Untitled-16 528 College & Research Libraries November 1997 Post-Master ’s Residency Programs: Enhancing the Development of New Professionals and Minority Recruitment in Academic and Research Libraries Julie Brewer Two of the greatest human resource concerns in academic and research libraries are the preparation of new library professionals and the re­ cruitment of underrepresented minorities. The lack of practical experi­ ence and the changing competencies required of new graduates are discussed frequently at professional meetings and in the library litera­ ture. Diversity initiatives on college and university campuses and within the ALA also have raised awareness of the underrepresentation of mi­ nority librarians. Post-master’s residency programs are one approach that academic and research libraries have used to address these con­ tinuing human resource concerns. This article examines post-master’s residency programs from the perspective of former residents. The sur­ vey findings present important information for libraries that currently host residency programs or are considering implementing new resi­ dency programs in the future, as well as for library educators. cademic and research libraries began experimenting with post-master’s work experience programs in the 1940s in an ef­ fort to better prepare new library profes­ sionals. Two of the longest continuing post-master ’s programs are those hosted by the Library of Congress and the Na­ tional Library of Medicine. The purpose of post-master ’s residency programs is to recruit highly talented graduates from li­ brary education programs and to prepare them for accelerated careers in academic and research libraries. Some residency programs provide advanced education and training for specialized careers in ar­ eas such as medical librarianship or con­ servation administration. Because profes­ sional positions in academic and research libraries often are highly specialized, most new librarians are unprepared to assume the level and depth of these responsibili­ ties immediately following graduation. Many large academic and research librar­ ies do not hire entry-level librarians. This practice restricts access to library careers Julie Brewer is Associate Librarian at the University of Delaware Library; e-mail: jbrewer@udel.edu. 528 mailto:jbrewer@udel.edu Post-Master’s Residency Programs 529 in these areas and limits the pool of quali­ fied candidates available for upper-level positions. Approximately twenty years ago, a group of library educators and practitio­ ners met to establish cooperative efforts in placing new library school graduates.1 The outcome of those meetings was a pro­ posal to expand the availability of post­ master ’s work experience programs. The joint subcommittee of the Association of American Library Schools (AALS), pre­ decessor of the current Association for Li­ brary and Information Science Education (ALISE), and the ACRL Personnel Admin­ istrators and Staff Development Officers Discussion Group proposed that each ma­ jor research library create at least one per­ manent entry-level intern position. Al­ though the proposal was not widely imple­ mented, more than two dozen academic and research libraries have been identified as currently hosting a post-master’s field experience program or as having hosted one in the past.2 In addition to preparing new profes­ sionals for careers in academic and re­ search libraries, a number of residency programs started in the past ten to fifteen years also focus on the recruitment of mi­ nority librarians. Eighteen libraries cur­ rently host residency programs targeted to recent graduates from underrepresented ra­ cial and ethnic backgrounds or have hosted such a program in the past.3 Minority resi­ dency programs are key affirmative ac­ tion initiatives at many academic and re­ search institutions. The ACRL Strategic Plan acknowl­ edges the need to “support recruitment efforts to bring into the profession those individuals who will enrich the diversity of the profession.”4 Academic libraries are concerned about creating a welcoming environment and providing appropriate services to the increasing number of mi­ nority students on their college and uni­ versity campuses. Yet, addressing these concerns is difficult with so few minority librarians. The ALA Office for Library Personnel Resources (OLPR) 1991 data indicate a total of 2,850 minority librarians in aca­ demic and public libraries. The OLPR data are presented in table 1 as a distri­ bution of librarians by racial, ethnic, and gender groups in academic and public li­ braries.5 These data show that librarian- ship in general, and academic librarian- ship in particular, continues to be a pre­ dominately white, female profession. A number of residency programs started in the past ten to fifteen years also focus on the recruitment of minority librarians. Although the need for attracting more minorities to academic and research li­ braries is widely understood, the practice of targeting residency programs to minor­ ity graduates has raised some concerns. The ACRL Task Force on Recruitment of Underrepresented Minorities identified a number of potential stumbling blocks as­ sociated with minority residency pro­ grams in its 1990 final report.6 A primary concern is that minority graduates se­ lected for these programs will be stigma­ tized as underprepared, lacking skills, or otherwise unqualified for permanent en­ try-level professional positions. Library educators have shown contin­ ued interest in residency programs by working to establish general guidelines for the design, operation, and evaluation of post-master ’s work experience pro­ grams. The guidelines adopted by ALISE in 1992 outline programmatic standards.7 The definition of terms referring to gradu­ ate and postgraduate work experience programs is an important contribution of the ALISE guidelines. The guidelines de­ fine internships as structured preprofessional work experiences that take place either during or after graduate course work but preceding the degree, usually for a short amount of time. Residencies are de­ fined as post-degree work experiences de­ 530 College & Research Libraries November 1997 TABLE 1 Distribution of Librarians by Ethnicity/Race, Gender, and Type of Library Ethnicity/Race Academic Public Total Gender N % N % N % American Indian/Alaskan Native Female 39 .40 26 .20 65 .28 Male 23 .23 3 .02 26 .11 Total 62 .63 29 .22 91 .39 Asian/Pacific Islander Female 331 3.38 343 2.58 674 2.92 Male 154 1.57 61 .46 215 .93 Total 485 4.95 404 3.03 889 3.85 Black Female 368 3.75 822 6.17 1190 5.15 Male 118 1.20 143 1.07 261 1.13 Total 486 4.96 965 7.25 1451 6.28 Hispanic Female 99 1.01 187 1.40 286 1.24 Male 51 .52 82 .62 133 .58 Total 150 1.53 269 2.02 419 1.81 White Female 5,537 56.49 9,157 68.78 14,694 63.57 Male 3,081 31.44 2,489 18.70 5,570 26.85 Total 8,618 87.93 11,646 87.48 20,264 87.67 Total Female 6,372 65.01 10,535 79.13 16,907 73.15 Male 3,427 34.17 2,778 20.87 6,204 26.85 Total 9,801 100.00 13,313 100.00 23,114 100.00 signed as entry-level programs for profes­ sionals who have recently received an MLS. Fellowships are midcareer experiences designed to assist librarians who already have some professional experience to de­ velop a specialty or to improve manage­ ment skills. This article uses the term resi­ dency as defined by the ALISE guidelines. Rationale for Research Although most post-master ’s residency programs have existed for many years, very little information is available about them. The library literature provides some descriptive information about indi­ vidual programs, yet no objective data on their quality and value exist.8 Little is known about how residency programs affect career development, how targeted programs contribute to minority recruit­ ment, or what the value is of residency programs in academic and research librar­ ies. The general lack of information about residency programs is a problem from The lack of information and miscon­ ceptions about residency programs among staff in host libraries can affect the quality of the residency experience. many perspectives. Without adequate in­ formation, library educators have difficulty advising students, and new graduates Post-Master’s Residency Programs 531 have difficulty making informed career choices. The lack of information and mis­ conceptions about residency programs among staff in host libraries can affect the quality of the residency experience. More­ over, residents may feel isolated without a broader understanding of similar pro­ grams and contacts in other libraries. A number of efforts to gather informa­ tion and facilitate communication about residency programs have been made in the past few years. OLPR hosted two dis­ cussion group meetings at the 1991 An­ nual Conference in Atlanta and at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. In 1992, the Association for Research Librar­ ies (ARL) published a survey of member libraries in SPEC Kit #188, Internship, Resi­ dency, and Fellowship Programs in ARL Li­ braries, which includes descriptive infor­ mation about six residency programs.9 ARL also hosted two seminars in 1996 on implementing post-master ’s residency programs. Research Focus and Methodology To expand on these efforts, OLPR de­ signed a study with three primary objec­ tives: to collect qualitative data about resi­ dency programs from the perspective of former program participants; to track the career development of former post­ master ’s residents; and to understand differences in perspectives, if any, be­ tween residents who participated in pro­ grams targeted to minorities and those who participated in open recruitment programs. In May 1994, a sixty-question survey instrument was mailed to 230 former post-master ’s residents. The instrument was designed to gather information about residency experiences from the perspec­ tive of former program participants. It did not ask respondents to identify the insti­ tutions that had hosted their residency programs. Rather, it focused on general issues of recruitment, program design, professional development, and attitudes. The survey asked respondents to recom- TABLE 2 Characteristics of Respondents Age* % 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-39 40+ No response Total 28 42 18 5 4 3 100 Ethnicity!Race % Black!African American Asian!Asian American Hispanic American Indian! Alaskan Native White No response Total 13 3 4 1 77 2 100 Gender % Female Male Total 76 24 100 * Age at beginning of residency program mend ways to improve residency pro­ grams and to offer advice for those con­ sidering this type of career development opportunity. Identifying the potential survey popu­ lation was a challenge because no central information about residency programs exists, nor do many of the institutions have extensive records on former resi­ dents and their current locations. Al­ though a few program coordinators pro­ vided lists, most people who volunteered to participate noticed the announcement of the study on listservs such as LIBPER, LIBADMIN, and JESSE, and in various professional newsletters. Nearly all the volunteers responded via e-mail, and many suggested the names of colleagues who had worked in their programs. Based on this solicitation for volunteers, 230 former residents were identified and sent survey instruments. 532 College & Research Libraries November 1997 One hundred and nine former resi­ dents, or 47 percent of the survey popu­ lation, completed and returned the sur­ vey instruments. The respondents were predominately white women between twenty-one and thirty years of age at the beginning of their residency program. Most respondents had two years or less of preprofessional library experience prior to their residency (see table 2). Respondents reported that their resi­ dency programs varied in length and structure, and by type of library. Most programs were one year or less in length. Typically, they were structured as a rota­ tion through several areas of the library followed by a specific project or assign­ ment. Most programs hosted more than one resident at a time. The programs were approximately split between academic and government libraries (see table 3). Readers should be aware that these program characteristics and other survey findings may be skewed in overrepresent­ ing the older, larger residency programs in government libraries, such as the Na­ tional Library of Medicine and the Library of Congress. The survey population had a high percentage of former residents from these larger programs which host many residents at one time and have been operating for several decades. Most resi­ dency programs started in the past ten to fifteen years generally host one to three residents at a time. The survey popula­ tion naturally had a lower number of former residents from these programs. Findings and Implications Libraries use a variety of recruitment methods to attract new professionals to residency programs, including traditional employment tools such as position an­ nouncements in professional publica­ tions, as well as brochures distributed to graduate library education programs. Most former residents learned of the resi­ dency opportunity from a faculty or staff person in their graduate library education program. Residents tended to apply to TABLE 3 Characteristics of Residency Programs Type of Library % Government 54 Academic 42 Corporate 1 Other 2 No response 1 Total 100 Length % 1 year (or less) 70 2 years 28 More than 2 years 2 Total 100 Minority Focus % No 82 Yes 17 No response 1 Total 100 specific programs rather than seek resi­ dency experiences in general. The major­ ity of respondents applied to only one residency program. The key factors in choosing a residency position were the reputation or prestige of the library, the institution, or the people involved; and the opportunity to gain a breadth of pro­ fessional library experiences. Survey respondents generally were Orientation to the residency program and library and overall training were rated as good or very good by 83 percent of respondents. very pleased with the management of their residency programs. Orientation to the residency program and library and overall training were rated as good or very good by 83 percent of respondents. Most (93%) felt their assignments matched their interests and abilities rea­ sonably well or very well. Most (72%) also Post-Master’s Residency Programs 533 TABLE 4 Attributes of Supervisors Most Next Most Attribute Important Important Availability 14% 13% Flexibility 2 15 Technical expertise 6 6 Familiarity with staff and organization 11 15 Mentoring skills 42 12 Support for residency program 5 7 Ability to provide constructive feedback 7 20 Other 7 2 No response 6 10 Total 100 100 felt the expectations for their responsibili­ ties were reasonably well defined or very well defined. Most former residents rated their rela­ tionship with the program coordinator as good or excellent. They reported regular meetings with program coordinators sev­ eral times a year, although many met more frequently. Exceptional program coordinators were noted for providing a broad perspective of the organization, providing moral support, creating learn­ ing opportunities, and providing feed­ back. More than half of the respondents had two or more supervisors during their resi­ dency. Having multiple supervisors was viewed as no problem or an advantage in most instances. Former residents iden­ tified mentoring skills and ability to pro­ vide constructive feedback as the two most important attributes for supervisors. Al­ though respondents gave their supervisors the highest ratings for familiarity with li­ brary staff and organization and support for the residency program, which are im­ portant elements of mentoring, they rated their supervisors’ overall mentoring skills relatively low. This is an important find­ ing for program coordinators. Mentoring skills may need to be emphasized for all library employees who work with resi­ dents (see table 4). Former residents rated in-house semi­ nars, interaction with other residents, and travel funding to regional and national meetings as the three most important de­ velopment opportunities. Responses to open-ended questions on peer interaction with other residents were particularly enthusiastic. Respondents reported that peer residents provided social camarade­ rie, moral support, opportunities for group projects, shared professional knowledge and expertise, motivation, quicker learning, different perspectives, and “career-long” professional relation­ ships. One respondent observed, how­ ever, that an optimal number of four to five residents was more manageable than situations where there were seven or more residents. Most respondents (85%) felt they were treated as professional librarians most of the time. Examples of work felt to be less than professional included: filing in the card catalog, shelf reading, manual tasks prior to personal computers, physically moving books during building move, se­ rial check-in, rearranging supply cabinet, copy cataloging, working the information desk, inventorying the reference collec­ tion, routine file maintenance of online catalog, photocopying, checking in mail, searching interlibrary loan requests, and processing and shelving books. However, former residents were more disturbed by patronizing attitudes than by work as­ signments they felt to be less than pro­ fessional. A number of respondents felt talked-down-to during seminars and felt they were treated as students. Some were made to feel that their opinions were of no value or that they were powerless be­ cause of the temporary nature of their position. 534 College & Research Libraries November 1997 TABLE 5 Position Titles Title % Associate 40 Intern 28 Resident 22 OtherlNo answer 10 Total 100 Most respondents (90%) felt involved as a contributing member of the organiza­ tion. Examples of involvement included working on critical projects that contributed to the library mission, being included as mem­ bers of a team, conducting training sessions for staff, presenting results of professional work to peers, and having opinions and feed­ back solicited. A number of respondents said they would have liked to have been in­ cluded on committees. The survey data were inconclusive in measuring the career development of former residents. Respondents were asked to name their first position or title following the residency program, as well as their current position or title. Because there is little uniformity in titles in aca­ demic libraries, better measures are needed to track career development. However, survey respondents regard their residency experiences as significant elements in their career development. Although approxi­ mately half (51%) felt they would have had little difficulty finding another entry-level position (rather than the residency posi­ tion), most (88%) said the residency experi­ ence contributed to some extent, or to a great extent, to subsequent jobs. Eighty- three percent said their career path would have been different without the residency experience. The survey results indicate that host libraries have differing views of their role in retaining residents and helping resi­ dents to find subsequent professional positions. Although some programs aim to recruit and prepare new librarians for careers in academic and research librar­ ies, or specifically in medical libraries, other programs may be using residency programs to screen future employees for that individual institution. Approxi­ mately two-thirds of the respondents (64%) were offered professional positions in their host library following their resi­ dency. Fifty-one percent accepted the of­ fer; 13 percent declined. A wide array of titles are assigned to residents in different programs (see table 5). Although most respondents were un­ concerned about the titles, some former residents who worked in medical librar­ ies felt the term intern was confusing be­ cause it also is used to designate medical students preparing to become physicians. Others expressed discomfort with the term intern for its less-than-professional connotation. A few respondents com­ mented on being treated as a continuing student rather than a professional librar­ ian. Minority residents also expressed some discomfort with their titles. Some of the titles used in programs targeted to graduates from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups include minority intern, affirmative action intern, and minority resi­ dent. Some respondents felt discomfort when their minority status was overem­ phasized. The emphasis on minority sta­ tus unnecessarily focused on differences or led to perceptions that these residents were substandard. The term affirmative action in the title was very awkward for one respon­ dent, who felt the confusion and stigma associated with the public debate about affirmative action. Nineteen respondents reported working in residency programs targeted to racial and ethnic minorities. The survey asked residents from these programs to comment on their treatment. Seventy-five percent felt their ra­ cial or ethnic background had a positive role or no role in their residency program. A few commented that their racial or ethnic background had both a positive and a negative role. And one respondent felt that racial or ethnic background had a Post-Master’s Residency Programs 535 negative role. Minority respondents felt that their racial and ethnic background was impor­ tant in adding diversity to predominantly white library staffs. It provided an oppor­ tunity for students and staff to work with minorities. Most often, the residents were accepted as professionals who happened to be minorities. Racial and ethnic back­ ground also determined some assign­ ments directed to minority residents. This was a positive experience when the as­ signment related to the resident’s area of interest. In other situations, minority resi­ dents were looked to as “experts” on questions dealing with ethnic issues. Residency programs seem to be effec­ tive recruitment tools for attracting mi­ norities and other individuals for short- term, temporary assignments who would not consider moving to a specific geo­ graphic location for more permanent po­ sitions. Survey responses indicated the residency programs succeed in recruiting individuals to academic and research li­ braries who otherwise were not consider­ ing careers in these areas. One minority re­ spondent wrote: “The program was the single most important factor in my choos­ ing employment in an academic library.” Overall, the response to the survey was overwhelmingly positive. An over­ whelming amount of support and enthu­ siasm for residency programs was ex­ pressed in the survey responses. Nearly all respondents (97%) said they enjoyed their residency experience very much or most of the time. Given the opportunity to apply for the same or similar residency program, 93 percent said they would do it again. Typical words used to describe the resi­ dency experience include: “valuable,” “great,” “fantastic,” and “excellent.” The most frequent remarks suggest that resi­ dency programs provide unique learning opportunities and are important founda­ tions for beginning careers. Residents found the mentoring and networking in­ valuable. The programs exposed resi­ dents to a breadth of professional experi­ ences typically unavailable in other en­ try-level positions or traditional career paths. Those who were uncommitted to specific career plans valued the opportu­ nity to explore and test their interest in academic and research libraries, particu­ larly in light of the rigorous promotion and tenure system at most institutions. A certain sense of delight and renewed appreciation for their residency experi­ ences came through in written comments. Respondents frequently commented that at the beginning of their programs they had no idea of the value they would later attach to the experience. Reflection and hindsight seemed to be very satisfying for most respondents, although two had negative experiences to relate: limited op­ portunities and exposure, and poor rela­ tions with supervisors. Overall, respon­ dents continue to enjoy the careers they have built on their residency experiences. Ninety-three percent report enjoying their current work very much or most of the time. Another measure of the high regard former residents have for these programs is the volume of written responses. More than 80 percent of the respondents offer advice to supervisors and program coor­ dinators. Examples of advice include: “emphasize big picture”; “provide broad exposure”; “appreciate different back­ ground and interests of residents and try to design parts of their program to match those areas”; “provide more opportuni­ ties for projects that will benefit the library and challenge the residents”; “encourage mentoring relationships”; “clearly define goals of the program”; “be accessible”; “be flexible.” Numerous responses em­ phasized the need to make programs two years long, with at least one peer resident. An even larger number of written re­ sponses (84%) were directed to new master ’s graduates considering residency programs. Nearly all respondents said, “Do it!” They emphasized the network­ ing and learning opportunities, and sug­ 536 College & Research Libraries November 1997 gested that residents need to be willing to explore all aspects of librarianship. One respondent suggested that, “You may find your niche is not what you ex­ pected.” Other advice included: “be re­ spectful and diplomatic”; “be flexible and open-minded”; “be prepared to be very self-motivated”; “be aware of organiza­ tional politics”; “make a site visit”; “talk to residents who have been in the pro­ gram to assess support for the program and placement assistance.” Conclusions The survey findings indicate that post­ master’s residency programs are valuable recruitment tools that provide positive ca­ reer development opportunities for new li­ brary professionals. Most former residents are extremely pleased with their experi­ ences and encourage others to take advan­ tage of these unique career development opportunities. Post-master’s residency pro­ grams provide opportunities for new graduates to gain substantial professional experience and accelerated training at the beginning of their careers which generally are not available in traditional entry-level positions. Although the study was incon­ clusive on how residency programs affect individual career patterns, most former resi­ dents feel their experiences were invaluable. Academic and research libraries ben­ efit from residency programs by having a continuous pool of talented, well-pre­ pared, new professionals. Given the highly specialized nature of positions in academic and research libraries, access to, and recruitment for, careers in these ar­ eas will always be difficult. Residency programs address both of these concerns, as well as attract minority librarians to careers in academic and research librar­ ies. However, recruiting minority stu­ dents to graduate library education pro­ grams needs to be a continuing priority for the library profession. And finally, residency programs may offer a new flexibility to large academic and research libraries. The availability of temporary, new professionals allows large organizations the opportunity to respond to quickly shifting priorities. Some librar­ ies use residency assignments as opportu­ nities to experiment with the design of new positions and services. In addition to be­ ing effective strategies for preparing new library professionals and recruiting underrepresented minorities, post­ master ’s residency programs address emerging human resource needs for flex­ ibility in rapidly changing organizations. The author expresses deep gratitude to former Associate Professor Barry Morstain, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, for his encourage­ ment, critical review of research design and analysis, and lifelong commitment to enhanc­ ing employment opportunities for all. Notes 1. Margo C. Trumpeter and Paul Gherman, “A Post-Master’s Degree Internship Program,” Library Journal 105 (June 1980): 1366–69. 2. These included Auburn University, Cleveland State University, Cornell University, Iowa State University, Library of Congress, Miami University (Ohio), National Library of Medicine, Ohio State University, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Stanford University, SUNY-Buffalo, Uni­ versity of California, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Colorado-Denver, University of Delaware, University of Illinois at Chicago, Uni­ versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri-Columbia, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Wright State University, Yale University, and various Conservation Administration programs supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 3. These include Auburn University, Cleveland State University, Cornell University, Iowa State University, Miami University (Ohio), Ohio State University, Smithsonian Institution Li­ braries, Stanford University, State University of New York-Buffalo, University of California, Uni­ Post-Master’s Residency Programs 537 versity of California-Berkeley, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Delaware, University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Wright State Uni­ versity, and Yale University. 4. “ACRL Charts New Direction,” College & Research Libraries News 56 (Sept. 1995): 571. 5. “Academic and Public Librarians: Data by Race, Ethnicity & Sex, 1991” (Chicago: ALA, 1991, photocopy), 3. 6. Janice Beaudin et al., “Recruiting the Under-Represented to Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries News 51 (Dec. 1990): 1024. 7. “Guidelines for Practices and Principles in the Design, Operation, and Evaluaton of Post­ Master ’s Residency Programs” (Association for Library and Informaton Science Education, 1992, photocopy). 8. For example, see Jon E. Cawthorne and Teri B. Weil, “Internships/Residencies: Exploring the Possibilities for the Future,” in In Our Own Voices: The Changing Face of Librarianship, ed. Teresa Y. Neely and Khafre K. Abif (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Pr., 1996): 45–71; Jose Diaz and Kristina Starkus, “Increasing Minority Representation in Academic Libraries: The Minority Li­ brarian Intern Program at the Ohio State University,” C&RL 55 (Jan. 1994): 41–46; Deborah Hollis, “On the Ambiguous Side: Experiences in a Predominantly White and Female Profession,” in In Our Own Voices: The Changing Face of Librarianship, ed. Teresa Y. Neely and Khafre K. Abif (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Pr., 1996): 139–54; Joseph A. Boissé and Connie V. Dowell, “Increasing Minority Librarians in Academic Research Libraries,” Library Journal 112 (Apr. 1987): 52–54; Sheila D. Creth, “The First Two Years’ Experience,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 121–24; Richard M. Doughery, “The Underlying Rationale,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 118–20; Betty Glass, “A Time of Tran­ sition,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 127–28; Sarah Shoemaker, “A Unique Experience,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 125–26; Molly Mahony, “Preparation for the Future,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 129–30; Richard M. Dougherty and Wendy P. Lougee, “Research Library Residen­ cies: A New Model of Professional Development,” Library Journal 108 (July 1983): 1322–24. 9. “Internship, Residency, and Fellowship Programs in ARL Libraries,” SPEC Kit #188 (Wash­ ington, D.C.: ARL, 1992).