DOCUILIff RESUME

ED 345 751 IR 054 097

AUTHOR Ladner, Sharyn J.; Tillman, Hope N. TITLE How Special Librarians Really Use the : Summary of Findings and Implications for the Library of the Future. PUB DATE 29 Nar 92 NOTE 12p.; "This report was posted on March 29, 1992, to nine computer conferences where call for participation announcements had been posted in the summer of 1991: BUSLIB-L, LIBREF-L, LIfflES, NEDLIB-L, PACS-L, LAW-LIB, LIBADMIN, MAPS-L, and PANnet." AVAILABLE FROM Internet, through anonymous (ftp), using the following location (hydra.uwo.ca), directory (LibSoft), and filename (SPEC underscore Libs.txt). PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE NF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Access to Information; *Computer Networks; Databases; *Electronic Rail; Electronic Publishing; Information Networks; *Librarians; Library Surveys; Online Searching; Online Systems; *Special Libraries; ; Teleconferencing; User Needs (Information); *Use Studies IDENTIFIERS BITNET; *INTERNET

ABSTRACT A five-page electronic questionnaire was sent to 113 special librarians who responded to "Call for Participation" announcements posted on nine computer conferences in July 1991 and a similar announcement in the August 1991 issue of the monthly newsletter of the Special Libraries Association. Fifty-four librarians completed the questionnaire, which sought information on the computer conferences to which they subscribed; the length of time they had been using either BITNET or the Internet; and the type of training they had had in using either of the two networks. In addition, the respondents were asked to rank five functions or capabilities available on either BITNET or Internet--electronic mail and computer forums, remote database searching, file transiur and data exchange, research and publication on the Internet--by extent of use. They were also asked to determine the importance and value of BITNET or Internet to their work and for special librarians in general. Analyses of the responses indicated that the respondents' median experience level on the Internet or BITNET was 24 months; 55% of the respondents had trained themselves on the Internet, while 59% had learned informally from a colleague; formal training ranging from a single one-hour class to more structured learning was available to 39% of the librarians; and an overwhelming majority of the special librarians in the study (93%) used the Internet for electronic mail. (NAB)

*********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *****************************a***************************************** HOW SPECIAL LIBRARIANSREALLY USE THE INTERNET:

=MARX OF FINDINGS ANDXNPLICATIONS FOR U S. DePaRTROVIT Or SOUCATIOW FUTURE1 Office ot Educabonei Research and Improvement THE LIBRARY oit TEE MUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERICI P121( 7 This documem etas been reproduced es to received trOn't tee person or orgorniebOn bYortgleafirvItchanges neve been made ro if-prove reproduction tummy

Librarian Po.niaof10te* or Dom ons stated m tarsi:lacy Sharyn J. Ladner, Business meet do not necessamv represem offloal CIO University of Miami (FL)Richter Library OEAIposthon or ochry (SIADNERenaianliIR.Niami.EDU) (SLADNEROUNIAICE.bitnet)

C:Z and

Hope M. Tillman,Director of Libraries Babson College (TILLNANOBABSON.bitnet)

In the Summer of 1991 weasked special librarianswith access to BITNET andInternet to tell us howthey use these networks and what valuethey receive from this use. We hope that our findingswill serve as a basis forfuture research in the use of electroniccommunications technology by information professionalswithin the modernorganization, including the effects ofthese technologies on therole and position of the informationprofessional within the organization. RATIONALE While there has been averitable explosion ofarticles in recent years onlibraries and the Internet,there is a singular lack of publishedresearch on how the Internetis actually used bylibrarians. Articles on the Internet typically discuss policyissues, describe networkservices and guides, or discuss usersupport and promotion. Most address in some way theidea that Internet (orBITNET, or NREN) connectivity isthe key to thelibrary of the future, but none examine actual useother than as casestudies or histories. This research, then, departsfrom the current body of Internetliterature by addressingthese questions:

1This report was posted on March29, 1992, to nine computer conferep=eswhere "call forparticipation" announcements had beenposted in the Summerof 1991. These conferences are BUSLIB-L,LIBREF-L, LIBRES, MEDLIB-L,PACS- L, LAW-LIB, LIBADMIN,MAPS-L, and PAMnet. -PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL. HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 1 Sharlin J. Ladner

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES BEST COPY AAMU INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)," How is the Internet actually being usedby practicing librarians today?Are the network services andefficiencies touted in the literature being used liketheir designers intended? Special librarians are a unique group tostudy because they have a knowledge base in more than onediscipline. Special librarians are, for the most part, not onlyinformation professionals holding advanced degrees inlibrary or information science, they are also specialistsin one or more subject areas, oftenwith postgraduate training in science, business or law. In addition, many special librarians in science or technology fields workclosely with researchers who have been using Internet precursorssuch as ARPANET, NSFNET and MILNET for years. Special librarians, whether managers of industriallibraries or academic subject specialists, are more often in publicservices positions, and they may use the Internetdifferently from technical services or systems librarians. The lack of research on special librarians' use of interactivecommunications technology leads us to ask the followingquestions: Do special librarians differ from other typesof librarians in their use of the Internet?How do they interact with their users who may already beusing these inter-connected networks for their own researchactivities? How does their use of the Internet compareto their use of internal e-mail systems within their ownorganizations? In this report, we havelimited our discussion to Internet use and training andimplications of this use for the library of the future. For the sake of brevity, we have included only a cursory description of ourmethodology.

PROCEDE/RS AW PARTICIPMITS Participants were solicited through "Call forParticipation" announcements posted on nine computerconferences in July, 1991, and through a similar announcementin the Amgust issue of the SpeciaList, the monthlynewsletter of the Special Libraries Association. We sent a five-page electronic questionnaire to the 113 librarians whoresponded to this initial announcement; the 54 speciallibrarians who responded to this second survey arethe focus of our study. Our respondents wereself-selected; we made no attempt at probability sampling because our purpose was tofind out the ways in which speciallibrarians use the Internet, not their extent of use. On the "Call for Participation"announcement we included a brief questionnaire which potentialrespondents were asked to return, either electronically,via or regular mail. Here we asked respondents tolist the computer conferences

2 to which theysubscribed; the length of timethey had been using either BITNET or theInternet; and to "Briefly describe (in a paragraph orless) your use (and/or your patrons' use) of BITNET orthe Internet."On the five-page questionnaire we asked a seriesof structured questions to find out how and for what purposesour respondentsused BITNET or Internet, so that wecould flesh out the information we had alreadyreceived through thepreliminary survey. We asked them, forexample, to rank fivefunctions or capabilitiesavailable on BITNET or Internetby extent of use and todescribe how they used thesefunctions. We also included a seriesof questions abouttraining and costs involved in accessing thesesystems.

To determine theimportance and value of BITNET orInternet to their work andfor special librariansin general, we asked a series ofunstructured open-endedquestions at the end of the survey form. We asked respondentsto describe, based on their experience,"the major advantage or opportunity for speciallibrarians in using BITNET/Internet"; "the majordisadvantage or barrier for special librarians in usingBITNET/Internet"; their "most interesting or memorableexperience on BITNET orInternet"; and finally, we askedthem for "any other comments[they'd] like to make about the useof BITNET or Internet byspecial librarians." Sixty-five percent of ourrespondents are academic librarians and 59% are inlibraries with a subject emphasis in science or technology. Other subjects represented are law, medicine, maps andbusiness. All five respondents from for-profit corporations arein the computar industry. Our participants represent awide range of administrative levels: 34% are in management(library directors, assistant directors or branch ordepartment heads) and 55% aresubject ranging in size from specialists. They work in libraries the single personlibrary to larger academiclibraries with several hundred employees. Librarians from the most technologically advancedinstitutions to smallercolleges and universities outsidethe urban, technologicalmainstream are representedin our study. Although 93% of our respondents are locatedin the , wealso have participants from Canada,Argentina and The Netherlands. EXPRRISNCE, TRAINING ANDCOST Respondents' median experiencelevel on the Internet(or BITNET) is 24 months: 16 respondents have usedthese networks for 12 months orless; 19 reported 13 to36 months experience; and an additional19 have accessed theInternet for more than three years. Respondents' use of Internet or BITNET is heavier thantheir use of e-mailwithin their own

3 organization: 59% spend between two andfive hours each week in Internet-relatedactivity, whereas only 33% spend this amount of time on theirinternal e-mail systems (z = 2.81, p < .01). Seven respondents have neverused electronic mail within their parentorganization.

We asked surveyrespondents whether thelibrary/department or the parentorganization paid for access tothe Internet, and how this compared tothe expense for internale-mail. Most respondents had thecost of both internal andexternal e-mail paid for by their parentorganizations. Slightly more librarieshad to pay for access tointernal e-mail from their departmental budgets thanfor , but this difference was notsignificant. Approximately 20% of the respondents did notknow who paid for eitherinternal or external e-mail.

As might be expecte.,the longer someone has searchedthe Internet, the more they wereresponsible for their own instruction. We asked respondentsto check as many of the types of training they hadreceived as applicable. 65%of the respondents taughtthemselves. 59% learnedinformally from a colleague. Formaltraining from a single one-hour class to more structuredlearning was available to 39%.The fact that none of themlearned in library schoolcould easily be a function ofwhen the respondents attended library school, but we did notask that question. Two other categories were cited by severalrespondents: learning by asking questions on the Internetitself and use of documentation provided by thelocal computer center operation. Descriptive responsesshowed some respondents learning with a minimum ofhand holding; these did not see the need for instructionoffered by their local computer centers. In answer to ourquestion of what trainingshould be provided for new users and whoshould provide the training/ respondents identified veryspecific knowledge that should be imparted in thetraining. The need for coverage ofboth theory and basic trainingtechniques were frequently mentioned. Training should coverboth history and philosophy of the Internet alongwith wnat it is, what's outthere, and how it works. Usefultraining sessions wouldinclude training in FTP telnet,mail, Netnews, addressing algorithms, proper etiquette,security rules to safeguard computers/data, how to connect tothe Internet, how to keep up with Internetdevelopments and changing resources,how to manage the flowof information, and howthis differs from the other (for pay)online services. A second areaof training addressed librarians?needs: how the Net can be helpful to librarians,its potential for libraries,how to identify information nodes tolocate and access forums and

4

5 publishers of relevance to one'sinterests, how to make the best use of increasedconnectivity to streamline library procedures, and how to persuadeimportant vendors to provide e-mail access or EDI.

While a few respondents questionedthe need for anv instruction, most respondents assignedresponsibility for training to multiple bases: parentorganizations (by both libraries and computer centers),professional associations and library schools.Instructional tools cited wereprint documentation, video, and demodisks. There was a recurrent theme of the need for easy-to-usepackaged information. ROW TES INTERNET IS USED

We organized responses to theopen-ended question, "Briefly describe your use of BITNET orthe Internet," into six umbrella categories: work-related communication and electronic mail, computer conferencesand electronic journals, remote database searching,file transfer and data exchange, research andpublication, and personal communication and leisure activities. Table 1 shows the percent of use by category: Table I

USE OF BITNET/INTERNET BYSPECIAL LIBRARIANS

Use* Percent

Work-related communication,e-mail 93% Electronic forums, BBS,listservs 61%

Searching remote databases(telnet) 39%

File transfer (FTP), dataexchange 37%

Research and publication 22%

Personal communication,leisure activities 11% *Multiple responses possible; percentsdo not total 100.

Except for file transferactivities, there are no differences in use of theseInternet functions by typeof library (academic vs. othertypes), subject emphasis(sci- tech vs. other subjects), orexperience level (length of time on the Internet).

5 Zlectronic mail and computerforums:

The findings displayed inTable 1 are striking and unequivocal: the? principal use of the Internetby the special librarians in our studyis for electronic mail. The most common reason ourrespondents use the Internet is to communicate with colleagues andfriends, and the value of this activity was stressed over and overagain. Many respondents reported that access tothe Internet reduces geographical distance and feelingsof isolation from colleagues and instills a sense ofcollegiality and connectedness with other libraryprofessionals. Others mentioned the speed ofcommunication -- saving time, reducing tag, eliminatingphone calls. Other reasons for use ofe-mail on the Internet mentioned by respondents include gettingquick copyright permission, providing and receiving electronicreference and technical assistance, requesting andproviding ILLs, requesting library materials, missingissues, duplicate exchanges, identifying document sources,submitting applications for employment, and facilitatingprofessional association business and committee work. Special librarians are activeparticipants in computer discussion groups. They do not limit themselves tolibrary- related lists but monitor andjoin relevant sci-tech and business discussions as well: our 54 respondentsbelong to 68 different computerdiscussion groups. Respondents mentioned the following benefits:(1) a focussed forum for topics of interest to a specificaudience;(2) an excellent and swift communicationsvehicle where questi.ons can be raised and answers provided to allthe participants, rumors can be defused,and reasons for actions canbe explained once and transmittedeasily to the entire audience; and(3) reduced costsbecause it costs the same to send a message to one person asto send it to a large group.

Remote databas searching: Thirty-nine percent of our respondentsreported that they access remote computersystems on the Internet. Of these, 80% mentioned that they searchother library catalogs. They search OPACs for a variety oftraditional task-related reasons: to check availability status oridentify ownership before requesting aninterlibrary loan, for collection development and acquisitionswork, and for reference. Others mentioned that theysearch remote catalogs evaluatively, to test other searchinterfaces or to see what other libraries are doingwith their automated systems.

Several respondents madereference to specific library systems with expandedsearch capabilities beyond accessto

6 the library's OPAC, such as theUniversity of California's MELVYL and the Colorado Alliance ofResearch Libraries CARL system. Others mentioned that they use the Internetto access non-librarybibliographic services such as RLIN, OCLC's EPIC, Medline, and Dialog. Substantially fewer special librarians search non- bibliographic databases on the Internetcompared to library catalogs and other bibliographic systems. Astronomy librarians are more involved in their useof the Internet for non-bibliographic informationthan librarians in other disciplines, which is no doubt due tothe vital role that the Internet plays in the astronomyresearch community. File transfr and data exchange: Thirty-seven percent of our respondents usethe Internet to transfer files, about the sameproportion that log into remote databases. Unlike electronic mail and remote database searching, there aredifferences in the use of file transfer utilities by network experiencelevel: 50% of the experienced users (defined as respondentswho have used BITNET or Internet for more than twoyears) send or retrieve files over the Internet, compared tocnly 25% of their less experienced colleagues (z = -1.96, p =.05). More sci-tech librarians also use file transferutilities than do special librarians in other disciplines, butthese differences are not significant (z = 1.32). Like remote databases, respondents forthe most part consider file transfer functionssecondary to their use of electronic mail. They often discuss file transferwith remote login, indicating thatthere may be a conceptual blurring of these two Internetfunctions. Special librarians on the Internet use FTP toobtain files resident on remote systems;others request files through BITNET listservs. For example, several reportedthat they download computer-related information from remote servers,such as the WAIS application fromThinking Machines, listserv- specific reports such as PACS-LReview articles, computer science technical reports, andshareware. Many retrieve Internet guides such as the Barronand St. George directories, Kovacs' directory of computerforums, and Strangelovefs directory of E-journals. Several retrieve regulatory reports and governmentdocuments, technical reports, or receive alertservices from Dialog, SRI documents, and newsletters. Special librarians also sendfiles on the Internet backbone. Examples include search results toremote users, acquisitions lists, and ProjectGutenberg files. Astronomy librarians, again, are particularlyactive in file transfer

7 activities. Research andpublication onthe tnternet: Twenty-two percent of our respondentsdescribed uses of the Internet related to research andpublication. Our respondents use the Internet in two ways: as researchers collaborating with colleagues at otherinstitutions and connecting with journal editors andbook publishers, and as editors of newsletters orjournals who are themselves responsible for communicating withcontributcrs. Their experiences demonstrate how the Internetenhances the dissemination of information to membersof the library science community, by providing access topeople through electronic mail and access toelectronic information through file transfer and remote login.

The value of communication: We asked study participants todescribe, based on their own experience, the "major advantage oropportunity" for special librarians in using the Internet. All 50 respondents who replied to this question mentioned someaspect of electronic communication in their responses. In other words, these special librarians who themselves areactive Internet users consider electronic mail to be themajor reason why special librarians should use the Internet,because it provides a convenient, timely, nondisruptive,and inexpensive mechanism for communication with theircolleagues throughout the world. Over and over respondentsmentioned the same things: "Truly breaks down the walls (physical,psychological, economic) to communication," "Contact with otherspecial librarians in your area withouthaving to travel...," "Ease of communication when you wantit," "...communication of ideas and discussions will takeplace via e-mail that will never see the lightelsewhere...," "To communicate withcolleagues on topics ofmutual interest," "...a way ofsharing in real-time, information &experience...," "The ability to share information withcolleagues throughout the worldin a timely fashion," "Instantaneousworld-wide communication with colleagues forinformation-gathering and idea-sharing," ...forming a greater librarycommunity based on interest rather than on geography...,""...forging new and unique work relationships withcolleagues ... geographicallyclose or far...,""...rapid communication withcolleagues who can provide a wealth of experience...,""The ability to communicate with others insimilar situations...," "To interact all over US and world --time differences are eliminated and your colleagueis always 'home',"

8

9 "...communication and sharing withcolleagues on both specific problems/questions and generalissues...." DIRLICATIONS OF OUR FINDINGS The use of the Internetfor communication by thespecial libraiians in our study parallels whathappened with early users of ARPANET. ARPANET was established by theDepartment of Defense as a way for computerscientists and other researchers with defense contractsto share expensive resources. Electronic mail was added as anafterthought, and was considered by some ofthe DOD systems people to be unnecessary --peripheral to the research functionsfor which the network was designed. Contrary to expectations, however, electronic mail becamethe most popular feature of the network because itprovided a way for researchers to talk to each other -- toexchange ideas and discuss problems. Like the computer scientists andother early users of ARPANET,the librarians in our study also usethe Internet to talk to each otherand to their patrons -- fielding inquiries, finding answers,identifying resources, solving problems, i.e., they usethe Internet primarily for communicating, not for building or evenaccessing collections. In one respect,librarians who use the Internet are no different from any other user group --they use it to communicate with each other aswell as to obtain "hard data" (i.e., tap into resources). But librarians can dosomething else as well as a result oftheir training and knowledge of information processes andinformation organization -- they can go beyondusing the Internet as a resource and usetheir skills to help make it lesschaotic.

To understand why theelectronic mail function is so important, it may help toconceptualize the Internet as a giant parallel processing computer. People use the Internet to communicate -- totalk to each other, posequestions and provide answers. Information between and amongpeople flows in parallel, in realtime. But this is not the only use: there is something elsegoing on here, in that resources are available too, also in parallel. Published articles about the Internet emphasizethese resources (library catalogs, remote databases full ofesoteric data) and the physical strands (optical fibers andsatellites) that tie it all together. These strands, however, arenot just the physical connections -- these strands arealso the human connections, the communicationsbetween individuals and among groupsof people. People are still the mostefficient parallel processing information filtersthere are. The important thing is that youdon't have to talk to one person at a time. People place requests forinformation across a universe ofpotential responders, instead of dealing with one responder at atime. As in computer processing, this is a vastly moreefficient way of processing information. Potential responders screen the requests for information to seeif they are applicable to their interests or their abilities torespond. Thus people who normally would not beconsidered in the loop to solve a particular problem find themselvesin the position of providing valuable information toeach other. The emerging global community created by thesesystems is more democratic and less hierarchical thanconventional systems. The people who communicate onthe Internet provide meaning and understanding -- they create asynergy that's not possible with human-machinelinkages alone. It's the human- human linkages that areimportant because this technology- enhanced interaction is whatwill have the biggest impact on ourorganizations of the future. Because it's people that ask questions and peoplethat answer questions and people that discuss issues --and it's people that develop files ready to be retrieved fromcentral depositories, and not just centraldepositories, but locations that canexist anywhere -- it doesn't matterif the data you need is located centrally in the bowelsof the National Library of Medicine or exists on the VAXin Podunk U -- the interconnectedness of the Internet makeslocation irrelevant. In the same way, it doesn'tmatter if you are a special librarian locatedin a university on themainland and need to talk to an astronomeron a mountaintopin Oahu -- you cando this practicallyinstantaneously via the Internet. Further, it doesn't matter ifthat astronomer is in the middle of complicatedcalculations or on a to The Netherlands,she will get your message ather convenience, without her thought processesbeing interrupted. Electronic mail on the Internetprovides a mechanism for community. To create AI navigators,online directories, and other electronic guides tothe network without human interaction removes communityfrom scholarship. The " scholar's workstation" has been proposed asthe ideal toward which we shouldstrive. But perhaps we ought to rethink this "ideal": in an isolated, machine-basednetwork of information sources,do we run the risk thatknowledge will be created inisolation?Will scholars toil at their computer workstations,tapping into vast and varied databases of information,guided by artificialintelligence front-end gateways to the nextbit (or byte) of data, thereby eliminatingcommunication with othrs in their :_ntellectual pursuit?

10

IAA The participants in our study tell ussomething that we may have forgotten in our infatuation withthe new forms of information made available through the Internet. And that is their need for community. To be sure, our respondents use the Internet toobtain information not available in any other format, to access databases and OPACsthat provide new efficiencies in their work, new ways ofworking. But their primary use is for communication. Special librarians tend to be isolated in the workplace --the only one in their subject specialty (in the case of academe), orthe only librarian in their organization (in the case of acorporate library). Time and time again our respondents expressed this need to talk to someone -- to learnwhat is going on in their profession, to bounce ideas offothers, to obtain information from people, not machines.

There are tremendous implications from theInternet technology in community formation -- theInternet may indeed provide a way to increase community amongscholars, including librarians. The danger we face at this juncture in time, as we attach library resources tothe Internet, is to focus all of our energies onthe machine-based resources at the expense of our human-based resources,i.e., ourselves. Do we really want solely to create an objective, distant, remote, value-free"knowbot" to direct users to library-resident,machine-readable resources residing on the Internet?We see the need at the same time to create a human interface -- acommunity of knowledge navigators serving to connect people who caninteract in their pursuit of truth. *** end ***

Comments and reactions to this report aresolicited. This report may bo reproduced in whole orpart by non-profit and educational groups on fileservers, BBSs,conferencing systems, or in newsletters andcompilations, with proper acknowledgement. Please address all correspondence to: Sharyn Ladner University of Miami Richter Library P.O. Box 248214 Coral Gables, FL 33124-0311 Phone: 305/284-4067 Fax: 305/665-7352 Internet: [email protected]

This report is available via anonymousftp from hydra.uwo.ca, directory LibSoft,filename SPEC_LIBS.TXT.

11