16 · SPEC Kit 296
K-12 students, as well as to community groups. A
few respondents, however, pointed out that the in-
crease in public services and outreach has lead to
a decrease in other activities, such as the process-
ing of materials. They expressed concern that staff
members are becoming overworked and stretched
thin as Special Collections units increasingly focus
on labor-intensive, public services responsibilities.
Not surprisingly, numerous respondents dis-
cussed the impact of technology and digitization.
The general consensus was that digitization efforts
have been increasing steadily in recent years and
will only continue to increase. Approximately 17
respondents mentioned an increase in the number
of e-mail and online inquiries and several respon-
dents described increased patron transactions as
a result of improved intellectual access tools. One
respondent proposed that the increase in online re-
sources would lead to a decrease in on-site usage.
Approximately ten respondents discussed how dig-
ital reproduction technologies are replacing pho-
tocopying and other reproduction methods some
libraries are providing digital reproduction equip-
ment such as scanners and cameras to patrons. One
respondent wrote, “As more… materials go online,
the nature of the questions reference staff handle
has changed and the visibility of the collections has
grown.” Reference questions can be more complex,
with a higher level of specificity, and patrons have
increased expectations regarding turnaround time
for responses. Multiple respondents pointed to the
need for flexibility in staff workloads, training to
provide skills that have been lacking, as well as
greater cross-training between Special Collections
staff and staff in other library units.
Conclusions
The data gathered by this survey are useful in that
they provide a general overview of the current
state of reference and public services in Special
Collections, but the comments provided by respon-
dents are particularly useful because they reveal
future directions and trends. For example, one of
the most interesting items revealed by the survey
is that several research libraries are attempting to
reach out to younger students, specifically K-12 stu-
dents and college and university freshmen. These
libraries hope that by attracting young students
early in their academic careers they may be able to
instill in them an awareness of, and appreciation
for, Special Collections holdings and services. This
may be a significant change for those libraries that
traditionally have tailored their services towards
principal users such as faculty, visiting researchers,
and graduate students.
Survey responses indicate that data collection
practices vary widely among Special Collections
units in ARL Libraries. Patron registration and
transaction tracking, in particular, seem to be two
areas where practices differ greatly. Libraries use
different definitions and procedures to identify
and track patrons, making it difficult to determine
which patrons are registered and/or counted,
how frequently registration occurs, and how the
patrons are categorized, if they are categorized at
all. It is clear that public services are being mea-
sured differently at various libraries and the lack
of standardization makes it is difficult to arrive at
conclusions based on comparison of the responses.
A collaborative, comprehensive approach towards
the standardization of public services procedures
and the manner in which libraries measure those
services is needed.
Libraries are systematically gathering quanti-
tative data to measure services, but relatively few
libraries are actively assessing the quality and ef-
fectiveness of their public services. Fewer than half
of the libraries collect evaluative data from com-
ment/suggestion forms, patron surveys, exit inter-
views, focus groups, or advisory groups. Informal
feedback and direct observation of service transac-
tions are the primary means by which libraries col-
lect information that can be used to assess quality
of services. This is a source of concern given the
passive nature of these evaluative techniques and
the fact that Special Collections units are actively
developing new strategies for providing services to
patrons.
K-12 students, as well as to community groups. A
few respondents, however, pointed out that the in-
crease in public services and outreach has lead to
a decrease in other activities, such as the process-
ing of materials. They expressed concern that staff
members are becoming overworked and stretched
thin as Special Collections units increasingly focus
on labor-intensive, public services responsibilities.
Not surprisingly, numerous respondents dis-
cussed the impact of technology and digitization.
The general consensus was that digitization efforts
have been increasing steadily in recent years and
will only continue to increase. Approximately 17
respondents mentioned an increase in the number
of e-mail and online inquiries and several respon-
dents described increased patron transactions as
a result of improved intellectual access tools. One
respondent proposed that the increase in online re-
sources would lead to a decrease in on-site usage.
Approximately ten respondents discussed how dig-
ital reproduction technologies are replacing pho-
tocopying and other reproduction methods some
libraries are providing digital reproduction equip-
ment such as scanners and cameras to patrons. One
respondent wrote, “As more… materials go online,
the nature of the questions reference staff handle
has changed and the visibility of the collections has
grown.” Reference questions can be more complex,
with a higher level of specificity, and patrons have
increased expectations regarding turnaround time
for responses. Multiple respondents pointed to the
need for flexibility in staff workloads, training to
provide skills that have been lacking, as well as
greater cross-training between Special Collections
staff and staff in other library units.
Conclusions
The data gathered by this survey are useful in that
they provide a general overview of the current
state of reference and public services in Special
Collections, but the comments provided by respon-
dents are particularly useful because they reveal
future directions and trends. For example, one of
the most interesting items revealed by the survey
is that several research libraries are attempting to
reach out to younger students, specifically K-12 stu-
dents and college and university freshmen. These
libraries hope that by attracting young students
early in their academic careers they may be able to
instill in them an awareness of, and appreciation
for, Special Collections holdings and services. This
may be a significant change for those libraries that
traditionally have tailored their services towards
principal users such as faculty, visiting researchers,
and graduate students.
Survey responses indicate that data collection
practices vary widely among Special Collections
units in ARL Libraries. Patron registration and
transaction tracking, in particular, seem to be two
areas where practices differ greatly. Libraries use
different definitions and procedures to identify
and track patrons, making it difficult to determine
which patrons are registered and/or counted,
how frequently registration occurs, and how the
patrons are categorized, if they are categorized at
all. It is clear that public services are being mea-
sured differently at various libraries and the lack
of standardization makes it is difficult to arrive at
conclusions based on comparison of the responses.
A collaborative, comprehensive approach towards
the standardization of public services procedures
and the manner in which libraries measure those
services is needed.
Libraries are systematically gathering quanti-
tative data to measure services, but relatively few
libraries are actively assessing the quality and ef-
fectiveness of their public services. Fewer than half
of the libraries collect evaluative data from com-
ment/suggestion forms, patron surveys, exit inter-
views, focus groups, or advisory groups. Informal
feedback and direct observation of service transac-
tions are the primary means by which libraries col-
lect information that can be used to assess quality
of services. This is a source of concern given the
passive nature of these evaluative techniques and
the fact that Special Collections units are actively
developing new strategies for providing services to
patrons.
