The State of Print Ready Reference in Pennsylvania Public Libraries: After the Budget Cuts
Patricia Miller
Clarion University
Introduction
Public libraries in the state of Pennsylvania were dealt a 22% cut in the amount of
state aid they would receive in 2010. The 2011 budget did nothing to ease the strain felt
by the Pennsylvania Public Libraries when an 11.3 percent cut was passed. In addition to
these individual financial cuts, the state library itself was hit with a fifty percent cut in its
allocation. This devastating blow demanded a complete overhaul of the state library
budget. On the chopping block was the POWER Library. POWER Library allowed
patrons to access thousands of full text periodical articles of general and scholarly
interest, newspapers, charts, major encyclopedias, the associated press archival
database, pictures, maps, and invaluable reference materials at no cost to the local
library. This free service became a tool that came to be heavily relied on for many
reference workers in public libraries across the state of Pennsylvania. Small, mid size
libraries and branches were presumed to have benefitted by the Power Library for
economic reasons alone. Cut in February of 2010 were; Business Searching Interface,
Business Source Premier, Ebscohost, Ebscohost Espanol, ERIC, Facts for Learning, Funk
and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, Health Source Plus, Health Source: Nursing / Academic,
Kid’s Search, Lit Finder, Newspaper Source, Middle Search Plus, Oxford Art Online,
Oxford Music Online, Oxford Reference Online, Primary Search, Searchasurus, Student
Search Center, Teacher Reference Center and World Book Online Reference Center. As
a result of having these free tools at their fingertips, it is presumed that many of these
libraries with small collection budgets focused budget dollars previously earmarked for
print reference materials to other areas. The question now becomes, since the POWER
Library has been radically reduced, what is the state of the print reference collections in
these libraries? What are the tools with which they are left to provide reliable
information to their patrons? Can they rely on their print reference collections to conduct
in house reference interviews? Have the print collections of public libraries in the state of
Pennsylvania become out of date? How equipped are these libraries to handle reference
questions without the POWER Library or other online databases?
Literature Review
While many studies exist that examine the quality of the reference interview, none
were found that evaluated the effect of state or of consortia funded databases such as the
provision of the POWER Library on collection policy for the development of print
reference collections in state aided public libraries.
While it has always been the goal of the public librarian to meet the reference needs
of the user, the result of web sources has added the responsibility of evaluating these
resources. (An added burden and blessing to the small public library that is struggling
with budget concerns.) While studies in the early 1990s reveal little impact on the print
reference collection by electronic sources, the late 1990s began to show an effect. As far
back as 1987, Biggs and Biggs predicted that online reference sources would impact the
print collection.1 According to Koutnik, attitudes toward the reliability in electronic
sources began to change.2 Anne Lipow states, “Electronic resources have had and
Mary Biggs and Victor Biggs, “Reference Collection Development in Academic Libraries: A Report of a
Survey,” Reference Quarterly vol 27, (1987):69.
2
Chuck Koutnik, “The Worldwide Web is Here: Is The End of Print Reference Near?”. Reference
Quarterly vol 36 , no.3 (1997):422-429.
1
continue to have a serious impact on reference services, sources and collections.”3 Many
traditional paper reference sources are migrating to the electronic format. Farmer refers
to the Friedlander study which documented that while traditional reference collections
focused on print in the past, by 2002, almost fifty percent of students in academic
libraries were using electronic scholarly sources almost exclusively.4 Also reported by
Farmer were the findings of Bailey et al which concluded that by 2003 some academic
libraries had earmarked half of their reference budget for electronic resources5. Of course
the public library is not designed to meet the scholarly demands that a special or
academic library face, nor do they typically have the resources available to meet those
kinds of needs. Puacz reminds readers that smaller libraries may not have financial
resources to support online sources.6 Puacz further reminds us that ready reference
questions are especially frequent in the public library realm and as such may be answered
more quickly with traditional paper reference sources than with electronic sources.7 If
with the availability of the POWER library in Pennsylvania and similar vehicles in other
states, the local public library has not kept the collection current; does the paring and
possible removal of these services in the future leave the local public library in a
vulnerable condition? As Puacz touted in 2005, “INSPIRE in Indiana and the POWER
Library in Pennsylvania are excellent examples of increased access provided by library
3
Anne Lipow. The Virtual Reference Librarians handbook ( New York: Neal Schiman,1999).
Lesley J. Farmer. “ The Life Cycle of Digital Reference Sources,” The reference librarian 50, no 2 (2009):
117-136; Amy Friedlandler.” Dimensions and use of Scholarly Information Environment: Introduction to a
Data Set Assembled By the Digital Library Federation and Onsell, Inc. (Washington D.C.Digital Library
Federation and Council on Library and Information Sources, 2002)
5
C. Bailey, K. Coombs, J. Emery and A. Mitchell. Institutional Repositories. ( Washington D.C:
Association of Research Libraries, 2006): Lesley J. Farmer, Life Cycle.
6
Jeanne Holba Puacz.”Electronic Versus Print Reference Sources In Public Library Collections,”The
Reference Librarian 44, no.9(2005):39.
7
J.H. Puacz, Electronic Versus, 39
4
consortium” 8. As a result of a slow economy, public libraries must evaluate what is
available not only in our local ready reference print collections but other consortium
opportunities and other free Web sources. Will Internet access be cut next? Will print
collections be sufficient to meet the information needs of our patrons?
Further complicating the issue are studies on “use” like the Heintzelman, Rix and
Ritchie and Genoni studies9. The majority of reference evaluations and weeding projects
are based on “use” surveys and studies. The Heintzelman study showed that only thirteen
percent of the Winter Park Public Library reference collection was being used
regularly.10 Wright Rix reported that the Santa Monica Public Library cut their standing
reference order by twenty percent and those libraries he surveyed had cut their reference
collections by thirty percent.11 Truett, Colson, O’Gorman and others have reported that
“use” is a key criteria seen by managers to nominate items for weeding projects.12 Items
not regularly used are in danger of not being updated or of being marked for weeding.
Does it not then follow that with the lack of use received during the “glory days” of state
provided, reliable databases, reference collections across the country could have been
reduced beyond the “lean” collection touted by so many to be the ideal.13
8
J.H. Puacz, Electronic Versus, 39
Nicole Heinzelman and Courtney Moore, “Are Reference Books Becoming an Endangered Species?”
Public Libraries 47(2008): 60-64; Wright Rix, “Reference Collections and Staff: Retaining Relevance,”
The Reference Librarian vol.50 no.3(2009): 302-305; Ann Ritchie and Paul Genoni, Print v. Electronic,
302-305.
10
N. Heinzelman and C. Moore, Are Reference Books Becoming, 60-64.
11
W. Rix, Reference Collections and Staff. 302-304.
12
Carol Truett, “Weeding and Evaluating the Reference Collection,” The Reference Librarian vol.13, no.
29(1990): 53-68; Jeanne Colson,” Determining Use of an Academic Library Reference Collection: Report
of a Study,” Reference and User Services Quarterly vol.47, no.2 (2007): 168-175; Jack O’Gorman and
Barry Trott, “What Will Become of Reference in Academic and Public Libraries?,” Journal of Library
Administration 49, no.4(2009): 327-339.
13
J. Colson, Determining Use of an Academic. 186-175.
9
What has become of print ready reference collections with the advancement of
online sources? Most librarians still have a top ten list of ready reference tools that they
keep at their fingertips for rapid response. Time, while often a key factor in tool choice
cannot be outweighed by accuracy, reliability and ease of use. Most ready reference “top
ten lists” will contain similar items and are unique to each individual librarian for a
variety of reasons. Katz emphatically states that research supports that “at least three
standard sources are found in most ready reference collections, The Statistical Abstract of
the United States, The World Almanac and The World Book Encyclopedia.14 These three
sources or ones of a similar nature were found in the now decimated POWER Library. It
can be safely assumed that with these freely available tools, collection departments may
have stopped buying the print equivalents.
Whether fee or free it is clear that many reference workers particularly in
understaffed small to midsized public libraries use the tool that yields the quickest result
and moves patrons on their way. The online source seems to be the fastest route to
frequently asked quick fact questions. Even taking precedence to the within reach print
ready reference is the VRRC or Virtual Ready Reference Collection. Mizzy and
Mahoney suggest that even in a chat or virtual reference interview the goal is to respond
quickly and accurately. 15 Whatever tool provides the easiest retrieval will be chosen. As
a result, reference materials in local collections may not have been used as much as in the
pre- on line days.
O’Gorman is quick to defend the library patron who goes first to the
web for answers,” If we are seeing less use of print reference sources by patrons, we are
14
W. Katz. Intro to Reference Work.
Danianne Mizzy and Elizabeth Mahoney, “Stocking the Virtual Ready Reference Collection,”The
Reference Librarian 38, no. 79(2003): 67-99.
15
also seeing decreasing use of print reference collections by staff.”16.He cautions that
“while there are many situations where an online tool is more efficient, there are still
times when print tools provide a more accurate response to a question”.17 If that is the
case, are the print tools available, and if patrons are using web sources first, are they
being evaluated by library staff and cataloged as reliable sources?
Additional review of the literature has revealed little progress in studies
examining the effect of electronic resources on the print collection. Ritchie and Genoni
support this claim as does the Puacz study in 2005.18 Janes and McClure stated in 1999
that at the time of their exploratory study comparing the use of web and print reference
service, there were no empirical efforts examining the two forms of reference. 19 The
literature points to several key areas. Online tools are being used more and more
frequently by library staff and by the public alike. Print reference collections may have
suffered in the past few years with the state’s provision of fee based databases. Reference
collections may have been weeded or not kept current due to lack of use during the past
decade with more free online sources available and the provision of consortia buying fee
based databases. An evaluation of the reference collections of small to mid-sized public
libraries is called for particularly with the paring down and possible removal of the
POWER library and the reduction of state aid to public library systems. A plan should be
in place in public libraries to: update print collections, evaluate free online sources for
ready reference and should be added to the library catalog for patron access. In addition,
J.O’Gorman and B. Trott, What Will Become. 327-339.
J. O’Gorman and B. Trott, What Will Become. 327-339.
18
Ann Ritchie and Paul Genonie. “ Print v.Electronic Reference Sources: Implications of an Australian
Study,” The Electronic Library 25, (2007): 440-452; Jeanne Holba Puacz.”Electronic Versus Print
Reference Sources In Public Library Collections,”The Reference Librarian 44, no.9 (2005):39.
19
Janes and McClure. “The Web as a Reference Tool; Comparisons With Traditional Sources.” Public
Libraries 38, no. 1 (1999): 30-40.
16
17
opportunities for consortia buying should be investigated within regional and district
library systems. The literature review has examined the trend of public libraries to weed
their reference collections based on use and on the trend to refocus budget for reference
collections to other areas based on free access to the state provided databases and other
online reference sources.
In conclusion, an examination of the literature has revealed a lack of studies
comparing the state of reference collections before provision of databases similar to the
POWER Library in Pennsylvania, and the current state of the same reference collections.
There is however, literature that champions and encourages the purchase by consortia
buying and the resulting benefits of increased access to reliable information and scholarly
journals. Literature also supports that there is an abundance of free databases on the
World Wide Web. These are available to public library reference personnel as they are to
any citizen. The responsibility to provide reliable material to patrons rests with the
librarian. Much material is questionable at best and a discerning eye is needed before
these sources are used in the reference interview. This brings us to the proposed study.
Has the recent availability of fee and free databases provided by the state or other
consortia weakened the ready reference print collections in the small to mid- sized public
library? With the current trend in Pennsylvania to cut state aid to public libraries, and the
consequent paring of the Power Library, have the small to mid-sized libraries been left
with less than adequate reference collections? The 2010-2011 Pennsylvania Budget
revealed an additional cut of 11.3 percent to state aided libraries. At this writing there are
no published plans in place to reinstate aid lost in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 budgets
nor is the POWER Library marked for revival.
Methodology: Participants
In Order to determine a sample size for the study, the total number of libraries including
branches and central library was determined to be 629 by using the statistics provided in
the IMLS database.20 Using the Creative Research Systems Sample size calculator with a
confidence level of 95%, it was determined that the sample size had to be at least 307.21
By dividing the total libraries in half, 314 libraries were left. Two libraries on the IMLS
list appear to be duplicated and one was deemed a specialized library for the blind and
handicapped. This left a sample of 311 libraries. A coin was flipped with heads being one
and tails being two. Heads was the result of the coin flip, and every other library
beginning with one was used to create the random sample used for the study. These
libraries were consequently given non-chronological numerical identifiers in place of
their actual names in order to provide anonymity.
Instrument
An instrument was created using the three standard sources William Katz thought
would be found in most ready reference collections: The Statistical Abstract of the United
States, The World Almanac and The World Book Encyclopedia.22 In addition to these
three reference tools, the questions used in the Janes and McClure Study were used to add
three additional resources to the instrument 23 by determining which print reference
“Search for Public Libraries,” Institute for Museum and Library Services, last modified May 20, 2010,
accessed June 12, 2010, http://harvester.census.gov/imls/search/index.asp
21
“Sample Size Calculator” Creative Research Systems, last modified February 26, 2010, accessed June
12, 2010. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.html
22
W. Katz, Introduction to Reference Work: Basic Information Services. 8th ed.(McGraw-Hill, 2002), 278.
23
J. Janes and C. McClure, The Web as a Reference Tool.
20
sources could answer the question set24 used in the Janes and McClure study.25 All three
of the Katz “top three” were duplicated in the Janes and McClure study .To these three
were added the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, a current Medical Dictionary and the
Dictionary of National Biography. In all, the instrument would consist of six reference
tools. The online catalogs of 311 public libraries in the state of Pennsylvania would be
examined to determine the inclusion of these six excellent print ready reference tools.
The six sources that would be searched for and that were deemed capable of answering
the twelve Janes and McClure Study questions were: The World Almanac, Oxford
Dictionary of Quotes, Dictionary of National Biography, a generic Medical Dictionary,
The Statistical Abstract of the United States and The World Book Encyclopedia. It was
decided that the Medical Dictionary could be any of the following but must be no more
than two years old: Tabers, Blacks, Mosbeys, Harper Collins, American Heritage, PDR
Medical Dictionary or Dorlands. Since the collection of data occurred in 2010, the
publication date must be 2008 or later. The World Book Encyclopedia could be no more
than five years old. Alternate books of quotation collections were not considered as the
completeness of these various volumes is not easily determined. Other stipulations that
included the material must be housed at the individual library being examined regardless
of its designation as a branch library. While branches and their central library share
resources, this study is examining the individual library’s ability to answer reference
questions with print tools actually in the library. Additionally, the component of library
status as branch or central library, and the holdings or collection size of the library was
added to the instrument to examine the possibility of relationship between size of library
24
25
See Figure 1
J.Janes and C. McClure, The Web as a Reference Tool.
and the state of the Print Ready Reference Collection. Because the state does not
extrapolate size of branch libraries from their statistics on population served, size related
comparisons will be made in the following two ways; whether the library is a branch or
central library and the size of the collection.
Methodology
After determining sample size and creating the instrument, the online catalogs of 311
libraries were examined. It was recorded whether the library was a branch or central
library and whether the library held the print reference item in their collection. It was not
recorded whether the library had multiple copies of the item or the publication date of the
item. However the item had to meet the criteria predetermined in the instrument creation
phase. If a library was a branch or did not have a stand - alone catalog, the central library
catalog was examined for each branch’s holdings.
Results
It was notable that of the 311 libraries examined 19% had none of the items searched for.
Further results of initial examination included: Almost 23% had one item, and just over
23% had two items. An additional 17.4% had three items, 11% had four items, and 5.5%
had five items from the search list. Also notable is the startling conclusion that under 2%
of the 311 libraries held all six reference tools in their collection.
Table 1. Breakdown of Libraries Owning Zero-Six Search Items.
Zero Search
One Search
Two Search
Three
Four Search
Five Search
Six Search
Items in
Item in
Items in
Search
Items in
Items in
Items in
Catalog
Catalog
Catalog
Items in
Catalog
Catalog
Catalog
34
17
6
Catalog
58
70
72
54
Further, 146 libraries collections held the World Almanac, 106 libraries held the Oxford
Dictionary of Quotations, 112 libraries held a Statistical Abstract of the United States,
104 library collections owned a World Book Encyclopedia,102 libraries held a current
medical dictionary and 57 libraries held the Dictionary of National Biography.
Table 2. Breakdown of Libraries Holding Individual Print Reference Tools
World
World Book
Dictionary
Medical
Statistical
Oxford
Almanac
Encyclopedia
of National
Dictionary
Analysis of
Dictionary
the United
of
States
Quotations
112
106
Biography
146
104
57
102
Results When Examined Using Branch or Central Library as a Sorting Tool.
Notable results were found when using the status of branch or central library as a
sorting tool. Of the 311 libraries examined, 26% were branch libraries. It is significant
that of those 86 branch libraries none held all six items. The remaining 225 libraries
were central libraries. Only six held all six reference tools on the search list. The tables
below display the remaining data gathered from analysis of the data when using branch or
central library status as a sorting tool. Most significant is there does not appear to be a
correlation between branch status and inclusion of print reference materials in the
collection. While 50% of central libraries held three or more items the same holds true for
branch libraries.
Table 3. Breakdown of Branch versus Central by items Owned.
Lib.Type
225
No
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
searched for
searched for
searched for
searched for
searched for
searched for
searched for
items were
item was
items were
items were
items were
items were
items were
found in the
found in the
found n the
found in the
found in the
found in the
found in the
catalog
catalog
catalog
catalog
catalog
catalog
catalog
40
50
59
32
24
14
6
18
20
13
22
10
3
0
Central
86 Branch
Results When Examined Using Library Holdings as a Sorting Tool
Of the 311 libraries examined, 75 reported holdings of twenty thousand or fewer
items. Of those 75 libraries none held more than three items in the instruments search list.
One hundred forty-one libraries reported holdings of between twenty thousand and fifty
thousand items. Of those 141 libraries, 23 held none of the items searched for. Fifty-four
libraries report holdings of 50-100,000 items. Only ten of those held none of the items.
Finally thirty-two libraries reported holdings of over 100,000 items. Of these, there were
not any that held none of the items searched for.
Table 4: Average Number of Holdings by Number of Search Reference Tools.
Zero RTs
One RTs
Two RTs
Three
Four RTs
Five RTs
Six RTs
58,000
60,000
76,000
RTs
24,000
30,000
34,000
35,000
Analysis
It appears from the examination of the data that there is cause for concern regarding
the state of the print ready reference collections in Pennsylvania libraries with holdings of
less than fifty thousand. While most of the larger libraries appear to have kept their
reference collections in a current, useful state, smaller libraries may have neglected their
print reference collections. Almost 40% of branch libraries had one or fewer reference
tools on the search list. The initial finding showing that 19% of the 311 libraries
examined had none of the six reference items searched for is significant because before
the budget cuts of 2010, one hundred percent of the libraries in the state of Pennsylvania
had access to POWER library and had scholarly references with which to answer the
question set in the Janes and McClure study.26
Of the 206 libraries with holdings less than fifty thousand items, 45, almost twentytwo percent of those libraries had none of the print ready reference tools this study
searched for. It is not known if these libraries have reference librarians to assist patrons
with an Internet search or indeed if there are computers available for public use.
Additionally significant, data revealed that when looking at the status of branch
versus central library, of the eighty-five branch libraries examined, none held all six of
the items searched for. Of these branch libraries there were only 3.5% who held five of
the items searched for. The data is alarming if you reside in the service area of one of
these smaller libraries. Taxpayers in these areas do not have access to the same materials
as their neighbors across the state of Pennsylvania that dwells within a more populated or
privately funded library service area. The lack of equal access to all was a problem that
had been addressed with the creation of POWER library by state legislators. Further cuts
to POWER library can expect to create a continued decline in reference access to those
citizens residing in less populated areas.
While somewhat more positive results were gained with the central library’s it is still a
concern that only five libraries held all six books in their reference collections. Of these
five libraries, all had holdings of over 50,000 and all were central libraries. Data reveals a
clear distinction between library size and reference holdings. The size of the population
26
J. Janes and C. McClure, The Web as a Reference Tool.
served in a particular area is a key factor in determining the amount of state aid a library
receives in Pennsylvania public libraries.
Though not a formal part of the study it was noted that many of the websites did not
include cataloged websites for patron reference, many did not have searchable catalogs
from their own website and many libraries noted reduced hours on their web pages due to
budget cuts.
Conclusion
Why is this important in the age of instant access to the Internet? There are
multiple reasons we need to look at the public library’s ability to answer reference
questions without the use of online searching. Does every library have access to the
Internet? Does every front desk library staff know how to determine if a source is
reliable? Will funding allow the library to continue to update computers and maintain
Internet access? These are just a few of the situations that may affect a reference
interview and are best looked at in another study. The focus of this study shows a definite
gulf between smaller libraries and branch libraries when compared to libraries with larger
holdings. One can presume that funding is a key factor in these findings. Tools cut from
Power Library which was funded by the state did much to bridge that gulf without adding
a cost burden to the smaller library. With cuts in state aid, smaller libraries have not been
able to replace these very expensive online tools. Consequently, service to Pennsylvania
citizens who do not live in areas with access to larger libraries may not receive the same
access to information that other taxpayers have easy access to.
Limitations of the Study
While the data collected leads to concern regarding the print ready reference collections
in branch and small libraries, the study cannot say that the reason for this neglect is due to
the state budget cuts. This would only be possible if the collection had been examined
both before and after the cuts. The study can only determine the present state of the
reference collection based on a very limited but important inclusion of six print reference
tools. Additionally, the study cannot rate the quality of reference services provided by
individual libraries based solely on the inclusion of these six tools. The library may have
fee based web databases at their disposal. Many county consortiums have purchased
excellent databases for their reference staff to use during the reference interview. The
study did not include searching the library website for this inclusion.
Future Research
During the course of examining the catalogs of the 311 public libraries in
Pennsylvania, it would have been beneficial to identify databases and online reference
tools available through the library catalog and website. It would also be useful to collect
data from the libraries holding none of the tools searched for to determine if that library
had a professional librarian on staff during peak hours to assist patrons with their
information needs. Of particular interest would be a study to determine whether libraries
had been able to replace the POWER Library databases that were chopped in the 2010 –
2011 budget cuts. Additionally, a study on free Open Source Databases could determine
the ability of the reference staff to answer basic ready reference questions online with
free sources.
Figure One
Questions from the Janes and McClure Study
1. Who wrote the screenplay for My Fair lady?
2. What was the estimated amount of US carbon monoxide emissions from transportation
sources
in 1994?
3. What are the three most common U.S. street names?
4. What are the dimensions of a basketball court?
5. Who said, “The heart has reasons of which reason has no understanding”? The original
was in French.
6. Is there a word which means the 175th anniversary of something and what is it?
7. What day was Easter 1993?
8. What are the birth and death dates for Mary Tudor Brandon, sister of King Henry VIII
of England? She was married for one year to King Louis XII of France, then to Charles
Brandon, the Earl of Suffolk.
9. What is the cost of postage stamps for postcards in Jamaica?
10. What is the postal address for the Screen Actors Guild?
11. What type of specialist would treat sarcoidosis?
12. How many atoms are there in the universe?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailey, C., K. Coombs, J. Emery and A, Mitchell. Institutional Repositories. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 2006.
Biggs, Mary and Victor Biggs.” Reference Collection Development in Academic
Libraries: A report of a Survey.” Reference Quarterly 27(Fall 1987): 69.
Colson, Jeannie. “Determining Use of an Academic Library Reference Collection: Report
of a Study.” Reference and User Services Quarterly 47, no.2 (2007): 168-175.
Farmer, Lesley. “The Life Cycle of Digital Reference Services.” The Reference Librarian
50, no. 2(2009): 117-136. doi:10.1080/02763870902755957.
Friedlander, Amy.” Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment:
Introduction to a Data Set Assembled by the Digital Library Federation and Onsell,
Inc”. Washington D.C.: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and
Information Resources, 2006.
Heinzelman, Nicole, Courtney Moore and Joyce Ward.” Are Reference Books Becoming
an
Endangered Species?” Public Libraries 47(2008): 60-64.
Janes , Joseph. and Charles. McClure.”The Web as a Reference Tool: Comparisons With
Traditional Sources”. Public Libraries 38, no. 1(1999): 30-40.
Katz, William. Introduction to Reference Work: Basic Information Services. Boston:
McGraw Hill, 2002.
Koutnik, Chuck. “The World Wide Web is Here: Is the End of Printed Reference Near?”
Reference Quarterly 36, no.3 (1997): 422-429.
“Governor Unveils Proposed 2010-2011 Budget: Trims Library Funding.” Pennsylvania
Libraries, accessed February 12, 2010.
,http://palibraries.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=286
Mizzy, Danianne and Elizabeth Mahoney.” Stocking the Virtual Ready Reference
Collection.” The Reference Librarian 38, no. 79 (2003): 67-99.
doi:10.1300/J120v38n79-06
O’Gorman, Jack and Barry Trott.”What Will Become of Reference in Academic and
Public Libraries?” Journal of Library Administration 49, no. 4(2009): 327-339.
doi:10.1080/01930820902832421
Puacz, Jeanne Holba. “Electronic Versus Print Reference Sources in Public Library
Collections.” The Reference Librarian 44, no.91 (2005): 39.doi:
10.1300/J120v44n91_04.
Ritchie, Ann and Paul Genoni.” Print v. Electronic Reference Sources: Implications of an
Australian Study. The Electronic Library 25 (2007): 440-452
doi:10.1108/02640470779853.
Rix,Wright. “Reference Collections and Staff: Retaining Relevance.” The Reference
Librarian
50, no.3 (2009): 302-305. doi:10.1080/02763870902947109
“Sample Size Calculator” Creative Research Systems, last modified February 26, 2010,
accessed
June 12, 2010. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.html
“Search for Public Libraries,”Institute for Museum and Library Services. last modified
May
20,2010, accessed June 12, 2010, http://harvester.census.gov/imls/search/index.asp
Truett, Carol. “Weeding and Evaluating the Reference Collection.” The Reference
Librarian 13, no.29 (1990): 53-68. doi:10.1300/J120v13n29_06.