Literatures, Languages, and Textual Analysis Planning Team 30 September 2009 4080 FLB Present: John Wagstaff. Doug Kibbee, Curtis Perry, Charles Wright, JoAnn Jacoby, Robert Cagle, Kathleen Kluegel, Caroline Szylowicz Absent: Lilya Kaganovsky, Carl Niekerk, John Unsworth, Bruce Swann John Wagstaff made some brief opening comments on the UIUC Library’s New Service Models project initiated in Fall of 2007, with some reference to the Area and International Studies team, of which he had been a member. . Wagstaff reminded members present of the December 15, 2009 deadline for the team to submit a report to University Librarian. Jacoby followed up Wagstaff’s comments with an informational presentation about the NSM program, including a brief explanation of the decision making process <http://www.library.illinois.edu/export/nsm/NSMDecisionMakingFlowchart.pdf>. She provided a handout of the LLTA Team page <http://www.library.illinois.edu/nsm/lit/index.html> and encouraged Team members to share this information with interested colleagues and let them know they can subscribe to the RSS feed on the LLTA page if they want to be notified when minutes and reports are posted. The RSS feed on the NSM homepage brings together the news items from all Teams. Szylowicz asked for a summary of the progress of other NSM teams thus far. Jacoby described the other teams meeting this fall. Last spring, the International and Area Studies Planning Team proposed a new unit that embraces both the traditional focus of area studies and new transnational and global issues. An implementation team, with a core of Library and campus faculty drawn from the planning team, is working to plan for this new unit. Current plans placed it partly in 321 Library, the space presently occupied by the English Library. The issue of space was discussed briefly, with Wagstaff mentioning that the present team was operating “with a gun to its head” given the urgent need to find an alternative space in which to house the English Library and its collections. Jacoby suggested that essential functions and services should be the focus of our work, with space planning following from that. We want to avoid trying to “shoehorn” collections and services into existing spaces. If we have a compelling vision of what we want to accomplish, that should be the driver of our space planning, rather than spaces limiting our ideas of what we want to accomplish. 1 Kathleen Kluegel, English Librarian, asked if the Library would be able to provide a suitable space for the LLTA Library if the final decision of the committee were that this entity should house fifty thousand volumes? Wagstaff responded that in addition to spatial constraints the committee should also consider possible changes in the ways that services are delivered to patrons. Wright stated that in order to do so required at least some knowledge of the space in which these activities would be done, pointing out that structural issues, too, need to come into play when making such decisions. Jacoby reiterated that the committee needed to consider what the “essential functions” of this library would be before considering space. Perry echoed Wright’s concerns, explaining that it was absolutely necessary to have a more concrete sense of available spaces. Wagstaff mentioned that the committee was awaiting a report regarding the comparative sizes of the English and Slavic Library (the space into which the LLTA unit might perhaps be expected to move). Kluegel pointed out that the Slavic Library is exactly the same size as the English Library (the two libraries sit atop one another) except for the fact that English does not have the Slavic Reading Room, a space of approximately twenty square feet. Szylowicz raised a question related to the ability of the LLTA to continue the functions and services presently provided by the English and Modern Languages Library. Jacoby responded that it was important not to lose opportunities to design new services in addition to the ones traditionally offered. Kluegel raised several pertinent questions regarding the charge of the committee. When Wagstaff asked if, for example, Kluegel might not want a classroom for instruction in the new Literatures library, Kluegel explained that the space presently occupied by the English Library was, in fact, an ideal one in which to provide and deliver the materials and services required by literary scholars. She then cited examples from her own experience providing instruction on the use of electronic resources to groups of varying sizes, from small to quite large. Kluegel went on, explaining that the configuration of computers in 321 were far more conducive to instructing students effectively than that in room 314, which, given the relative privacy afforded each participant, would allow students to do all sorts of other tasks (e.g., updating Facebook profiles, sending email messages) rather than following along and learning. The fact that more than one student shares a computer in EGX, she pointed out, transforms the instruction into a more dynamic experience, encouraging interaction between participants and creating an interpersonal learning environment. Kluegel then continued, adding that the focus of the NSM group on a future library, “five years from now” wrote out the needs of an entire generation of students who would pass through the university during that time. She closed by explaining that 2 her own experience in dealing with a large number of students—both undergraduate and graduate—on a daily basis, provided her with a clear picture of the needs of students raised in a digital generation. “The English Library has been described as a classroom,” she said, “that provides an introduction to the discipline.” Wright disliked the fact that the rhetoric used by NSM materials created an artificial dichotomy between the “traditional” and the “new” in which” traditional” (i.e., print‐ based) approaches to scholarship became synonymous with “conservative,” and newer modes, progressive. Wright pointed out that the committee must be able to consider elements of all types of scholarship in order to arrive at a library that best serves the needs of its varied users. Jacoby interjected that Kaufman has stressed that, as far as the NSM processes go, there is “no preconceived agenda.” Jacoby assured everyone in the room that no matter what the outcome of the meetings, “What this group says will be listened to.” Perry insisted that the committee consider the relation between available spaces and proposed services—in other words, that it analyze the relation between what changes need to be implemented in the present and those that might be implemented in the interest of serving some future generation of patrons. Jacoby responded by explaining that ideas generated by this group will also inform long‐term planning for a more “major renovation” of the library, which would be, of course, contingent upon the Library’s securing of necessary funds. Discussion of plans for renovation and repair to the Main Library building followed with Kluegel asking about repair of gutters. Jacoby noted that work on the envelope is beginning this year and also mentioned the availability of one‐
time funds to support facilities upgrades and remodeling, new signage, short‐term staffing to transfer and catalog materials, etc. <http://www.library.illinois.edu/nsm/fundingrequests/index.html> . A separate pool of $100,000.00 has been set aside for collection development. Cagle asked about the possibility of a library moving into the space presently occupied by the Chemistry Library (given the announcement that it will become a virtual library) and asked what plans were for replacing Kluegel, who is due to retire on December 31, 2009. Jacoby explained that the renovations to the Chemistry Library had been paid for mainly by funds from the Chemistry Department, and that an English‐Chemistry combination might not be the best synergy. Jacoby noted that the Library’s hiring plan included a placeholder for filling the position to be vacated by Kluegel’s retirement and asked if the Arts and Humanities Division had begun working on a position request. Szylowicz, and Wagstaff outlined the Arts and Humanities Division’s plans for filling the positions, which included the hiring of an interim librarian and then a visiting faculty member. Jacoby suggested that this Team might have useful input to offer in crafting that position request. 3 Kluegel then asked about the possibility of a Literatures library taking the space presently housing the Business and Economics Library, as she had heard that plans were afoot for it to at least partially go virtual. Discussion followed. As the meeting drew to a close Wagstaff reiterated some of the most important points, stressing that “new” did not necessarily mean “better” in the rhetoric of the New Service Models project, and commenting that he could understand the concern of humanities scholars since the discipline has “fallen under attack” in recent years. “No one involved here would call something ‘conservative’ simply because of its methodology.” He added. Wright here asserted that it was important to bear in mind that the studies of literary scholars are not merely text‐based, but more specifically book‐based, and that books and “texts” (electronic) are not the same for many reasons. Perry followed up, mentioning the trends of many libraries opting for digitization and food service (coffee shops). The “paranoia” of humanities scholars is that this might be the direction the “change” proposed by the Library would take. Perry then told of a recent case in which a faculty member received an offer from another university, one component of which was ten thousand dollars for new books. He commented that such an offer would not be necessary at UIUC, as the collection was already so vast. Although any individual humanities scholar’s use of the library might focus on a relatively small collection of books, he explained, the cumulative strength of humanities scholars and of the collections that they use is significant, and must inform decisions about the future of the library. Kluegel built on Perry’s comments, explaining the significance of a mediated collection, available in open stacks and in an environment in which a librarian or specialist can help patrons make selections between many types of materials (e.g., different editions of Shakespeare plays). In other words, although the library holds countless editions of Shakespeare, each has its own particular merit. The librarian or specialist helps the patron decide which works best for him/her. This mediation, she insisted, is crucial in literary studies. Wagstaff commented on how changes in library services might echo shifts in pedagogy. Szylowicz expressed an interest in receiving commentary on decisions made by the Collection Development Committee regarding sending books to STX or Oak Street Storage Facility. Kibbee offered the comment that the committee needn’t necessarily equate service with the size of the collection, but suggested instead that what might be more useful would be to learn more about the manner in which services are delivered in libraries considered to be top in the field. He mentioned that there clearly existed no possibility for hiring a large number of new faculty members, but he thought it necessary that the committee at least advance plans of what might be possible if more faculty members could be hired. 4 Wright then added that one of the key concerns he had was the importance to the field of browsing—of making serendipitous discoveries while examining books in a particular area. This, he pointed out, is simply not possible with mere electronic records. Perry agreed, and mentioned that he didn’t find the STX collection to be particularly browser‐
friendly because of its spatial organization. Kluegel commented that she had suggested that STX remove the manual compact shelving units along the walls to make room for chairs, tables, and study carrels. 5