Vega.indd Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences: A Study Robert D. Vega and Ruth S. Connell The authors surveyed librarians to determine the reasons why they do or do not attend conferences, as well as what their attitudes were toward the various conference offerings such as roundtables, poster presentations, and the like. Librarians were queried to gather a variety of demographic and professional data. The resulting data were analyzed to find signifi- cant relationships between respondents’ demographic information and their attitudes toward specific conference offerings. The two most cited reasons given for going to conferences were professional rejuvenation and networking, both benefits not directly related to conference content. In addition to quantitative results, respondents replied to open-ended questions, and these qualitative results are included as well. onference a endance is a re- quirement for the career ad- vancement of many librarians, particularly those who work in colleges or universities. Moving from simple a endance to poster session to pa- per presentation is viewed as the natural progression for the professional develop- ment of an academic librarian. The Ameri- can Library Association and its divisions all tout the many benefits of a ending their conferences. Library deans and directors stress the importance of a ending confer- ences to librarians as being an important factor in their career development and advancement. In addition, many librarians themselves see a ending conferences as being a necessary part of their job. The authors surveyed librarians to de- termine the reasons why they do or do not a end conferences, as well as what their a itudes were toward the various confer- ence offerings such as roundtables, poster presentations, and so on. If conferences are important to librarians’ careers, then it behooves all those involved—conference planners, presenters, and a endees—to be aware of librarians’ views toward these conferences. Literature Review Although the literature on library confer- ences discussed individual authors’ opin- ions of conferences, whether librarians should a end them or not, this particular study went to the source—librarians themselves—and asked directly why they do or do not a end conferences. The literature as a whole divided into two (not necessarily equal in size) camps. The majority of the articles were hortatory in nature and gave many reasons why one should a end a conference. A minority of the articles were admonitory in nature, giving reasons why conferences are es- sentially a waste of time. In her 2004 article “Top Six Reasons to A end a Conference,” Rosina Alaimo Robert D. Vega is Reference Services Librarian and Ruth S. Connell is Electronic Services Librarian at Valparaiso University; e-mail: Robert.Vega@valpo.edu and Ruth.Connell@valpo.edu, respectively. 503 mailto:Ruth.Connell@valpo.edu mailto:Robert.Vega@valpo.edu 504 College & Research Libraries November 2007 discussed the many positive aspects of conferences, with keynote speakers be- ing of particular value for her.1 Jennifer England’s experiences have been such that each conference has been “another adventurous rung up my professional ladder.”2 But, even more important, England saw conferences (ALA Annual in particular) as unifying events: “Here there was kinship. This act of attend- ing, listening, and ultimately becoming part of something bigger is the whole reason for the Conference.”3 Kent Slade’s “Newcomer’s Guide to A ending ALA Conferences” emphasized the practical, work-specific benefits that can result from a ending conferences, especially the com- mi ee meetings and programs.4 In “Exhibits Are Valuable, A er All,” Anne Turner, a er making the confession that she hates entering the exhibit area, grudgingly admi ed that it can be useful. She pointed out that “the exhibitors and their wares are an important part of our library conferences” because “they are the window on our options for improving services and spending money wisely.”5 The impression Turner left, however, was that exhibits were at best a necessary evil. Weisberg and Toor, while positive in their attitude toward conferences, could not help but make the first-time a endee nervous with their 1990 article “Conference Survival.” They referred to the “book-sized program” for ALA An- nual and encouraged a endees to “plan to spend at least one day at the exhibits.”6 While their comments were helpful, they also painted a picture of large conferences as having the potential to overwhelm the unprepared or unwary. Last, in “Confer- ence Angst,” Turner elaborated on three reasons for avoiding conferences: search- ing for conversation, finding someone to eat with, and selecting an identity. Turner observed with regard to solo conference a endance that it is “tiring to spend so much time thinking up either social pa er or real conversation.”7 The same problem held true when trying to find a place to eat and a person or group of people to eat with. Turner’s last reason for not a end- ing conferences was less tangible: that of identity. “Going to a conference means ceasing to be all the people I normally am.”8 Turner observed that, “I am an Invisible Person, except to the exhibitors, of course, and even they aren’t much in- terested now that my library has selected an automation vendor.”9 The best Turner could say about a recent conference she a ended was that it was “reasonably use- ful”:10 an example of damning with faint praise if ever there was one. What all of these examples had in common, as mentioned above, was that none of them (besides the occasional anecdotal reference to what a friend or colleague thought of conferences) asked a large sample of librarians what were their opinions of and a itudes toward conferences. Methodology This study began with the design of a survey. The goal was to determine why librarians a end conferences and then compare these results to demographic characteristics to see if there was a sig- nificant relationship between any of these characteristics and reasons given for at- tending conferences. Based on this goal, the survey included questions to determine the following characteristics for each respondent: type of library where employed, primary work area, years in the field, gender, age, average number of conferences a ended each year, and amount of institutional financial support provided for confer- ences. Librarians were asked to rate the importance of the following reasons when deciding whether or not to a end confer- ences: invited papers, general sessions, roundtables, poster sessions, network- ing, user groups, exhibits, professional rejuvenation, Curriculum Vitae (CV) pad- ding, commi ee meeting a endance, and amount of financial support received. This survey contained questions de- signed to solicit both quantitative and qualitative data. Some of the questions Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 505 asked respondents to rank conference activities or to categorize their library type or position, to harvest quantitative data that could be analyzed using statistical analysis so ware. Other questions were open-ended to allow people to com- ment upon issues related to conferences. Responses were anonymous, unless the respondent chose to give up anonym- ity by submi ing their name and e-mail address with the survey. The e-mail ad- dress was requested so that their identity could be verified. Valparaiso University’s Institutional Review Board reviewed this survey and gave it their approval. The text of the survey is included in the appendix to this article. A commercial survey system was used to post the survey to the Web. The survey was tested before it was distributed. Notification of the survey was sent to the following listservs: CJC (Community and Junior Colleges Libraries Section), COLLIB (College Libraries Section), ILI (Information Literacy Instruction), LI- BREF (Discussion of Library Reference Issues), LITA (Library and Information Technology Association), PubLib (Public Librarians), and RUSA (Reference and User Services Association). The selection of these listservs was based on trying to reach a large and diverse audience. The authors, both of whom worked in public-service positions at the time of the survey, chose listservs based on personal membership, size and variety of targeted audience. For example, while no TS-specific listserv, such as AUTOCAT (Library Cataloging and Authority Control), was selected, the authors thought that those listservs that were targeted would provide the desired cross-section of librarians working in a variety of positions and se ings. The CJC, COLLIB, and PubLib listservs, for instance, cater to the interests of librarians who work in a particular type of library rather than in a particular position, so all areas of library work would be targeted. The LIBREF, LITA, and RUSA listservs, on the other hand, while being more posi- tion specific, allowed for the targeting of librarians in a wide variety of information centers beyond just higher education–af- filiated libraries. The ILI listserv was selected because both authors conduct instruction sessions in their library. The total potential audience, based on listserv subscription numbers provided by the moderators, was approximately 17,000 people. The survey was made avail- able on September 20, 2005, and closed on October 11, 2005. During that time, 794 people responded to the survey. Profile of Respondents Respondents were asked a series of ques- tions to determine a demographic profile that could be compared to conference interests. For all demographic questions, only one response was permitted, so the sum of percentages was around 100 percent. However, due to the rounding of percentages to the nearest point, some percentages did not add up to exactly 100. The first question asked how long the re- spondent had been working in librarian- ship or information services. The largest group of respondents (286 or 36 percent) had been in the field longer than 20 years, while the second largest group was the newest group, having spent between one and five years in librarianship (188 or 24 percent). The final 40 percent was made up of people in the field between 6 and 10 years (128 or 16 percent), 11 and 15 years (110 or 14 percent), and 16 and 20 years (82 or 10 percent). Respondents were 14 percent male (111) and 84 percent female (668), with two percent (15) abstaining on that question. Since many librarians enter the field as a second career, that raised the issue of whether age and years in the field would yield a difference in respondents’ answers. Thus, a question to determine age was included. Using year of birth, but not month or specific day, the largest group of respondents (271 or 34 percent) were in their fifties (born 1946–1955), while those in their thirties and forties comprised almost equal amounts with 21 506 College & Research Libraries November 2007 percent each (169 and 163 respectively). Ten percent of respondents (76) were in their twenties (born 1976–1981); eight percent (60) were 60 or older, while seven percent (55) did not indicate age. When asked to identify their primary area of responsibility, 39 percent (312) said they worked in reference, 27 percent (218) identified themselves as administrators, and 16 percent (131) were primarily in library instruction. All other categories (Technical Services, Circulation/Access, Government Documents and other) were selected by less than 10 percent of respond- ers. In a separate question, respondents were asked to select their library type. The majority, 68 percent or 538, worked in academic libraries. Public librarians were the second largest group with 202 people, or 25 percent. The other types of libraries (special, school, other) were selected less than three percent each. Since the purpose of this survey was to determine librarians’ a itudes toward conferences, it was important to find out approximately how many conferences a year respondents a end. The majority, 593 people (75 percent), a end one or two conferences a year. Twenty-one percent of respondents (165) a end three or more conferences a year, and less than five percent (36) do not a end conferences at all during an average year. Respondents were also asked how much financial support they receive for conferences. Since some people receive different amounts of support based on conference location, whether they pres- ent, lead a roundtable, or other varying factors, the authors decided the response to this question would have to be free form. Some people responded with percentages, others responded with a number of conferences, while others responded with dollar amounts or com- ments. Some responses included: • My campus has been very support- ive. I can a end in-state functions and I have been able to a end ALA for the last four years with pre y generous support. (academic administrator) • $1,000/year (additional for certain conferences that the admin wants you to a end). If it is a conference of my choos- ing (scholarly subject-oriented, not the library-professional) then I will willingly pay my own way if necessary. If the admin wants me to go there, then they had best pay as I may not go… (academic—refer- ence) • Almost none, which is why I haven’t gone to any. (academic—library instruction) • Almost all of it—and I realize I am extremely fortunate. (public—reference) • As a classified staff member, I re- ceive $850 per trip. This is to encourage more classified or paraprofessional staff to go to conferences. (academic—circula- tion/access) • Barely any. We have to pay for ev- erything out of our own pockets and then beg for partial reimbursement when we get back. I usually get about 50 percent of my costs reimbursed by the library administration. Library administrators go everywhere and anywhere they want for free, of course. (academic—reference) • Complete. If the library can’t pay for it, we don’t go. Oh, except for drinks at dinner—we’re on our own for those. (public—reference) • Varies. Last year I got full support for ALA and was told money for next year would be available. Now there is no money and as a commi ee chair I must a end so this is a really bad situation. (academic—reference) • None. I used to pay my own way. Now I am too poor to exercise that op- tion any longer. A er earning my MLIS, I sold my house to fund my job search. Since then I have invested 2 years and all my scarce resources working part-time in a library that has consistently cut my hours and refused me any sort of benefits. I am on the county medical rolls and food stamps… (public—reference) Some textual responses could be con- verted to percentages or dollar amounts, such as, “My library pays for all my conference expenses with the exception Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 507 of alcohol and gambling,” which was converted to 100 percent. Others reported that they got no financial support, but were given time off to a end conferences. The worst off received neither funding nor time off. Two hundred eighty-five respondents gave answers that were, or could be translated to, either percentages or dollar amounts. Thirty-five of those people responded that they receive no funding at all (12 percent). One hundred forty-four people re- sponded with percentages greater than zero. Of those people, most (101) reported that they receive complete funding. The next largest group, with fourteen respons- es, receives 50–60 percent support. Thir- teen people responded that they receive 90–99 percent funding; nine responded with 61–75 percent; six responded with 80–89 percent; and one person responded that they receive 25 percent of the money required to a end conferences. One hundred six people responded with dollar amounts greater than zero. The amounts ranged from $200 to $2,600 per year (there was one response of $14,000 that was thrown out because it was possibly an error). For people report- ing conference support in dollar amounts greater than zero, the average amount of annual support was $871 and the median amount was $900. Results Using an analysis of correlations, the data was run to find out what “types” of librarians a end conferences for which reasons. (See table 1.) Each of the rank- ings of importance that respondents gave for attending, or not attending, conferences was run as an independent variable against all of the demographic characteristics. Many of the correlations were found to be insignificant, and those are not discussed here. All factors listed below are statistically significant. Concerning reasons why librarians a end conferences, the most important factor, across the board, was professional rejuvenation. This was listed as very im- portant by 447 people (56 percent). (See table 2.) In terms of significant relation- ships between professional rejuvenation and demographic characteristics, the older people were, and the longer they had been in the field of librarianship, the more important they found this rejuvena- tion. Men were less likely than women to list this reason as important. In addition, the more conferences people a ended, the more important rejuvenation became. Another highly ranked reason for a ending conferences was networking. Three hundred seventeen people (40 percent) listed networking as very impor- tant. There were significant correlations between networking and three groups. People who a ended more conferences and people in administration found net- working important. Surprisingly, refer- ence librarians had a negative correlation to networking, meaning that they did not find networking to be an important reason to a end conferences. Exhibits did fairly well in this survey. Although only 174 (22 percent) people listed them as very important, 417 (53 percent) people listed them as important. The strongest correlation in this category indicated that the older people were, the more useful they found exhibits. Along those same lines, the longer someone had been in the field, the higher they ranked this factor. There were significant positive correlations between exhibits and people who work in public libraries, as well as administrators (from any type of library). The negative correlations in this category signified that two groups, those who iden- tified themselves as instruction librarians or academic librarians (and there is over- lap between these groups) were less likely to find exhibits important. Respondents were asked how im- portant invited papers were to them. The most significant results were that people who worked in public librar- ies were less likely to consider invited papers to be important, while those who worked in academic libraries were more likely to consider them important. 508 College & Research Libraries November 2007 TA B L E 1 C or re la ti on s A ca de m ic P ub lic R ef . A dm in . In st ru ct io n Te ch se rv A cc es s se rv C on f./ ye ar A ge Y ea rs in fie ld G en de r In vi te d pa pe rs 0. 32 5* ** –0 .3 40 ** * –0 .0 19 –0 .0 59 0. 10 8* * –0 .0 24 0. 00 8 0. 10 4* * 0. 01 6 –0 .0 05 0. 00 3 G en er al s es si on s –0 .0 44 0. 01 1 0. 02 6 –0 .0 87 * 0. 01 8 0. 05 4 0. 02 3 –0 .0 01 –0 .0 83 * –0 .1 28 ** * –0 .1 70 ** * R ou nd ta bl es 0. 08 9* –0 .0 83 * –0 .0 14 –0 .0 36 –0 .0 03 0. 02 5 0. 07 4* 0. 03 6 –0 .0 53 –0 .0 66 –0 .0 12 Po st er s es si on s 0. 20 3* ** –0 .2 19 ** * 0. 03 3 –0 .0 65 0. 10 0* * –0 .0 49 –0 .0 01 0. 02 5 0. 03 2 0. 00 3 –0 .0 36 N et w or ki ng –0 .0 54 0. 00 4 –0 .0 99 ** 0. 09 9* * –0 .0 24 0. 00 4 0. 05 6 0. 18 6* ** 0. 04 9 0. 06 5 –0 .0 23 U se r g ro up s –0 .0 19 0. 00 3 –0 .0 60 0. 05 2 –0 .1 55 ** * 0. 18 3* ** 0. 08 9* 0. 04 6 0. 11 3* * 0. 15 0* ** –0 .0 45 E xh ib its –0 .1 85 ** * 0. 18 4* ** –0 .0 67 0. 23 1* ** –0 .1 91 ** * 0. 05 4 –0 .0 43 –0 .0 31 0. 28 9* ** 0. 28 1* ** 0. 03 8 Pr of es si on al re ju ve na tio n –0 .0 48 0. 04 8 –0 .0 53 0. 06 9 –0 .0 37 0. 03 0 0. 02 1 0. 09 0* 0. 17 3* * 0. 13 6* ** –0 .0 97 ** C V p ad di ng 0. 11 5* ** –0 .1 00 ** 0. 15 8* ** –0 .2 46 ** * 0. 10 1* * –0 .0 27 –0 .0 04 –0 .0 40 –0 .2 7* ** –0 .3 30 ** * –0 .0 35 C om m itt ee m ee tin gs 0. 09 3* * –0 .0 74 * –0 .0 33 0. 02 3 –0 .0 45 0. 02 8 0. 03 5 0. 35 4* ** -0 .0 13 0. 09 5* * 0. 01 3 fi c an t a t t he .0 01 le ve l; ** C or re la tio n is s ig ni fi c an t a t t he .0 1 le ve l; * C or re la tio n is s ig ni fi c an t a t t he .0 5 le ve l ** *C or re la tio n is s ig ni Still significant but with weaker results, instruction librarians and people who attend more conferences also ranked invited papers as important. Another conference com- ponent respondents were asked to consider was gen- eral sessions. According to the results of this survey, men and administrators were less likely to find these sessions useful than others. The people most likely to find general sessions use- ful were people newer to librarianship and younger people. Poster sessions fared well with people in academic librarianship, but not public librarianship. Instruction librarians also found poster sessions useful. Predictably, going to con- ferences to have something to add to the curriculum vitae (CV) was more impor- tant to those who had been in librarianship fewer years and to younger people. In addition, those in admin- istration, as well as public library employees, ranked CV padding as unimport- ant to them. Also, there was a significant positive cor- relation between academic, reference, and instruction librarians/library staff and this motive. C o n c e r n i n g c o m m i t - tee meetings, people who ranked this as an important factor were more likely to attend more conferences than those who did not. Academic librarians and people who had been in the field longer also ranked Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 509 TABLE 2 How Important are the Following Activities to you When Deciding Whether to Attend Conferences? Very Important Important Not Sure Not Important Very Unimportant Prof. Rejuvenation 56% (447) 35% (280) 3% (27) 5% (37) 0% (3) Networking 40% (317) 47% (377) 7% (55) 5% (42) 0% (3) General Sessions 24% (188) 51% (408) 10% (80) 13% (106) 2% (12) Exhibits 22% (174) 53% (417) 9% (69) 15% (117) 2% (17) Committee Meetings 21% (165) 32% (254) 12% (96) 27% (217) 8% (62) Invited Papers 14% (110) 36% (289) 21% (170) 22% (174) 6% (51) User Groups 11% (90) 43% (338) 22% (173) 22% (171) 3% (22) Roundtables 9% (70) 42% (332) 24% (189) 22% (175) 4% (28) Poster Sessions 5% (41) 30% (242) 23% (185) 33% (265) 8% (61) CV Padding 4% (28) 15% (115) 21% (169) 33% (263) 28% (219) this as important, while people in public libraries did not. Roundtables were ranked important by those who worked in academic librar- ies and not important by those working in public libraries. Those who worked primarily in circulation/access services also ranked this as an important factor to them. The final category analyzed was user groups. Four groups had positive correlations, meaning they were more likely to find user groups important than unimportant: those who worked in technical services, those who had been in librarianship longer, older people, and those who worked in circulation/access. One group, those who worked in instruc- tion, had a negative correlation to user groups, meaning that they did not find user groups to be important. For all the results listed above, respon- dents were asked to rank the importance of different factors. The way the question was worded, a respondent could conceiv- ably list all factors at the same level of importance, thus providing no insight into which factors were the most impor- tant to them. Thus, a separate question was asked to resolve this problem: “What are the three most important reasons you a end conferences?” The number-one response for the most important reason, with 317 votes (40%), was professional rejuvenation. (See table 3.) General sessions were listed second in the most important category with 128 (16%) votes, while all other responses for the most important reason got less than 15 percent of the votes. For the second most important reason, networking won out with 184 votes (23%). Professional rejuvenation and general sessions were close behind in this cat- egory with 154 (19%) and 140 (18%) votes respectively. The third most important reason also went to networking with 167 (21%) votes. Exhibits and general sessions were behind networking for the third most important reason with 137 (17%) and 131 (16%) votes respectively. Discussion The purpose of this survey was to deter- mine librarians’ a itudes toward confer- ences and the reasons why they do or do not a end them. Analysis of the data revealed some interesting results worthy of closer a ention. 510 College & Research Libraries November 2007 TABLE 3 What are The Three Most Important Reasons You Attend Conferences? First Second Third Professional Rejuvenation 40% (317) 19% (154) 14% (108) General Sessions 16% (128) 18% (140) 16% (131) Networking 14% (113) 23% (184) 21% (167) Committee Meetings 13% (103) 6% (45) 6% (50) Invited Papers 5% (38) 8% (67) 7% (58) Exhibits 4% (30) 12% (94) 17% (137) User Groups 3% (27) 4% (29) 5% (43) Roundtables 2% (18) 5% (41) 6% (49) CV Padding 2% (14) 2% (15) 3% (24) Poster Sessions 1% (6) 3% (25) 3% (27) As mentioned above, professional rejuvenation was selected as the most popular reason for a ending conferences, with 56 percent or 447 of the respondents ranking it very important. There were three demographics with a statistically significant positive correlation with pro- fessional rejuvenation: people who at- tended more conferences per year, greater age, and longer length of time working in librarianship. There was one statistically significant negative correlation between a demographic and professional rejuve- nation, and that was with men. While it could be the case that those who a end more conferences per year simply hold them in a more positive light in gen- eral, the authors hesitated to make this assumption. It was not surprising that people who have worked in the field lon- ger might be more in need of rejuvenation than newer members of the profession. However, what was surprising was the fact that men found professional rejuve- nation less important than did women. Professional rejuvenation’s positive cor- relation with conference a endance and negative correlation with men are both areas worthy of further study. Of the 790 survey respondents who answered the open-ended question concerning what respondents found most rewarding about conferences, 12 percent or 98 mentioned professional rejuvenation in one way or another. Comments included: • [Conferences] are stimulating and fun. I always have more energy and en- thusiasm for my work when I return. • The professional rejuvenation is extremely important to someone such as myself who works at a small, private in- stitution that for the last few years has had serious library funding and infrastructure issues. • Conferences give new life to a career that can sometimes get old. You see people you know from before and reconnect. There are always people there who are very enthusiastic and it can be contagious. [Conferences] give new life to my work. • I’ve only been to one so far, but I found the environment was extremely encouraging—I felt stimulated and en- thusiastic about my new career. Networking had three statistically significant correlations: positive correla- tions with people who a ended more conferences and with administrators; and a negative correlation with people who worked in reference. The authors were surprised at this negative correla- tion and can offer no reasons for refer- ence librarians’ negative a itude toward networking. Overall, networking ranked second behind professional rejuvenation Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 511 as a reason to a end conferences, with 40 percent or 317 respondents selecting it as very important. Of the 790 survey re- spondents who answered the open-ended question concerning what respondents found most rewarding about confer- ences, 27 percent or 215 respondents listed networking or some variation of it as most rewarding. For the purposes of this study, some answers were counted that did not include the word “networking.” Examples include: • Lunch… when a bunch of people sit around and talk, this is where the real action is at a conference. • The opportunity to meet and share experiences with more experienced librar- ians. Their career guidance is invalu- able. • Meeting people interested in the same aspects of librarianship. I work in a geographically isolated region and do not have many local opportunities to meet other librarians in my field of specializa- tion. Answers that indicated, directly or not, that the respondent was referring to meet- ing friends or existing colleagues were not included in the 27 percent. What was also interesting was how many respondents wrote that they valued the chance to meet and talk with librarians from somewhere other than their own institution. Despite the presence of multiple libraries in many locations, a sense of insularity was pres- ent in the results. Many librarians did not seem to have opportunities to meet with other librarians outside their own library, except at conferences. The impact and value of networking are certainly areas worthy of further study, given the negative correlation between networking and reference librarians, and the number of librarians who took the time to discuss its value. Poster sessions had significant positive correlations with academic and instruc- tion librarians. There was a significant negative correlation between poster ses- sions and those who work in public librar- ies. This negative correlation could be a result of poster content. An analysis of topics for the 120 posters presented at the 2005 Annual ALA Conference revealed that 62 percent (74) of them were targeted toward academic library issues. Thirty- two percent (38) could be considered neutral or germane to both public and academic libraries. Finally, only six per- cent (eight) dealt specifically with public libraries.11 Of the 359 survey respondents who answered the open-ended question requesting other thoughts or comments, only one specifically mentioned poster sessions, saying, “Sometimes the poster sessions… are a conduit to really useful information.” Of the 790 survey respon- dents who answered the open-ended question concerning what respondents found most rewarding about confer- ences, only two specifically mentioned posters: one chose poster sessions and one grouped poster and paper sessions together. Of the 789 respondents who answered the question concerning what respondents find least rewarding about conferences, three percent (22) selected poster sessions as the least rewarding as- pect of conferences. While this last result was not statistically large, almost all of the respondents who selected poster sessions as the least-rewarding aspect of confer- ences evidenced complete apathy at best (“I have never seen a poster session that was useful to me”), or a degree of hostil- ity at worst (“Poster sessions are use- less”). The negative correlation between public librarians and poster sessions was interesting because poster sessions are frequently a librarian’s first foray into the world of professional development. Creating a poster presentation, especially for the first time, represents a substantial amount of time and effort. Given that so few public librarians appear to value them, the authors suggest that a greater effort be made to include poster sessions whose content is of interest to a wider range of librarians. This is definitely an area worthy of further study. A conference’s importance with regard to adding to the Curriculum Vitae (CV http:libraries.11 512 College & Research Libraries November 2007 padding) had statistically significant positive correlations with academic, reference, and instruction librarians, and statistically significant negative correla- tions with public library staff, administra- tors, older respondents, and respondents who had been in the profession longer. It certainly makes sense that many librar- ians in academic se ings would be con- cerned about adding to their CV. Public library professionals’ negative response to CV padding probably reflects their ability to advance without a CV. The sta- tistically negative correlations between older respondents and respondents who have been in the field longer could reflect librarians who are already in advanced positions, those who do not need a CV to advance, or those who have no desire to advance. The statistically negative correlation between administrators and CV padding is interesting. It could be that administra- tors have less need for academic as op- posed to administrative feathers in their caps. More intriguing is the possibility that administrators who consider CV padding a poor reason to a end confer- ences altogether responded so negatively (it was the second strongest negative correlation between any demographic and any reason for a endance) in hopes of quashing CV padding as a reason for a endance. In addition, the authors concluded that the survey wording might have skewed responses with regard to Curriculum Vitae. “CV padding” has a negative connotation that could have affected responses. The use of a more positive phrase such as “CV enhance- ment” or a somewhat neutral phrase such as “CV addition” could very well result in different responses. Finally, the evidence from the question concerning what respondents found least rewarding about conferences and the request for other thoughts or comments revealed many reasons that librarians choose not to a end conferences, as well as what they dislike about them. Not surprising is that expense and travel were both listed as conference negatives. Based on the 789 respondents who an- swered the question concerning what respondents find least rewarding about conferences, 11 percent or 86 mentioned the expense. Eight percent or 64 people mentioned travel and its related hassles. What was surprising was the number of respondents who singled out logistical is- sues. Nine percent or 71 respondents who answered the question named logistics as the main problem with conferences. Two points should be made about these comments: 1) many of these respondents alluded to the fact that they were talking about ALA’s Annual Conference, as op- posed to smaller regional or divisional conferences; 2) the authors of this article did not include comments that solely mentioned dissatisfaction because of having to choose between two concur- rent sessions at a conference. These 71 respondents discussed other issues, such as problems traveling to different confer- ence sites around the host city and diffi- culty in negotiating the main conference center. Comments revealed a high level of dissatisfaction: • O en, travel times and logistics of ge ing from one event to another prevent me from a ending everything I’d like. It’s frustrating when sessions are held in many different physical locations. • Slogging from location to location (if in more than one building)… • It would be very nice to have fewer, more centralized locations and more spread out days/times for programs and meetings. • Least rewarding is the feeling that there is so much that has to be missed due to the time and location constraints. Similar comments were made time and again. One respondent mentioned that these problems are certainly not limited to ALA Annual, but are rather endemic to all large conferences. Regardless of this fact, however, the results indicate that ALA should reexamine the setup for ALA Annual to see if anything can be done to improve the logistics. Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 513 Conclusion The purpose of this study was to deter- mine the reasons librarians a end con- ferences and, in turn, provide insight to those who plan conferences with regard to what people are interested in and what could use improvement. The findings showed that two of the most-cited reasons a endees gave for going to conferences were professional rejuvenation and net- working, both of which are benefits not directly related to conference content. There are many areas related to the results of this study that warrant further exploration. For example, why did many public librarians rank poster sessions so low, and how can they be altered to ap- peal to a wider audience? The negative correlation between professional rejuve- nation and men is also certainly worthy of examination. In addition, this study showed that people who have been in librarianship longer value exhibits more than people newer to the field. Future studies may show whether the more experienced librarians have learned to navigate the exhibits be er and thus get more out of them. Further studies might also broaden the scope of the survey by including more position-specific listservs, such as AUTOCAT; or listservs aimed at larger libraries, such as ULS (University Libraries Section), to achieve the widest possible potential audience. Both of these listservs would be included if the authors were to do a similar study in the future. Studies with different survey samples might yield supporting results or results that direct research toward new avenues. With the amount of effort and money required to put on conferences, more research into the psychology of librar- ians’ reasons for a ending conferences is warranted. In addition, the results of this study might prove useful to those who plan and organize conferences. Notes 1. Rosina Alaimo, “Top Six Reasons to A end a Conference,” Knowledge Quest 33, no. 1 (Sept./Oct. 2004): 34–35. 2. Jennifer England, “A Case for Conferences,” Knowledge Quest 32, no. 1 (Sept./Oct. 2003): 15–16. 3. Ibid. 4. Kent Slade, “Newcomer’s Guide to A ending ALA Conferences,” Library Mosaics 13, no. 3 (May/June 2002): 16–17. 5. Anne M. Turner, “Exhibits are Valuable, A er All,” Library Journal 129, no. 9 (May 2004): 60–61. 6. Hilda K. Weisburg, M.L.S. and Ruth Toor, M.L.S., “Conference Survival,” School Librarian’s Workshop 10 (June 1990): 1–2. 7. Anne M. Turner, “Conference Angst,” Library Journal 111, no. 10 (June 1986): 88–89. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. American Library Association, “2005 Annual Conference Abstracts of Poster Sessions.” Available online at www.lib.jmu.edu/org/ala/abstracts/. [Accessed 20 April 2006]. www.lib.jmu.edu/org/ala/abstracts 514 College & Research Libraries November 2007 Appendix: Survey of Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 1. How many years have you been working in librarianship or information services? __ 1–5 years __ 6–10 years __ 11–15 years __ 16–20 years __ More than 20 years 2. What is your primary work area? __ Circulation/Access __ Reference __ Technical Services __ Administration __ Government Documents __ Other 3. In what type of library or information center do you work? __ Public __ School __ Academic __ Special __ Other 4. On average, how many conferences do you a end per year? __ None __ 1–2 __ 3 or more 5. How important are the following activities to you when deciding whether to at- tend conferences? Please use the following scale: Very Important (1), Important (2), Not Sure (3), Not Important (4), Very Unimportant (5). __ Prof. Rejuvenation __ Networking __ General Sessions __ Exhibits __ Commi ee Meetings __ Invited Papers __ User Groups __ Roundtables __ Poster Sessions __ CV Padding 6. From the list above, what are the three most important reasons you a end confer- ences? Librarians’ A itudes Toward Conferences 515 First_______________________ Second_____________________ Third______________________ 7. In general, what do you find most rewarding about conferences and why? 8. In general, what do you find least rewarding about conferences and why? 9. How much financial support do you receive from your institution to a end con- ferences? 10. How important is the level of financial support you receive from your institution when deciding whether to a end a conference? __ Very Important __ Important __ Not Sure __ Not Important __ Very Unimportant 11. What is your date of birth? 12. What is your gender? __ Female __ Male 13. If you have any other thoughts or comments about conference a endance, please share them here. 14. This survey is anonymous. If you would be willing to give up your anonymity and let us quote you, please enter your name and e-mail address (for verification purposes): Note: in the online version of this survey, the multiple choice questions had radio bu ons for answers, which prevented people from selecting more than one answer per question. In addition, in question five, the conference activities were arranged randomly, so as not to influence people’s answers by a predetermined order. Ques- tion six had radio bu ons with the conference activities as options, so people were able to select a bu on from a list instead of writing out their response. In addition, for most questions, a response was required in order to complete the survey; the only optional questions were 11, 12, 13, and 14. ”— Join thousands of Job Seekers to . . . • Simplify your search—one-stop job-hunting • Search job ads by title, employer, state, salary range, and other criteria • Post your resume • Learn from tips, tricks, and resources • Use the expanded placement service, whenever you want it Join hundreds of Employers to . . . • Hire smarter • Enrich your candidate pool • Simplify your recruitment: one-stop advertising for online and print • Read posted resumes • Connect with candidates “A very slick list of librarian jobs. Sites and Soundbytes: Libraries, Books, Technology and News “Why not subscribe to the RSS feed to have newly posted jobs sent directly to your feed reader?”—Inforumed, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto JobLIST HRDR One Web site. Far-reaching results. http://JobLIST.ala.org Jobs in Library and Information Science and Technology The #1 source for job seekers and employers alike 5x8_bw.indd 1 11/6/2006 4:35:52 PM