Margy Burn
Continuing the
Conversation
Regardless on
which side of the reference desk we stand the situation for librarians and
historians has changed dramatically. Manning Clark used to tell of
conversations with Mitchell Librarian Ida Leeson, who would apparently
effortlessly reach for a particular volume mid-sentence, open a page and find
the sentence in the manuscript or book she had in her hand to illustrate the
particular point she was making. Such was the depth of her knowledge of the
collection. I dont imagine Ida Leesons days in the beautiful office
that still accommodates the Mitchell Librarian were much encumbered with
writing strategic plans, quarterly reporting on outcomes and outputs, devising
an organisational Balanced Scorecard and making responses to Departmental
requests for information. In the last few weeks Ive been asked to report
on protocols for access to secret and sacred collection material; the amount of
funding allocated to Indigenous projects; strategies to advance Reconciliation
or actions which can be "badged" as Government initiatives to promote the
International Year for the Culture of Peace. These demands rather constrain the
development of becoming what Peter Cochrane called a well-read librarian or
bibliographic wonder. I used to read a lot of books before I became a
librarian, is my lament.
And in the last
two days there have been several references to the changed situation for
historians: Ann Curthoys has described the difficulty of getting to the library
or archives. When I began working in the Mitchell Library in 1984 I remember
receiving a phone call from a regular readers wife, letting us know that
her husband was sick and wouldnt be in that day. She didnt want us
to worry. Readers used to bring in home-grown flowers or vegetables for the
staff. North Sydney local historian Eric Russell once brought in a box of
broadbeans he had grown. I still have the note he included which read: Some
eat broadbeans, some grow broadbeans, some have broadbeans thrust upon them.
Im sure there are similar stories in the annals of the National
Library, I just havent been here long enough to have heard them yet.
My previous
work in a university library had not prepared me for the encounter with what
what was almost a club of regular readers in Mitchell Library in the mid-1980s.
The staff certainly called them the Mitchell Readers, I dont know whether
that is how they would have described themselves. Carol Liston was one of them.
They were in the Library virtually every day. The readers and the reading room
staff would have a Christmas lunch somewhere together. Thats a tradition
that has now stopped I believe. These days academic historians no longer have
the luxury of spending days of their life in the Library and the limited hours
of research that can be billed to the clients of public historians imposes
other kinds of constraints on the research adventure.
But whatever
the constraints we work under it is important that libraries continue to be
places where there are opportunities for conversations between librarians and
readers. This conference is one manifestation of the National Librarys
desire to build relationships with historians, one of our most important
stakeholder groups. Harold White Fellowships are another example. The three
most recent Harold White Fellows have all been historians: Dr Michael Symons,
Dr Sarah Lloyd and Dr Bridget Griffen-Foley. The close relationships that are
forged between the Fellows and Library staff have enduring benefits for both
parties, I believe. Senior staff of the National Library meet annually with
representatives of other stakeholder groups such as the Joint Academies Forums
and the Independent Scholars Association to exchange information about
priorities. There are some other more formal mechanisms for consultation and
contribution by stakeholders. The National Library has recently established a
Collecting Advisory Committee established to help us to continue to build
collections which will meet the needs of researchers for the next hundred
years. Stuart Mcintyre will chair the committee.
Yesterday Jill
Roe referred to the work of the Australian Library Collections Task Force which
was established under the auspices of the National Library with representation
from the Academies, the Committee of Australian University Librarians, the
Council of Australian State Libraries and CSIRO to provide advice to research
libraries on ways of improving access to library collections. Very importantly
the Task Force is seeking information from users of libraries, not just from
librarians. Jill quoted the disturbing statistic that nearly 50% of academics
in English and Psychology surveyed by the Task Force regarded their
institutional library collections as insufficient. Jill asked what strategies
the National Library has to address this situation. The answer in a nutshell is
that we are working with other library sector organisations to make Australian
library resources known by ensuring they are catalogued and accessible on the
National Bibliographic Database and to strengthen mechanisms for resource
sharing, such as interlibrary loan, so that they are reliable, efficient and
cost effective. A particular goal for the National Library in the next three
years, which we have published in our Directions statement, is that
"All Australians, at their place of choice, have direct, seamless access to
print and electronic sources of information". Although the Australian
library system has some wonderful foundation stones in place to meet that goal
it is a statement of aspiration, rather than a reflection of present realities.
Or in the jargon of management consultants it is a stretch target.
Nevertheless
there is a great deal of work being done behind the scenes at the National
Library to build the national information infrastructure to achieve that goal.
But we havent always been successful at communicating these strategies to
readers. As librarians we were rather dismayed at the lack of awareness of key
library services revealed by the Australian Library Collections Task Force
English and Psychology survey. Some users commented that it would be wonderful
if there was one big database which provided access to Australian library
catalogues there is. Its called the National Bibliographic
Database and its existed since 1980 when it was accessible via the
Australian Bibliographic Network. Now its available as Kinetica. ABN was
a tool for librarians and the power and sophisticated search features of
Kinetica means that it can still be a little daunting even for librarians who
do not use it constantly. But it is our intention that Kinetica is developed
and enhanced so it becomes a tool which is used directly by clients
end users in our horrible jargon, not just by librarians. A number of
academic libraries currently offer end user access to Kinetica and the National
Librarys Petherick Room readers have been given training and are able to
use Kinetica themselves.
The outcomes
and outputs framework, our major accountability reporting framework to
Government, requires the Library to be able to report on the appropriateness
and effectiveness of our services to readers. Apart from the quantitative
indicators we keep ourselves, the framework also requires qualitative input
from readers. I expect there are people here today who have been approached in
the last few weeks by a market research team within the Library for information
about your views on our reader services. There was also a major survey of
reader satisfaction with reference surveys undertaken as part of the
Librarys review of reference services in 199899.
Invariably such
research reveals a generally high degree of satisfaction with our services,
which is gratifying. But worrying concerns also emerge. It is clear that many
users feel overwhelmed by libraries. There is ambivalence about technology in
libraries. Obviously readers appreciate the enhanced access delivered by
technology but there is also a certain lack of confidence. I think some readers
are unsure whether the lack of an expected search result is because an item
does not exist, or is not held in their institutional library, or whether it is
simply that their database searching skills are not up to the task! Some
reference librarians can seem terrifyingly proficient when theyre asked
for help and I can well imagine that there are readers who are timid about
confessing doubts and uncertainties about their information retrieval skills to
these paragons. Research undertaken before I left the Mitchell Library
confirmed these concerns I suspect they apply universally to research
libraries. Mitchell readers also expressed concerns that reading room staff
were not keeping up with new disciplinary approaches to scholarship and
research. Im fairly certain that if Ann Curthoys engaged most of our
staff in a conversation about the genealogical approach to historical research
she would be directed to the Lower Ground floor to the Newspaper and Microform
reading room where most of our family history researchers may be found. We know
who Foucault is, but we may not always be sufficiently aware of the
implications of Foucauldian-thinking for our collections and
services.
The recent
research at both the Mitchell Library and the National Library also reveals
that readers are very concerned about improved communication between libraries
and our clients. Libraries spend a lot of effort endeavouring to communicate
with users. The National Library is littered with colourful pieces of corporate
communication. We have a most comprehensive and I think very impressive web
site. Recently weve set up an email listserv to communicate with
Petherick Readers and there are regular meetings with Petherick Readers
but despite these and other efforts it seems much of what we do remains
impenetrable and mysterious to many of our users. I suspect our location in the
national capital creates added obstacles. Unless you are fortunate to be an ACT
resident, I imagine research visits to the National Library are an increasingly
infrequent luxury for many historians in locations more distant from Canberra.
And the constraints on time which can be spent in libraries and the pressures
on library staff which are all too obvious to readers inhibit the more extended
conversations and interactions between librarians and readers which once
occurred.
I believe some
library staff are naive about the power position, depending on which side of
the desk you stand. Im sure some readers fear that if they express
criticism or ask for a service improvement their access may be in some way
reduced. No-one whose work is dependent on libraries wants to become branded as
a difficult reader. We should have the sort of communication happening over the
desk in every interaction between staff and readers that allows readers to feel
they are listened to and heard.
I dont
have all the answers as to how we can once again create the space in the
Library where the conversations between librarians and historians can be as
they were in perhaps more halcyon days. I hope my remarks today, and indeed the
holding of this conference, have signalled the importance the National Library
assigns to the continuation of the conversation between our two professions. I
would welcome hearing your views on this subject.
Back |