Bucking the Trend
Elizabeth H. Davis
ABSTRACT.Whether an Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery depart-ment requires a masters of library and information science (MLIS) degreed professional to supervise operations is more of a never-ending debate than a simple question. Current trends, such as automated Inter-library Loan management systems, unmediated patron requesting of materials, Google and electronic resource licensing agreements create a complex technological environment. This article discusses the advan-tages and the beneficial results produced when a degreed professional is added to an interlibrary loan/document delivery department.doi:10.1300/ J474v17n04_05[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-ment Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@ haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS.Interlibrary loan, library degrees, document delivery
WHEN WILL IT EVER END?
Library professionals regularly feel the need to debate whether an MLIS-degree is truly needed to do any and/or all aspects of library work.
Elizabeth H. Davis is Interlibrary Loan Librarian, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 600 South Clyde Morris Boulevard, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (E-mail: Elizabeth.Davis@erau.edu).
Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve Vol. 17(4) 2007
Available online at http://jildd.haworthpress.com © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Library Hotline recently reported the heated debate between ALA’s Mi-chael Gorman and PLA’s Daniel Walters at a PLA conference session: “Is the MLS needed for a Career in Public Librarianship?” (Library Hot-line, 2). It is the same debate that library workers have been having for years-especially in Interlibrary Loan.
In 1995, a battle broke out on the Interlibrary Loan listserv (ILL-L) as to the necessity of having a librarian in an Interlibrary Loan department. Both W. C. Divens and Lorin Hawley, in articles addressing the de-bate, suggest that it is not necessary. Divens comments, “the duties in-volved are well within the realm of a paraprofessional and may be handled by a paraprofessional if economics are considered” (Divens, 88). Ten years later, Leslie Morris proposed that Interlibrary Loan depart-ments might lower costs by examining their staffing practices. Morris ex-plains that library staff makes up “80% of total Interlibrary Loan costs” (Morris, 1). Although these labor costs can have negative affects on the department’s unit costs, he never states in his editorial that it would be best for a department not to hire a librarian.
It is not surprising that this debate lingers since recent technolog-ical advances have made Interlibrary Loan processes faster and less labor intensive. Using unmediated requests, patrons are even find-ing and requestfind-ing their own materials. Historically requests required a trained interlibrary loan/document delivery professional. In Preece and Kilpatrick’s article “Cutting out the Middleman: Patron-Initiated Inter-library Loans,” they note that this practice “has resulted in an operation that requires less professional staff time, but results in better service” (Preece and Kilpatrick, 151). It would seem that the only duties left in an Interlibrary Loan department are clerical.
So, why would any library buck the trend and hire a MLIS-degreed librarian to manage an Interlibrary Loan department? If popular percep-tions prevail, not only would the institution’s unit costs double, but Interlibrary Loan Librarian would also be reduced to nothing more than a shipping clerk. Yet, at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Hunt Library, the library changed its previous model of having two techni-cians and a part-time supervisory librarian, to one in which a full-time Interlibrary Loan Librarian was hired to lead the two technicians. In-serting librarians into Interlibrary Loan is typical.
The primary difference between today’s debate and the discussions that took place ten years ago is that Interlibrary Loan has changed dramatically. Interlibrary loan is no longer a peripheral department whose main purpose is to supplement local collections. As Hilyer states, “During the mid-to late 1990s, the perception of Interlibrary Loan as a
‘filler’ measure began to change, as libraries accepted that their collec-tion would not always be able to provide all of the materials necessary to meet their patrons’ growing information need” (Hilyer, 2). Today, as patrons clamor for instant access to information resources, Interlibrary Loan is the department best situated to deliver access. Interlibrary loan departments have been practicing document delivery for decades, and with computer-based Interlibrary Loan management systems, the prac-tice is becoming faster and easier.
Ironically, some of the trends that are making operations easier are, at the same time, creating more challenges. The Internet, and more spe-cifically Google, is emerging as popular sources for verifying citations. Borrowing requests that seemed impossible to verify in the past are no longer “unfilled” or classified as “stumpers.” More importantly, Interli-brary Loan specialists are not the only users who have discovered Google and its vast river of information. Library patrons are also mining the Internet for materials. They are using gray literature, finding ob-scure citations, and then submitting Interlibrary Loan borrowing re-quests. Researchers believe that if something is cited on the Internet, it must be available somewhere. Interlibrary loan staff spends consider-able time searching for these stumpers only to discover that the reports were never commercially published.
Another trend that leads some to question the necessity of a librarian within an Interlibrary Loan department concerns the technological ad-vances are sweeping Interlibrary Loan departments, changing the na-ture of the work, and the volume of transactions to manage. Processes that were once labor intensive and time consuming are now easier with document delivery software and management systems. Unmediated questing has become more popular. According to Mary E. Jackson’s re-cent study, “User-initiated interlibrary loan/document delivery services for loans and copies are generally, faster, more cost-effective, and pro-vide higher fill rates than mediated interlibrary loan/document delivery services” (Jackson, 98).
ILLiad is a prime example of the emerging technologies that are au-tomating Interlibrary Loan processes. It is relevant to note that it was a librarian who first saw the need for ILLiad. Harry Kriz explains, “In 1996, Dean Eileen Hitchingham at Virginia Tech decided that ‘interli-brary loan was going to become more important.’ Therefore, she pulled it out of the reference department, made it an independent department and put me in charge. I decided to something about ‘all this paper’ and we invented ILLiad.”
While automation and Google appear to make things easier for Inter-library Loan departments, there are trends that complicate practices. The rising costs of serials have forced libraries to opt for access in the form of electronic subscriptions in order to fulfill patrons’ needs. Un-fortunately, publishers have taken this opportunity to attach licensing agreements that restrict Interlibrary Loan lending. Interlibrary loan staff today are asked to be experts on copyright law (itself subject to much confusion and interpretation), but also to be knowledgeable enough to interpret contracts and lobby appropriate parties to negotiate licensing agreements that are favorable to interlibrary loan.
As Interlibrary Loan departments embrace these trends and make changes to workflow, institutions are starting to examine what makes an Interlibrary Loan department successful. Unfortunately, there is no exact formula to gauge staffing because conditions vary from library to library. The data needed to measure performance are hard to inter-pret. Mary Jackson’s recent study has conflicting results as to whether a professional is helpful or not. Libraries with high borrowing fill rates employed “nearly double the number professional supervisor FTEs than do all ARL participants, but have fewer professionals in the de-partment than the average.” Libraries with very high lending fill rates employ the opposite: “About half the supervisory staff than average” (Jackson, 101).
When surveying the members of the Interlibrary Loan community, we found that a significant number of respondents did not feel that em-ploying a degreed professional was necessary.
A prime example of a nonlibrarian who is making big strides within Interlibrary Loan is Trish Palluck, Library Journal’s Paraprofessional of the Year for 2005. As the Resource Sharing Specialist at Wyoming State Library, she was “instrumental in persuading Wyoming library directors that the state needed software to allow unmediated, auto-authorized, patron-initiated Interlibrary Loan requests” (Berry, 40).
Other examples of successful Interlibrary Loan departments became apparent when polling the Interlibrary Loan listserv: “A bright, well-trained paraprofessional could do as well in most cases.” One respon-dent wrote that in her institution, reference librarians were apt to give up on Interlibrary Loan stumpers that she (a paraprofessional) was able to find. Some are even consulted by librarians: “I spend so much time veri-fying and/or fixing citations that often times our subject specialists will come to me for assistance in these areas.”
If there were one factor that can contribute to an Interlibrary Loan de-partment’s success, it would be education, which is at the center of the
degree or no-degree debate. Simpson in her article “Creating an Ideal Interlibrary Loan Operation” states, “It is important for Interlibrary Loan staff members, especially supervisors, to attend Interlibrary Loan training workshops . . . ” She points out that “ILL staff members are of-ten provided with minimal training as they enter their positions, learn-ing their skills mostly on-the-job” (Simpson, 51). Considerlearn-ing the fact that library school does not directly address resource sharing within their curriculum, both professionals and paraprofessionals need some measure of on-the-job training when they are hired by an Interlibrary Loan department.
Three components affect on-the-job learning, particularly when non-degreed employees are hired. One is environment. Is the library willing to create an environment where learning and advancement is encour-aged? Second is the individual. If someone is willing to devote suf-ficient time and energy to self-education, they can eventually become proficient in searching, copyright and the various topics that affect in-terlibrary loan. The last factor relies on the predecessor or the trainer of that individual. Although not every new hire gets the opportunity to work with their predecessor, the legacy left to the new hire makes a dif-ference. The depth of training will inevitably make a lasting impression on someone in Interlibrary Loan. One Interlibrary Loan staff member, who did not have a library degree and did not feel that a degree was es-sential, explained that she “had a very good teacher who was our head librarian and she had her MLS.” If there is little training given to a new hire, that individual, no matter what their background is, will have a bigger hill to climb.
If any of these three factors is lacking, then it can affect an Interli-brary Loan department’s success in finding stumpers, decreasing unfilled requests, decreasing turnaround times and realizing cost-efficiencies. Although there are examples of paraprofessional success stories, there are also cases that illustrate how some Interlibrary Loan departments are lacking in vital skills. As one Interlibrary Loan listserv poster de-scribes, “[in all] the years she’d worked here, she had never learned to search on any other database but OCLC and hadn’t learned advanced searching.”
Librarians with MLIS degrees do not have it much easier. On-the-job training is still required for librarians working in Interlibrary Loan since there are no Interlibrary Loan courses within the library school curricu-lum. In surveying a sample of library schools, out of 15 course descrip-tion Web pages visited, only one course, “Collecdescrip-tion Development” even mentions resource sharing. Despite this, there are some courses
that could benefit Interlibrary Loan specialists, if they opted to pursue their degrees, such as, “Online Information Retrieval,” “Information Sources and Services,” “Research Methods,” and “Managing Libraries and Information Systems and Services in Changing Environments.”
Since stumpers and citation verification take up a large portion of an Interlibrary Loan employee’s work, having a background in searching skills is invaluable. In Thomas Schaffer’s article “Career Paths of Inter-library Loan Heads,” he listed the most important qualifications Interli-brary Loan heads should have. Included in the top five responses were “bibliography skills” and “OCLC searching skills” (Schaffer, 74). In-stead of learning these skills on the job, which takes time and depends on the institution’s investment in the person and the position, an In-terlibrary Loan Librarian already has the advantage of having already studied and learned these skills in library school. In one example, an Interlibrary Loan respondent who started in Interlibrary Loan before pursuing her degree states, “I have noticed a difference in the way I han-dle Interlibrary Loan now as opposed to when I started. The training in research, reference and resources has made a considerable difference when I’m handed a difficult request.”
When applying on-the-job training factors to librarians, they do have a distinct advantage. In regard to environment, institutions are more willing to send MLIS-degree professional to conferences and additional training. This discrepancy has long been noted within the library world, and although it shows a lack of respect for paraprofessionals, the fact re-mains that budget money is reserved only for librarians to attend confer-ences and workshops. Similarly, there is often not enough time for staff members to read and keep up with developments in interlibrary loan, but when there is time, it is generally librarians who are expected and encouraged to do so. Regarding an individual’s interest in and capabil-ity of continuing their education, librarians have already demonstrated their willingness by acquiring their degree. “Degrees show integrity and an investment into the field” (Weinstein, 58).
The individual’s opportunity to acquire training and knowledge from their predecessor, the third factor, librarians have an edge because even if there is no one to learn from on the job, library school courses will have supplied some training gaps.
If there is an advantage to hiring librarians, the question is, where lies the success? In ERAU-Hunt Library’s case, improvements were seen in both tangible and intangible areas. The tangible improvements include a steady increase of fill rate and a slight decrease in borrow-ing requests. The decrease in borrowborrow-ing requests can be attributed to
more requested items found within the library’s resources. Since ERAU’s Hunt Library does not have an Interlibrary Loan manage-ment system, and a significant portion of technical documanage-ments are not catalogued, the practice of locating requests within the library’s col-lection is a high priority for the department.
Hunt Library is not the only institution to see tangible improve-ments when hiring a librarian. One Interlibrary Loan member described the cost savings created once the former practice of requesting fee-based libraries was reassessed. Since there was a lack of guidance, student workers would request from libraries that were nearby, but expensive. Once the librarian restructured the practice and devised custom holdings that directed borrowing requests to libraries that did not charge, such fees decreased dramatically.
Some improvements that have the biggest impacts cannot be mea-sured by statistics. First is credibility. Shuffled from one department to another, there has always been a lack of consensus as to where to anchor Interlibrary Loan within libraries. According to Mary Jackson’s study, there are eight different departments in which Interlibrary Loan can be housed (Jackson, 63). Ranging from Circulation to Technical Service, administrators have a problem placing Interlibrary Loan within the li-brary. Having an Interlibrary Loan Librarian guarantees that the de-partment will be seen as its own entity, no matter where it is placed. At ERAU’s Hunt Library, one move that lent credibility to the Interlibrary Loan department was establishing a weekly departmental meeting. Al-though the department consists of three FTEs, the regularly scheduled meeting and the posting of minutes brought the department in line with Technical Services and Reference.
Another improvement is having an advocate with a professional degree who can stay connected with other professionals within the li-brary. As one Interlibrary Loan member noted, “I also believe the MLS puts me on a more professional footing dealing with library sub-ject specialists and faculty . . .” Interlibrary Loan Librarians can act as liaisons inside and outside the library and advocate for improvements needed in interlibrary loan. Even paraprofessionals recognize that their opinions may not be valued within the library: “If other librarians know you don’t have an MLIS, their respect for your knowledge and experience is diminished.” With Interlibrary Loan technologies rap-idly changing, it is imperative to have a strong advocate who will fight for what is needed.
THE END IS (NOT) NEAR
The Interlibrary Loan community may never see the end of this debate. There will always be pros and cons to hiring degreed librarians. Although one department may model itself to be cost-efficient by cutting librarians out of the mix, another may find that a librarian will be a necessary ex-pense. Institutions can spend years trying to determine which staffing lev-els will spell success for their interlibrary loan department. There is no proven formula that makes an Interlibrary Loan department ideal.
What is evident is that the success of libraries can now be linked to the success of the Interlibrary Loan departments. Resource sharing has shifted from a last-resort option to a patron’s first choice for quick access. Interlibrary loan is no longer the bulky, labor-intensive practice of the past. As the spotlight on resource sharing brightens, libraries will need to invest more in their Interlibrary Loan departments to stay ahead of this rising wave of popularity. This investment may be ensured through on-the-job training of their paraprofessionals. It may also be realized by add-ing MLIS-degreed professionals who have both the knowledge and skills. It is an investment that institutions must afford to make.
REFERENCES
ALA’s Gorman, PLA’s Walters Disagree in MLS Discussion (2006).Library Hotline, 35 (14), 2-3.
Berry III, John N. (2005). Trish Palluck.Library Journal, 130 (4), 40-41.
Divens, W.C. (1995). MLS to Excess? Degree Requirements for interlibrary loan.
Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery, and Information Supply, 6 (1), 85-88.
Hawley, Lorin (1995). Why you do not need an MLS to work in interlibrary loan. Jour-nal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery, and Information Supply, 6 (1), 89-94. Hilyer, Lee Andrew (2006). Interlibrary loan and document delivery: Best practices for
operating and managing interlibrary loan services in all libraries.Journal of Interli-brary Loan, Document Delivery, and Information Supply, 16 (1-2), 2.
Jackson, Mary E., Kingma, Bruce & Tom Delaney (2004). Assessing Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery Services: New Cost-Effective Alternatives.Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, p. 98.
Morris, Leslie (2004). How to lower your interlibrary loan and document delivery costs: An editorial.Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery, and Informa-tion Supply, 14 (4), 1-3.
Preece, Barbara G. & Kilpatrick, Thomas L. (1998). Cutting out the middleman: Pa-tron-initiated interlibrary loans.Library Trends, 47 (1), 144-157.
Schaffer, Thomas (2003). Career paths of interlibrary loan heads: The long and wind-ing road.Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery, and Information Sup-ply, 13 (4), 63-78.
Simpson, Sarah (2000). Creating an ideal interlibrary loan organization.Current Stud-ies in Librarianship, 24 (1-2), 39-54.
Weinstein, Tatiana (2005) Why your MLS and LTA matter.American Libraries, 36 (9), 57-58.
