified so as to compare the authors’ institution to simi- lar universities. Meriam Library is part of a public, comprehensive state university system and has a full-time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment of approxi- mately 14,500. A master’s degree is the highest degree offered. Therefore, survey candidates consisted of public, four-year- plus universities with an FTE student population between 10,000 and 19,000. This range was selected in order to broaden the survey population to insti- tutions within a range 4,500 greater or lesser than the authors’ institution. Insti- tutions smaller than 10,000 FTEs were not included because they likely would not have enough staff to justify maintaining separate departments. Schools with stu- dent populations larger than 19,000 were not surveyed because they may be more likely to have separate departments due to budgetary advantages, larger student populations, or a multilibrary campus. Private and independent institutions were not included due to the likelihood of incomparable funding structures that stand in contrast to those of state schools. Using the College Source online data- base published by the Career Guidance Foundation and the criteria of public master’s- and doctorate-degree granting institutions between the 10,000 and 19,000 FTE enrollment levels, 110 institutions were identified. Three institutions were later eliminated from the survey when their enrollment figures were determined to be well above or below the intended range, leaving a total survey population of 107. Of those, seventy-six valid surveys were returned for a response rate of 71 percent. Twenty-eight of the responding institutions offered a master ’s degree as their highest degree, and forty-eight of- fered doctorates. Searching library Web pages helped to identify either the lead instruction librar- ian or head of reference at each institu- tion. If neither could be identified, a pub- lic services librarian was selected. These Laying a Foundation 279 individuals were targeted as respondents to the authors’ e-mail survey, which was conducted during May and June 2001. The e-mail consisted of a cover letter fol- lowed by the survey questions, all con- tained in the body of the e-mail and not as an attachment. Approximately two weeks after the initial e-mail, follow-up e-mails were sent only to those librarians that had not yet responded. Librarians with titles such as instruction coordina- tor or instruction librarian comprised 59 percent (n = 45) of the respondents. Twelve reference department heads and twelve heads of combined reference and instruction departments contributed 32 percent of the responses. The remaining 9 percent were submitted by other librar- ians when an instruction librarian or de- partment head could not be identified. Overall, librarians officially titled instruc- tion librarian provided the majority of the subjective information in the study. The survey consisted of seventeen questions, fourteen objective and three subjective, focused primarily on the or- ganizational structure between reference and instruction and the activities per- formed by reference and instruction li- brarians in each library. Questions in- cluded: • Approximately how many students do your bibliographic instruction efforts reach in each twelve-month period? • How are your reference and in- struction services organized? • Have your instruction services merged with, or separated from, the ref- erence department within the past five years? • In general, do you believe your or- ganization is satisfied with the relation- ship between BI and reference? • What do you perceive as being the benefits and drawbacks of having sepa- rate reference and instruction depart- ments? To keep the survey concise and man- ageable, it was decided not to include questions on the following subjects: size of the library, whether the campus had multiple libraries, whether any credit- based library research courses were of- fered, whether there was a campuswide information literacy competency require- ment, details regarding institutional fund- ing, or time-on-task questions relating to the librarians’ job responsibilities. Survey Definitions Within the body of the cover letter and the survey itself, several terms called for definition. It was explained that “library instruction programs” referred to pro- grams known by names such as “user instruction,” “user orientation,” “biblio- graphic instruction,” “user education,” “bibliographic education,” or any combi- nation of the above. Although “reference department” was believed to be a static and widely understandable term, it was nonetheless defined as the department in the library that oversees services at the physical reference or research desk and the print and electronic reference collec- tions. For the purposes of the survey, “bib- liographic instruction” was defined as any type of library user education classes or tours that take place within the library or in campus classrooms but are outside credit-based library research courses. These instruction sessions are sometimes referred to as one-shot sessions but also include two, three, or more sessions, as long as they are not offered for credit. The authors’ institution does not offer a credit- based library research course. Such courses vary dramatically from institution to institution, and for the purposes of this particular survey, including them as part of library instruction would not render comparable results.14 Library tours are considered part of library instruction and counted toward the yearly number of classes. Reference desk encounters and independent office consultations, how- ever, are not included in this definition. Only one library maintains “biblio- graphic” to describe the instruction department, but it is clearly out of vogue. 280 College & Research Libraries May 2002 Finally, respondents were asked to re- port on the number of patrons receiving library instruction in a twelve-month pe- riod. For “twelve-month period,” the re- spondents could choose to report their fiscal, academic, or calendar year class totals. The total number of classes, includ- ing any summer session or special ses- sions held on each campus outside the traditional quarter or semester, was more important for this survey than the cho- sen reporting period. Results Norms in Departmental Structure Overall, the majority of respondents re- ported that reference and instruction ser- vices existed in one department (79%, n = 60), which was expected based on the literature assumptions. Eight libraries (10.5%) maintained separate reference and instruction departments, and an equal number stated that their structure took on some other form. “Other” ar- rangements included organizing instruc- tion through a librarywide committee, a lack of any formally organized depart- ments throughout the library, and a librarywide instruction effort without an organizational home (table 1). To document possible changes in the organizational relationship between refer- ence and instruction, a series of questions was asked to determine the stability of departmental structure within the previ- ous five years. The majority of respondents stated that their library retained the same organizational structure as five years ago (73.7%, n = 56). Twenty (26.4%) libraries reported changing their organizational structure; of these, ten (13.2%) reported that they had separated the two services and an equal number reported merging them (table 1). Those respondents who TABLE 1 Characteristics of Department Structure Reference and Instruction Organizational Structure N (%) Combined in one department 60 (79) Separate departments 8 (10.5) Other structure 8 (10.5) Total 76 Changes in Departmental Structure in the Past Five Years N (%) Retained same organization 56 (73.7) Separated reference and instruction 10 (13.2) Combined reference and instruction 10 (13.2) Total 76 Library Has an Instruction Coordinator N (%) Yes 69 (90.8) No 6 (7.9) Total 75 Supervisor of Instruction Coordinator N (%) Head of public services 14 (18.4) Library director 11 (14.5) Head of reference 28 (36.8) Other 15 (19.7) Total 68 Laying a Foundation 281 stated their libraries had maintained the same organizational structure for five or more years were asked if they had consid- ered, or were considering, any organiza- tional changes. Very few answered yes, with five (9.1%) considering separating reference and instruction and three (5.5%) considering integration. Instruction Coordinators Are Prevalent Regardless of departmental structure, li- braries typically have one librarian offi- cially designated as coordinator of library instructional efforts (90.8%, n = 69). A fol- low-up question asked to whom the in- struction coordinator reported. The re- sponses to this question were more varied than those to previous questions. The highest percentage (36.8%, n = 28) re- sponded as reporting to the head of ref- erence. However, 18.4 percent (n = 14) reported to the head of public services, 14.5 percent (n = 11) reported to the li- brary director, and 19.7 percent (n = 15) reported to “other” (table 1). Those indi- cating “other” either reported to multiple supervisors or their supervisor ’s title did not appear as a survey option (i.e., asso- ciate university librarian or associate dean). The variability of these data is, in part, a result of the semantics of job titles. Numerous titles express the same job re- sponsibilities but are often difficult to rec- oncile with a list of survey options. Ac- cording to these lines of responsibility, the authors surmised that these instruction coordinators were generally the head of the instruction program, the head of the reference department, or a designated li- brarian within the reference department. Departmental Identity in a Name: �Reference� Is the Norm By and large, libraries continue to use the label “reference” to describe the unit that oversees the reference desk (n = 34). Most of the libraries that used this term called their departments Reference Department, but others used a variation such as Refer- ence Unit or Reference Services. Com- bined departments that house both in- struction and reference functions have the most variety in their titles, ranging from Reference and Instruction Services to In- structional and Interpretive Services. Other phrases that characterize the in- structional element of these departments are “user education,” “information ser- vices,” “research services,” “reader ser- vices,” and “public services.” The autonomous instruction depart- ments nearly all use the phrase “library instruction” to describe the responsibility of their units. Only one library maintains “bibliographic” to describe the instruction department, but it is clearly out of vogue. As this article suggests, the academic pub- lic service library profession seems to be afflicted with an identity crisis. “Refer- ence” and “library instruction” may evolve into new names as the participants, the activities, and the organizations change. We Do It All! Data Common to All Libraries Along with questions about departmen- tal structure, several of the survey ques- tions centered on basic library instruction program activities, regardless of depart- mental structure. Four pieces of data clearly document trends common to all responding institutions: 1. One hundred percent of the respon- dents reported that BI was provided to their campus population. 2. All librarians designated “reference librarian” participated in library instruc- tion efforts. 3. Nearly all (93%, n = 73) “reference librarians” were actively encouraged to teach instruction sessions. 4. Most (82%, n = 62) “instruction li- brarians” provided service at the refer- ence desk. These trends reflect the nature of the instruction program at the authors’ li- Those surveyed consistently replied that reference and instruction librarians serve the same purpose, which is to teach either an indi- vidual or a classroom of students how to use library resources. 282 College & Research Libraries May 2002 brary, as all public service librarians play an active role in both reference and in- struction efforts. How Many Students Do We Reach? The instruction statistics of these librar- ies showed a wide variety in numbers of students taught in a single year, ranging from 270 to 14,974. Although the survey data suggested that as the student popu- lation increased, the number of students reached through BI also increased, the chi- square test did not establish a significant relationship. In a 1996 study, Marybeth Charters found that doctorate-granting institutions reach more students than in- stitutions offering only master ’s degrees. Again, this suggested a relationship, but not one that was statistically significant.15 Cause and Effect: Why Separate Instruction Programs? Although the main purpose of this sur- vey was to gain general, enumerative data regarding departmental structures, the authors were curious to know whether any obvious factors influenced libraries to maintain separate reference and in- str uction departments. The survey showed that the norm was to combine services into one department, with only sixteen of seventy-six libraries having structures other than combined. Of the questions in the survey, two contained information that could possibly have a causal relationship to departmental struc- ture: size of institution (FTEs) and num- ber of students reached through instruc- tional efforts in a twelve-month period. The authors ran a chi-square analysis, using quartiles for students reached and dividing FTE enrollments into two ranges: 10,000 to 14,999 and 15,000 to 18,999. The authors’ expectations were that institutional size might impact de- partmental structure, with the larger in- stitutions generating a greater demand for services. Thus, the departments would be separate in larger universities. In ad- dition, there was an assumption that per- haps more students would be reached through instruction efforts at institutions with separate departments because those universities emphasized the importance of instruction with the independent de- partment. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. The chi- square analysis showed no significant TABLE 2 Reference and Instruction Organizational Structure by Variable Total Combined Separate Other N N (%) N (%) N (%) University Enrollment (FTE*)1 10,000�14,999 37 30 (81.1) 5 (13.5) 2 (5.4) 15,000�18,999 38 29 (76.3) 3 (7.9) 6 (15.8) Total 75 Students Reached by Instruction2 Quartile #1 (N = 197�2,800) 18 17 (94.4) 0 1 (5.6) Quartile #2 (N = 3,000�4,620) 19 13 (68.4) 5 (26.3) 1 (5.3) Quartile #3 (N = 4,750�6,000) 21 17 (81) 1 (4.8) 3 (14.3) Quartile #4 (N = 6,130�14,974) 17 12 (70.6) 2 (11.8) 3 (17.6) Total 75 *FTE is the full-time equivalent number of students enrolled in each university. 1 Chi-square test determined the p-value as .380 (p=.380). 2 Chi-square test determined the p-value as .126 (p=.126) Laying a Foundation 283 causal relationship between departmen- tal structure and university size or num- ber of students (table 2). Nor did any other tests show correlations that would pre- dict the composition of an instruction pro- gram of a hypothetical library. Although the objective results of this survey cannot measure what causes de- partments to remain combined or sepa- rate or to measure the service effective- ness of these arrangement, they do pro- vide an interesting look at the state of in- struction programs in midsized univer- sities across the nation. The authors ex- pected that the subjective commentary of the respondents might offer insight into the rationale for various departmental arrangements. Subjective Commentary: Departmental Satisfaction The survey respondents were asked: In general, do you believe your organization is satisfied with the relationship between BI and reference? Regardless of the struc- ture of the reference and instruction de- partments, an overwhelming majority of respondents (97.3%, n = 71) reported that their libraries, as a whole, were satisfied with their current organization. Two (2.7%) respondents expressed dissatisfac- tion with a combined structure. All eight respondents in separate instruction pro- grams were satisfied with the arrange- ment. Explanations for the combined depart- ments’ satisfaction centered on three com- mon themes: 1. Their libraries did not employ enough librarians to justify departmen- tal separation. 2. Subject librarians in the reference department are responsible for course- related instruction in assigned areas 3. Most important, teaching happens at the reference desk as well as the class- room. Those surveyed consistently replied that reference and instruction librarians serve the same purpose, which is to teach either an individual or a classroom of stu- dents how to use library resources. This sentiment found its way into every sec- tion of the survey responses. As one li- brarian remarked, “We consider reference and [bibliographic instruction] twin ap- proaches to the same educational objec- tive.” The respondents who headed up sepa- rate instruction departments expressed universal satisfaction with having an au- tonomous department. They cited the opportunity to focus on instructional goals, missions, standards, and programs as their reasons. “Having someone that spends more time creating the vision, planning, and assessment for [biblio- graphic instruction] has paid off … we now have information literacy compe- tency requirement[s] for all students,” reported one instruction coordinator. Subjective Commentary: The Pros and Cons of Maintaining Separate Departments Finally, subjective comments were solic- ited from the respondents via two ques- tions: 1. What do you consider to be the ben- efits of having a BI program separate from the reference department? 2. What do you consider to be the drawbacks of having a BI program sepa- rate from the reference department? Fifty-two of the survey participants responded to the first question, and fifty- seven responded to the second. The re- sponses were varied, and it became clear to the surveyors that some respondents interpreted the questions as referring to a hypothetical situation (which was the researchers’ intention) and others inter- preted them to refer specifically to their library. Obviously, those in independent instruction programs could respond to their reality of separate departments. Consistent interpretation of the question may have led to more theoretical re- sponses, but each comment belies the as- sumptions of the respondents regardless. The most frequent—and perhaps the most surprising—commentary gleaned from these questions centered on perspec- tives regarding the teaching continuum 284 College & Research Libraries May 2002 from the reference desk to the classroom. When asked to comment on the draw- backs of maintaining separate depart- ments, many of the responses implied an assumption that this would result in a complete separation of responsibilities, with reference librarians only staffing the reference desk and instruction librarians only teaching classes. The consequence of this arrangement, as seen by the survey respondents, was that it would manifest ignorance about either classes or reference questions. Because most of the librarians responding to the survey called their re- spective “reference departments” home, a majority of the comments criticized the potential of separate instruction librarians to “lose touch” with students asking spe- cific questions at the desk. Another drawback cited by the librar- ians uncovered a more pragmatic con- cern. Chiefly, respondents expressed dis- tress that separate departments would create an artificial distinction between two closely related functions. They fore- saw increasing communication problems and feelings of exclusion resulting from the organizational distance. In short, they believed it could lead to “fragmentation of purpose and competition over scarce resources.” At least one library adminis- tration article foreshadowed these con- cerns. In 1984, Pastine wrote of the fric- tion between reference and other depart- ments due to instruction-related work discrepancies.16 When asked about the benefits of a separate instruction program, however, many respondents (including those with combined departments) lauded the idea, saying they perceived one benefit to be extra time to devote to instructional pur- poses. They saw such an arrangement as enabling the instruction librarians to fo- cus on particular instructional programs. By maintaining a separate departmental presence, they could gain a campuswide visibility not normally given to a program of a reference department. One respon- dent, an instruction librarian in a library with an independent instruction depart- ment, reported, “this allowed us to be very proactive and build a strong pro- gram. It spoke to the campus that the li- brary felt that instruction was worthy of ‘independent’ status.” “Juggling” reference and instruction commitments surfaced as common com- plaints of the integrated department, and responding librarians reported they could see the attraction of a more simplified set of responsibilities. One librarian ex- claimed, “It’s hard to do it all!” As ex- plained earlier, this survey did not ad- dress time-on-task questions relating to librarians’ job responsibilities. However, a recent article analyzing position an- nouncements showed that instruction and collection development are becom- ing increasingly common elements of a reference librarian’s job. These “combina- tion” jobs demonstrated that libraries shifted the same responsibilities to a smaller number of people as budget cuts required.17 Although outside the scope of this research, further investigation into the relationship between responsibilities and job satisfaction is warranted in light of the obvious time constraints faced by many librarians. Credit-based library classes are an additional element to study because, as one survey respondent re- marked, “the same core people do all of these [reference] and instruction activi- ties, and a lot of stress and strain does come from adding those credit classes.”18 Conclusion and Recommendations In a 2000 article, Hannelore B. Rader rec- ognized the need for reference librarians to adapt to the new environment of user education by preparing to provide both reference and instructional services. She stated that developing an aptitude for in- struction is not just recommended but, rather, it is a tool for “effective profes- sional survival.”19 This research found that at midsized public universities, most libraries already incorporate instruction functions into one centralized department aligned with reference services. In addi- tion, one librarian is typically assigned the task of coordinating the instruction ef- forts, which could include defining the Laying a Foundation 285 mission and goals of outreach programs. The majority of the librarians justified combining these two highly visible ele- ments of public service into one unit be- cause they treated both responsibilities as teaching. As one might expect, respondents cited the lack of sufficient staff as one of the most practical reasons for maintaining combined departments. A study of job announcements has demonstrated the shrinking number of library personnel and verifies the respondents’ rationales for department integration.20 Although not the norm, some respondents did re- port that in their library, separate depart- ments were formed when library man- agement considered classroom instruc- tion a high priority, provided there were sufficient librarians to effectively staff an instruction department. Although reference librarians may have initially resisted classroom instruc- tion, their role in information literacy ef- forts evolved with the introduction of teaching in university libraries and is now a regular part of their work. According to this survey, 100 percent of reference librar- ians teach library instruction sessions. Because they are now expected to teach, it is understandable why instruction re- search and discussion fill the pages of many traditional reference journals. Although the survey did not specifi- cally address each library’s institutional culture, it did draw on personal narrative to conclude common experiences. The survey comments mirrored sentiments at the authors’ institution by showing that the organizational relationship between reference and instruction can dictate the quality of the personnel relationships. Some librarians clearly preferred refer- ence and instruction to be organization- ally combined, and they feared organiza- tional distance from an artificial separa- tion. Respondents suggested that combin- ing departments prevents feelings of iso- lation and fosters common goals in pub- lic services. Institutional politics and in- dividual experience can determine the validity of these fears and shape the suc- cess of the organization whether or not reference and instruction share the same departments. Erasing “organizational boundaries” by instituting an instruction task force could provide a workable alternative to librarians who fear departmental conflict arising from separation. The library at Rice University reengineered its manage- ment to create a more flexible structure. By blending responsibilities and creating specialized teams on an as-needed basis, librarians cooperate on projects with other interested librarians instead of only those in their departments.21 Other libraries may benefit from the construction of a formal policy for offer- ing instructional services. Such a formal- ized framework better defines the scope of the program, those responsible for teaching, and the expectation of service to the university. Existing guidelines could help reference departments create refer- ence services policies, including those for user education.22 The guidelines prompt libraries to consider their current services, suggest solutions to local problems, and plan for the future of instruction programs. Many respondents reported that in- struction was not confined to any specific department in their libraries because li- brarians operate as academic liaisons and are considered subject specialists. These librarians provided all course-related in- struction for assigned academic pro- grams. Although none of the survey com- ments suggested this, the authors ques- tion who would teach classes if a librar- ian refused or was otherwise unable to provide library instruction. Service guide- lines provide the opportunity to construct lines of authority for an instruction coor- dinator and dictate who must fill in for the nonteaching academic liaisons. In the end, each library is unique and has needs that must be addressed indi- vidually. The authors recognize variance throughout academe and that additional factors (including departmental structure) must be taken into consideration when organizing reference and instruction ser- vices. However, the subjective and objec- 286 College & Research Libraries May 2002 tive data collected from this survey lead the authors toward recommending com- bined reference and instruction depart- ments. Because the mission of both refer- ence and library instruction is overall stu- dent education through teaching, and because classroom teaching has become a predominant duty of most “reference” librarians, the combined department could facilitate an efficient and effective management of these services. Reflecting current advice in the business word, ad- ministrators of these services are encour- aged to solicit input from their librarians and to engage in some form of participa- tory management.23 The librarians’ view of the relationship between reference and instruction will offer insight into their compatibility, which can lead to a mutu- ally agreeable organizational structure. Notes 1. For brief overviews of the instruction movement, see: Hannelore B. Rader, “The Learning Environment —Then, Now and Later: 30 Years of Teaching Information Skills,” Reference Services Review 27, no. 3 (1999): 219–24; Mary J. Du Mont and Barbara F. Schloman, “The Evolution and Reaffirmation of a Library Orientation Program in an Academic Research Library,” Reference Ser- vices Review 23, no. 1 (1995): 85–93. 2. Details on the expansion of library instruction as a topic in the professional literature can be found in Rader, “A Silver Anniversary: 25 Years of Reviewing the Literature Related to User Instruction,” Reference Services Review 28, no. 3 (2000): 290–96. A brief summary can be found in Ron Blazek, “The Administrative Climate for Bibliographic Instruction in Large Academic Li- braries,” Reference Librarian 10 (spring/summer 1984): 161-62. 3. Rader, “The Learning Environment,” 222. 4. Maureen Pastine, “Library Instruction and Reference Service: Administration of a Biblio- graphic Instruction Program in the Academic Library,” Reference Librarian 10 (spring/summer 1984): 188. 5. Teresa Y. Neely et al., “Instruction and Outreach at Colorado State University Libraries,” Reference Librarian 67/68 (1999): 273–87. 6. Beth J. Shapiro and Kevin Brook Long, “Just Say Yes: Reengineering Library User Services for the 21st Century,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 2 (Nov. 1994): 285–90. 7. Beverly P. Lynch and Kimberley Robles Smith, “The Changing Nature of Work in Aca- demic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Sept. 2001): 407–20. 8. Examples of this perspective can be seen in the following articles: Bill Katz, “Bibliographi- cal Instruction,” in Introduction to Reference Work, vol. II: Reference Services and Reference Processes. 7th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997), 223–36; James Rettig, “Future Reference—‘Sired by a Hurricane, Dam’d by an Earthquake,’” Reference Librarian 54 (1996): 75–94. 9. William Miller, “What’s Wrong with Reference: Coping with Success and Failure at the Reference Desk,” American Libraries 15 (May 1984): 303–6, 321–22. 10. Audrey D. Moore, “Reference Librarianship: ‘It was the Best of Times, it was...,’” Reference Librarian 54 (1996): 3–10. 11. Katz, “Bibliographical Instruction.” 12. Keith Ewing and Robert Hauptman, “Is Traditional Reference Service Obsolete?” Journal of Academic Librarianship 21 (Jan. 1995): 3–6. 13. David F. Kohl, “As Time Goes by... Revisiting Fundamentals,” Library Trends 44 (fall 1995): 426. 14. Future research could expand on this survey by comparing departmental structures among institutions offering credit-based library courses versus those that do not. 15. Marybeth Charters, “The Extent of Bibliographic Instruction in Academic Libraries: A Pre- liminary Examination,” Research Strategies 16, no.2 (1998): 147–52. Unfortunately, her conclusions are based on only twenty-six responses, so they cannot be assumed conclusive. 16. Pastine, “Library Instruction and Reference Service.” 17. Lynch and Smith, “The Changing Nature of Work in Academic Libraries.” 18. The additional workload placed on the librarian from teaching a credit-based course is discussed in Kimberley Donnelly, “Reflection on What Happens When Librarians Become Teach- ers,” Computers in Libraries 20 (Mar. 2000): 46–49. 19. Rader, “Information Literacy in the Reference Environment: Preparing for the Future,” Reference Librarian 71 (2000): 25–33. 20. Lynch and Smith, “The Changing Nature of Work in Academic Libraries.” 21. In the private sector, reengineering is commonly associated with layoffs. This article made Laying a Foundation 287 no indication of eliminating staff. Shapiro and Long, “Just Say Yes.” 22. “Information Services Policy Manual: An Outline,” RQ, 34 (winter 1994): 165–72. These guidelines were drafted by the Management of Reference Services Committee of the Reference and Adult Users Services Division of the ALA. 23. Steve Gibbons, “Business Experts Ponder the Past, Present, and Future,” Journal for Qual- ity and Participation 22 (Nov./Dec. 1999): 18–23.