John Rodwell, Information Services Librarian
Fisher Library, University of Sydney
Email: j.rodwell@library.usyd.edu.au
When I agreed to speak on this topic my first concern, of course, was to think of a catchy title. The word "dinosaur" came quickly to mind, and the alliterative "dynamo" followed equally as quickly. I was quite pleased with myself. The title "Dinosaur or Dynamo?" in regard to the future for subject reference librarians requires no explanation, I hope; it merely contrasts "no future" with a possible bright and significant role. Having almost completed a survey of recent writing relevant to the future of reference librarians, I came across a reference to a paper, published in 1978, entitled Subject specialists in academic libraries: the once and future dinosaurs … so much for my originality.
Actually this paper, by Dennis W. Dickinson, serves two useful purposes for me. Dickinson specifically dealt with the role of subject specialists and bibliographers in regard to collection development in North American academic libraries. While the contribution of reference librarians to collection development is relevant, it is not a major concern for this paper. What Dickinson’s paper shows is the need to clarify the terminology, or taxonomy, of subject specialisation in libraries. There isn’t time here to consider all the variations in position descriptions which involve some subject specialisation. My concern today is the role and future of staff often described as "Subject Librarians" in Australian libraries and whose primary responsibilities has been specialist reference assistance, including advice, database searching, user instruction and some elements of collection development, in particular in regard to reference resources. Another common responsibility in this role is "faculty liaison" which may be a minor or dominant part of the role, so that the "Subject Librarian" becomes the "Liaison Librarian". I will not deal with any specific position or local job description but with a broad range of positions which still have much in common, in that a major qualification for the position is some subject reference expertise.
The second useful purpose of Dickinson’s paper for me is his list of why subject specialists are dinosaurs, or, as he says, their "future is uncertain": lack of substantive training, the necessity to cover multiple subject areas, lack of compatibility with library organisations, the questionable need for ‘balanced’ collections, and declining resources. Most are relevant to today’s discussion of a future for subject reference librarians and I will come back to them.
As indicated in the paper’s abstract, the general perception I am addressing is that with the current and likely future of sophisticated end-user access to information in digital forms, the future for librarians whose main role was to assist their clients to find information is problematic and probably limited. To use the jargon, the "disintermediation" of information, where end-users can easily help themselves, obviates the need for an information professional, much less one with subject expertise. In an attempt to preserve or carve out viable roles, reference librarians are looking to training and other activities, for example designing information gateways and selecting and negotiating access to information services for clients (Fourie, 1999). What is missing from these new roles is subject expertise. I want to argue that subject specialisation will still be required for a quality information service because of the limits of "disintermediation" and also because, with the proliferation of information resources, the complexity of the information environment and what might be described as the emerging information chaos, there is a need for specialists who have a deep but broad knowledge of the generation and communication of information in particular areas. It is frequently asserted that in the current state of knowledge and research, with an emphasis on cross- or interdisciplinary work, it is the generalist or professional with expert information skills who has a future, assisting the real subject specialists to reach outside their narrow specialities. My point is that, while this cross-disciplinary research assistance is needed, the problems of finding relevant information even within specific subject areas or disciplines warrants specific subject information skills.
In arguing for a need for subject expertise based on the proliferation and complexity of information I do not envisage a mere continuation of the traditional role for the subject librarian. Traditionally, subject expertise was supposedly based on actual subject knowledge, perhaps acquired formally, or at least extensive experience working within a particular discipline. It is often said that such expertise is necessary for acceptance or recognition by particular client groups. So, for example, law librarianship is a recognised speciality usually requiring formal (legal) qualification or extensive experience. Client groups, such as legal academics, have often insisted on such qualifications for their librarians. Of course there are some fields, such as area studies, where knowledge of a language or languages may be indisputably required to assist clients. Apart from reasons of professional acceptance and language requirements, however, a deeper reason for subject specialisation is that the academic community, and no doubt other user communities, have what may be described as "specialist driven values" (Lary, 1996). They identify with their subject or discipline and relate best to specifically designed services and to staff who understand and share these values. In stressing the importance of the shared values of a user community and responding to them with appropriate service, the nature of subject expertise and the role of a subject specialist librarian can be re-defined. The subject expertise required is not knowledge of a subject - which will often be more or less too specific or else is quickly dated - but a mixture of subject knowledge and knowledge of the client community which allows the librarian to mediate between information resources and the clients. A sound, up-to-date subject expertise, in this board sense, allows the librarian to be a dynamo, a driver of the information gathering process. Interestingly, I think, it has been suggested that designating "subject librarians" in large, central academic libraries was partly an attempt to give client groups the sort of specialist attention and service other groups received from smaller Branch libraries, which usually have a discipline focus. I would add that special libraries provide a similar type of recognition of user community needs and pay attention to them. The emphasis in this type of service may appear to be more on "client focus" than a particular subject or discipline, but in fact the focus of their attention is the discipline, whether it be law, medicine, or a science or one of the humanities.
In addition to a change in emphasis from subject knowledge to subject expertise, another developing requirement for information work is a knowledge of the wide range of relevant resources beyond the collection, especially the physical collection, of a particular library. Traditionally a subject specialist would have an in-depth knowledge of the local collection. While this remains necessary, the range of networked, generally Internet available, resources, is becoming increasingly important and requires that a subject specialist be aware of the expanding range of resources and how to access them. While the information provided by these resources is potentially available to the individual client, via a World Wide Web search, for example, it is the role of the subject librarian to have an overview of the range of information available, to be able to order it intellectually and advise clients on its availability and accessibility. This may be done by one-to-one advice or consultation, or in a more structured way, for example through Web guides to the range of digital resources useful in a subject field. These resources may be free, or may require some licence arrangement or transaction fee, but the subject librarian has to be aware of all possibilities which are reasonably accessible in some way to the client.
To return to traditional reference skills, a word is needed on the efficiency and limitations of "disintermediation". This term recognises that the World Wide Web in particular appears to make an amazing range of information easily available to even the novice searcher. The friendly interface of the Web browser, coupled with the power of search engines, offers the prospect of easy identification of the most relevant data the Internet can provide. Regular users of the Internet recognise the power of the Web but also are well aware of the limitations of current search engines, much less the quality of much of the data which can be located. Bibliographic and other databases also offer attractive interfaces and apparently easy, but often deceptive, searching.
While significant improvements in interfaces and search engines may be expected, many users still express a need for an expert to assist them with a complicated information search or a search in an unfamiliar discipline. This is sometimes put down to an unwillingness to learn to access information, and even laziness! Even if this were true, it may have some validity if the opportunity cost of such learning is too high for the searcher. However, the need for assistance may well be not just an economic judgement but recognition that an information expert can contribute qualitatively to an information search. This has been traditionally a key function for a subject librarian and would seem to be one still in demand by those who need a thorough information search. Broad advice to and training of clients in information searching are worthy activities but in undertaking complex information searching the knowledge and skill of a expert searcher in that field is often appreciated by the expert in the subject itself.
So far I have put the positive case for subject expertise for a quality reference service. To address some of the contentious issues, it is convenient to refer back to the original "Dinosaurs" article.
The first reason given by Dickinson for labelling subject specialists "dinosaurs" is the lack of substantive training. By this I take it he meant lack of initial and credible training opportunities. There is some validity in this for subject reference librarians. Formal training in subject reference work is, at least to my knowledge, very limited in Australia and not carried out in depth. Librarians wishing to specialise, or otherwise appointed to some subject specialisation, must rely on their formal education in a discipline or else undertake some formal study, or teach themselves on the job, getting what assistance they can. This makes for an incoherent approach and possibly to a lack of professional credibility. Given Australia’s relatively small population, it is difficult to see an answer to this problem. Various librarians’ interest groups have tried to address it and frankly, I don’t have an ‘easy’ answer. "On the job" training and learning is the norm in Australia and while it produces some outstanding individuals, it is not sufficiently systematic. Perhaps Web based training, using overseas educational providers, would now help fill the gap.
Related to this problem is what Dickinson refers to as the "necessity to cover multiple subject areas." In short, can a librarian be an expert in a range of subjects, and how widely or narrowly can the subject be defined? Again, this is a serious problem. Formal education tends to be narrow in scope and advanced work even more focussed. How wide can a subject expert’s scope extend before "expertise" in fact evaporates? There is no simple answer to this either. The real problem in large organisations is the range of subjects which must be covered. At my university we have 14 faculties and many sub-disciplines which we need to support with reference an information services. Another Australian university recently advertised to its academic staff that the library has a subject specialist "expert" at finding information in particular fields. I counted 59(!) departments for which it claimed to have such an expert. Clearly a pragmatic decision is often made on who is to be the resident "expert". I suspect that real expertise is unevenly spread. The issue for each library is to determine its priorities in terms of meeting the needs of particular user groups and the consequent resource allocations. University library budgets cannot support unlimited and across the board subject expertise though this remains the ideal. This limitation also relates to Dickinson’s claim that "declining resources" reduced the need for subject specialists. He had in mind that the lack of funds to purchase resources did not warrant the time, energies and cost of a subject specialist selector. One might argue that declining funds to purchase resources today, however, makes a subject expert more valuable to an organisation both for their contribution in choosing costly resources and to guide clients to resources outside their library or organisation.
The final objection Dickinson against the viability of the subject specialist system was its lack of compatibility with library organisations. Again, this is a substantive objection. As libraries need to be leaner and concentrate on core activities, subject expertise can be seen as a luxury which does not fit well with functional efficiency. However, it can be argued that it is effectiveness rather than efficiency which is required; that is, value for money spent rather than money saved. The Ross Report (1990) endorsed an organisational model for Australian University libraries around the role of subject librarians. While this continues to be influential, it is under strain as university library staff numbers decline. The need to take on expensive electronic services, provide gateways to them, to deal with distance education, to train students in the basics of information work etc puts pressure on libraries to introduce new services and reallocate staff to do the necessary work. The danger for subject librarians is not that they will be dinosaurs, declared redundant, but that they will take on so many functions that subject expertise will either not be developed or will eventually be dissipated.
To sum up, it seems to me almost self-evident that to deliver a quality service to clients a reference or information librarian needs to be an expert in the information resources relevant to the clients and to have strong empathy with and a good knowledge of the clients’ particular needs. Perhaps because it is so fundamental, it is not frequently highlighted in the various lists of competencies proposed for librarians today. Most lists emphasise technological, communication, training, management and organisational skills, with knowledge of the subject area in which these skills are practised mentioned, if at all, almost as an afterthought. A notable exception is the excellent list, Competencies for Special Librarians of the 21st Century, prepared for the Special Libraries Association (USA) in 1996. The subject expertise required for a quality service does need to be better analysed. As I have pointed out, it is not merely some broad or narrow academic knowledge of a subject, but an understanding of the dynamics of the production and dissemination of information in a particular field, how it is received and might be accessed by clients. A practical breakdown of subject expertise would include a good knowledge of the client’s’ needs and how the clients work; knowledge of the clients’ discipline and its major information sources; expert knowledge of the key tools and how to exploit them best; knowledge of information resources in related fields and how to assist clients locate information outside their area of speciality; knowledge of local and relevant remote resources and how to access them. This is not exhaustive, but some such analysis is needed to plan for and develop subject expertise.
Although librarians have prided themselves often on their generalist skills and have forged an identity as information professionals, largely irrespective of subject context, the increasing availability and amount of information to be handled requires true subject specialisation. If "disintermediation" is a threat to librarians, it is perhaps the generalist who is in danger of going the way of the dinosaur. The subject specialist may well be the dynamo in any organisation for which information is crucial.