« Now we have four habits? | Main | Using Twitter to Pull In Web Traffic »
May 23, 2007
California State Library is brewing rather big changes to reference
About a month ago, the California State Library released a report of findings regarding the future of statewide reference models. There is a Background document that is probably good to read as well. From the way I’m reading this, it sounds like over the next few years the State Library is looking at “repurposing” (read: cutting) CLSA funds (California Library Services Act). CLSA pays for transaction-based-reimbursement (paying for relatively local ILLs), second level reference services, and more. It's not clear exactly what would be cut, but something has to give. The money would instead be spent on a QuestionPoint-based system that will act as a portal for e-mail, fax, telephone, web-based chat, and instant messaging reference services.
As someone who was consulted on this project (but who wasn't cool enough to make it onto the Acknowledgments list of participants), I was a little surprised at the results. Not only did they completely disregard the state's libraries desire for statewide databases, but they named the software they're planning to use (without sending out an RFP or anything) and QuestionPoint doesn't even have all of the capabilities that they are talking about using. It's all very confusing.
What's even scarier to me as someone who is relatively involved in California library politics is that there hasn't been any real discussion about this topic whatsoever in the California Library community. No discussion from the California Library Association, or on the statewide listserv, Calix. Does no one care? Or did no one read the report? Does no one know it's even there? I don't know. I do know that it's a big deal...a very big deal. And it seems like the state's librarians know nothing of it (or don't care). I'm willing to be it's the former.
I don't mean to be a stinker on this issue, but I really am surprised by the complacency and lack of discussion about this important report. Does anyone know any more about this that they're willing to share? Am I totally wrong about how I'm reading the report? Has there been discussion with California's library leaders?
May 23, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e55065301d8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California State Library is brewing rather big changes to reference:
Comments
*Speaking Only for Himself*
I am wading through the documents now, later than Sarah, but glad to see the discussion here. Now that the State Librarian on June 19th launched her report, "A Statewide Reference Model," maybe the discussions will move into a deeper realm, and get some attention. We are very far behind other states, and we don't even seem to be considering the most important missing part: statewide access for citizens to the databases, in a coordinated, marketed, and accessible manner. This is the Web 2.0 component that's missing in the plans and documents I've seen; we have to move the resources closer to the citizens and patrons, so they can be empowered in this Information Age to find and access more information "on their own." We can facilitate and aid with more complex reference queries, but many users now can do this on their own, IF we can provide them access to statewide database resources. This would be my highest recommended priority, over selecting and implementing a "newer" AskNow or California version of QuestionPoint. Thanks for the chance to speak up a bit on this, Sarah.
Best,
DrWeb
Posted by: DrWeb | June25, 2007
Gwen: I think it's great that your library is participating as much as it is, and involving staff as well. That is not the case with the bulk of California's libraries. Perhaps that points to the problem in the system: maybe the State Library assumes that library directors are taking things back to their staff when they are not. Or maybe the State Library needs to eliminate the top-down-only method of communicating with its libraries' staff, and find another way to disseminate information in a way that works for most people. At any rate, what's happening now isn't working for the bulk of us.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May28, 2007
Thank you Ronna. I too am surprised by the lack of response re: AskNow's lack of a coordinator. For a state our size, it is a shame that we can't manage to fund that program more. It is floundering because there is no training for the staff, no coordination, no publicity, and OCLC Staff are picking up as much slack as they can, when it's not really their job to do so. It's shameful.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May28, 2007
Our library participated in both phases of the State Library's study: the focus groups in 2005, and the teleconference in 2006. During the teleconference we explored in more depth several areas of library services, setting forth our vision and goals for each. We then took turns sharing them with the other regional library systems participating in the teleconference. As a whole, I have found both phases of the process inspiring and invigorating.
We have attempted to keep our other staff members (in 16 branches) informed: The summaries of the original series of focus groups were received in April of 2006 and were circulated among our branches. We have just received the "California Statewide Reference: A Design Proposal" summary report by Ruth Merz Associates, and our system director has asked to meet with a group of us about it. Following this meeting I expect that we will submit questions and comments.
I urge everyone to send their questions and feedback to the State Library, as it has been our experience that our input so far has been well-received and considered. Also, I agree that state-wide funded and supported online research/reference databases is a goal worth pursuing vigorously, perhaps using the models of New York, Hawaii, and Michigan.
Our library system has found InfoPeople.org an important training resource. A group of us recently viewed "Moving Libraries Forward to Web 2.0", and we do encourage our professional and paraprofessional staff to explore as many of the Web 2.0 features and applications as possible. As mentioned, Web 2.0 is "old" already, but most of us are so busy we find it a struggle to keep up with our in-house database feature-upgrades, let alone to surf the Internet's cutting edge masterfully.
What we can do, we do, even if we are paddling behind the rest of you. Most of the time I feel like I am in a constant state of "catch up."
Regards,
Gwen Kraft
Head Reference Librarian
San Luis Obispo City/County Library
Posted by: Gwen Kraft | May26, 2007
Thank you for posting this, Sarah. It does indeed seem that California library systems passively wait to hear what the State Library will dictate in terms of reference service funding and models. When the State Library withdrew funding for a statewide coordinator of AskNow, there was little more than a quiet gasp of surprise. Since that time we've been struggling as the only statewide live online reference service without statewide coordination. Several library system managers have chosen to drop out of providing the AskNow service rather than challenge the State Library on this decision. I, for one, am as confused as you are by all this.
Posted by: RCN | May26, 2007
Thank you Rosario for the information. The links in my post do lead to the State Library's website's resources from the consultant. I agree that the current system is out of date. I am flabbergasted that such movement has waited so long to occur. The report surprised me in its statements that A) flexibility and quick change are essential and 2) that moving to a Web 2.0 model for California's libraries will take another 3-4 years. Movement is good, but come on...Web 2.0 is 3 years old already. In another 3-4 years, the world will be at Web 3.0 or whatever the next incarnation is. I am glad to hear that something is brewing in Southern California. If all of the library systems have to independently get together and rise up in revolt, without any solicitation or coordination, then something in the process went seriously wrong. What surprises me is that there hasn't been any discussion on Calix, no discussion in libraries, and that librarians in general in the state are unaware of this proposal. I contacted 12 different California librarians, some directors, all across the state and not a single one had read the report or was aware of its contents. There seems to be a definite communication gap here, not only in discussion, but simply getting the word out about the document. I subscribe to Calix, which is how I eventually found the links (my listserv folders in my mailbox get rather full sometimes). But if one message was all there was, and I don't think that message even fully announced the import of this report, then something is wrong. The communication about this report needs to be more thorough and deep. I agree that we in the libraries need to do more to discuss the proposal and give our feedback. But it doesn't seem that that feedback is being solicited, much less encouraged.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May23, 2007
LiB:
I don't think there is complacency among the California library community. There were several library directors and system directors present at the Lib. of California Board meeting on April 18th when the consultant made her presentation. And there were a LOT of comments made by them concerning the proposed model.
Here in the Los Angeles/Orange counties area, we are going to be having a tri-system meeting (Metropolitan Cooperative Library System, Santiago Library System and South State Cooperative Library System)to which all the member library directors have been invited to discuss the proposed model. We have invited the California State Librarian to attend to listen to our concerns and to discuss in more detail what the plans are.
The proposed model is still evolving. Because of that, if we (the library community) want to see it evolve a certain way, then we need to speak up and contribute. The old model that is still being used today of doing second level reference is out of date. We need to move on.
People should know the consultant's presentation and her background paper are available on the State Library's website. Their availability was announced on CALIX.
Posted by: Rosario Garza | May23, 2007
