We are holding a Town Hall Meeting where we will be asking Libraries staff to help us brainstorm about the changes that could be made in the collections configurations, service points, and public spaces to make the Suzzallo and Allen Libraries a vital and active place for the future. We will also share information about our work.
The Town Hall meeting has been set for: September 17, Monday 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. OUGL 220.
All Libraries staff are invited -- your input will help us form our recommendations to move the Suzzallo and Allen Libraries forward to meet the challenges of the future. There will be refreshments! Cynthia Fugate, Associate Dean of University Libraries and Director of the UW Bothell Library and Media Center, will be the facilitator of the Town Hall Meeting.
In preparation for the meeting, please read the following documents:
- Framework document
- Possible Scenarios
- The SASSCR Charge
We hope you will join us!
~The SASSCR Committee
21 comments:
If there's a single call number run in Suzzallo/Allen, there's still going to be confused users, because the layout of the building itself is confusing. Where will the run begin? Where will it end? No matter how it's arranged, public services staff at Red Square will still be directing people to Allen south. Allen south pub svcs people will still be directing people to 4th floor Suzzallo, etc.
And how will technical responsibility for that huge collection be apportioned? Who's going to be in charge of that great big new cumbersome unit? Or break responsibility down by call number range? If so, it would make sense to retain NSL with responsibility for Q - Z with that portion of the call number range located in Allen South.
However, with all the emphasis on science research on this campus, and with the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary research ($$$$ into UW coffers) disappearing an interdisciplinary science collection into a humanities collection, and eliminating a science unit, (or the entire science libraries' chain of command, for that matter) sends a message of de-emphasizing science.
1. Merging Suzzallo/Allen stacks and Periodicals; Merging Suzzallo/Allen and Natural Sciences collections
The scenario combining Suzzallo/Allen Periodicals into the Suzzallo/Allen library stacks is an agreeable idea. A similar merge in Natural Sciences has proven popular and has increased ease of use according to Natural Sciences Library staff.
The possibility of combining Suzzallo/Allen stacks with Natural Sciences stacks seems like a less supportable idea for the following reasons:
1. The scenario does not take into account the needs or desires of the users of the Natural Sciences Library, who have not been surveyed for their opinions on such a proposal that would create a potentially negative impact. No information presented by the SASSCR committee indicates to me that Natural Sciences Library users have requested such a scenario or would find such a scenario desirable or even equivalent to their current scenario. I would ask that focus groups and surveys be conducted involving all affected libraries users before further consideration of this scenario take place.
2. The scenario de-emphasizes The UW Libraries strong sciences collections by diluting it among humanities and social sciences materials, in a time when biosciences are generating increasing PR and revenue for the UW.
3. In the Town Hall discussion, some participants initially in favor of merging Suzzallo/Allen and Natural Sciences stacks admitted that they assumed Natural Sciences material would be kept in close proximity after a merge due to call number similarities, and acknowledged that the actual call number range of Natural Sciences material (spanning call numbers from A to Z) would be spread out in ways they hadn’t anticipated.
4. The arrangement of a S/A and NSL merge would not remove the physical obstacles already presented by the design of the Suzzallo and Allen Libraries. The Allen South wing will still exist with barriers and starting collections on the 2nd floor of the building would require users to go up two flights of stairs before reaching materials and possibly services, depending on developing details of this scenario.
5. It seems illogical to merge a branch library into another, dis-similar set of collections, independently of but especially while preserving similar discrete collections in the same building such as Curriculum materials and Children’s Literature.
6. While more space is desirable for all libraries, since it would benefit the creation of collaborative spaces, technology hubs, and attractive catch-all spaces such as Suzzallo Espresso, it does not (necessarily) logically follow that eliminating a discrete branch with specialized needs would be the best solution for creating this space.
2. Periodical Display Areas
In both libraries, periodical display areas are appreciated spaces by some users but also take up desirable space. Rather than eliminating display areas, why not reduce their size and/or combine the displays with other uses? The need for different kinds of spaces does not necessarily mitigate the need for browsing. However, once again, if user needs/wants are or have been seriously considered (with focus groups, for instance), and users want these areas eliminated, then I wouldn’t object.
3. Service Points
In a building with the physical barriers of Suzzallo and Allen Libraries, it seems a poor choice to totally eliminate a service point, users sometimes must go to different floors for assistance as it is. Rather than eliminate the number of service points, it would be more effective to re-think service points in the building. For instance, if the Periodicals service point has low-use and/or has been found to be a poor location, then by all means shut down that service point but consider another, smaller service point. Whether it is a set point or roving-style service, I believe it is in the interest of our users and our staff to have welcoming, knowledgeable people with high visibility available on every floor where patrons travel.
It is not necessarily in the best interest of our users or our staff to suggest they pop into staff workplaces tucked outside of the open, public spaces for assistance, as some folks have suggested. In the first place, security guidelines dictate that certain areas are inaccessible to avoid crime such as theft. Secondly, many of these less public spaces are unapproachable.
4. Libraries
a. Incorporate other science libraries into the current Natural Sciences Library.
This sounds like a logical combination of services and collections that would emphasize the UW Libraries’ strong sciences collections. If all affected users were appropriately interviewed/surveyed and were enthusiastic about this possibility, then great! It would allow some strengthening of interdisciplinary collections and services among the sciences, although such a move would displace some Suzzallo/Allen stacks and appropriate solutions would need to be found for that displacement.
b. Integrate the Natural Sciences Library into the Health Sciences Library, creating a Life and Health Sciences Library on the South Campus in the current HSLIC space.
The Health Sciences Library is housed in a space much maligned by HSL users and staff alike, in terms of findability, accessibility, and comfort. And the two units emphasize some different service philosophies which may present some additional barriers for users accustomed to one or the other. In addition, the library has little space for its current residents, and even with the removal of much physical of the physical collection, the space does not offer desirable collaborative space or inviting free-use space like Suzzallo Espresso.
(I might have a different opinion on this if there was already some sort of plan involving lots of money for serious improvements to the space at Health Sciences).
Also, much of the Natural Sciences Library is made up of departments like Atmospheric Sciences, Geology, and Forestry, which have little or nothing to do with Health Sciences. Where would they go? Perhaps if this scenario had a little more detail about the other NSL collections, there may be more interest in this scenario. A scenario where geology is incorporated into the maps collection, for example, would start addressing the big questions that this scenario invokes. However, I would once again ask that all affected users be given appropriate opportunity to comment on such a proposal (through focus groups, surveys, etc).
5. User Spaces
a. Add more group and collaborative space.
b. Create spaces that will draw users into Allen and Suzzallo.
c. Expand Suzzallo Espresso.
d. Add power for laptop use.
e. Experiment with flexible furniture and movable landscape panels.
All of these ideas are terrific, but instead of focusing on the elimination of a discrete branch (NSL) to meet these requests, are there any ideas for creating new space without displacing something else? Such as adding a new floor or wing to Suzzallo? Admittedly a far-fetched idea, but it doesn’t hurt to ask, it seems it would be a solution more mindful of all affected users.
6. Other ideas, other scenarios?
The one other idea that was bandied about in my discussion group at the Town Hall meeting was the idea of a new building that would house all of the science libraries. If the resources were found to carry out such a feat, it would be a boon to everyone, freeing up coveted space in the Suzzallo/Allen libraries for multiple users, and creating a strong sciences library all at once.
In reviewing the notes taken at the recent Town Hall Meeting, which was basically a brainstorming session, I am concerned that some of that "brainstorming" will be taken as general consensus for a new plan. This is far too important a topic to successfully engage everyone (and represent their ideas well) in one large, noise-filled meeting.
Although there seems to be some agreement on interfiling Suzzallo books with periodicals, I question whether Natural Sciences or any other Suzzallo/Allen unit should be included in that plan. Some Suzzallo Circulation staff have stated that it is specifically the layout of main collection books with separate journals on the 3rd floor of the building that is at the heart of library user confusion, and not the placement of other units.
I find it upsetting that there seems to be some demand to fold the Natural Sciences collections into the general Suzzallo/Allen stacks. This ignores, I believe, the fundamental difference in Science reference work and collection development from that of the humanities and social sciences, the way sciences materials are used, and simply the way science material ages. A short term savings in money hardly would justify the disservice such a merger would do to our science users. And the folding in of branch science collections into the agglomerated science/Suzzallo/Allen mess would just emphasize the disservice these mergers would have.
I see no value in losing Natural Sciences Library as a unit and most importantly, as a service point for a wide group of users.
`Rationalizing' the arrangement of Suzzallo-Allen has value but it is a complex process and I have no useful suggestions for how to go about it. Having had to use the collection over the years, I can understand why we have many confused people with blank looks on their faces as they try to find something.
I feel combining Suzzallo Reference and NSL Reference would be a mistake and detrimental for our users. One of the strengths we have in the UW Libraries is our experience and our specialized knowledge. There are certainly many questions we can all answer across the board but there are also some questions that only one who has spent time with a discipline can know. They do need us for the `easy' stuff though we have many valid competitors to also help in those areas. They absolutely need us in the more specialized areas. All the new options users have make this even more important than less. A great deal of time is spent these days in supporting the undergraduates. This is important but so are the faculty members, the graduate students, the post docs and the many other specialized users who know that if they have biological and earth science and related questions, they should call, go to, email, the people who actually know how to answer their questions. The same goes for those who need the specialized knowledge of the librarians on the Suz. reference desk.
The word `interdisciplinary' has been thrown around a lot. It is an important one. However, it is not clear to me that people are really thinking about which disciplines are likely to be meshing and in what ways? Is a biologist going to gain some great understanding of the function of cells by coming across a Shakespearean play? doubtful though anything is possible. There are strong overlaps in some science areas with the some of the social sciences. Certainly most areas of science and technology have some overlap with business. Perhaps we should move NSL to Foster or vice versa? Looking at website for the Network for Interdisciplinary Initiatives provides some insight as to what is really going on on campus now. http://www.grad.washington.edu/Acad/interdisc_network/InterdisNetwork.htm. This is a gross simplification, I know. There is a great deal of value in interdisciplinary research and the sciences and social sciences do intersect in many areas. I do not think commingling the reference desks is the way to encourage this on campus.
"...the fundamental difference in Science reference work and collection development"
This is focusing entirely on how change may effect library staff. What about our users? Shouldn't their needs now and in the future be considered?
I believe the best scenario would involve the creation of a merged science & engineering library, but the answer to that is always, "there isn't any money to build a new library building." I propose that we look into trading branch library spaces and creating a combined science & engineering library in the large, underused, centrally-located Sieg Hall. In the long run, this scenario would result in considerable cost savings as several service points could be consolidated into one (instead of closing just one or two), and it would greatly benefit users doing interdisciplinary research, since much of the interdisciplinarity of science research is with other sciences and engineering, not with the humanities & social sciences. A combined science & engineering library would better serve our users because materials that are related to each other would be in one place, and staff with expertise in the sciences would be there to help them. I think combining NSL with Suzzallo reference would not serve users well because of the specialized nature of science reference work which requires reference staff to be knowledgeable about not only natural sciences resources, but also chemistry, physics, and engineering resources, because of the interdisciplinary nature of many science areas (e.g. water resources, geophysics, bio-engineering, etc.).
I already wrote much of this in an email to sasscr, but wanted to point out the cost savings of this option. I think the UW administration would favor this option since it would free up valuable real estate on campus, and no one wants to be in Sieg, so if we offer to take it, they may be so happy to get other spaces that they would pay for renovating it!
The downside is that we would be in the ugliest building on campus, but that's a hardship that I'm willing to put up with for the sake of our users.
Could some of the floor space be used for accessible compact shelving, like the shelving in Gov Pubs, to free up more space for users?
I agree with the scenario to combine Suzz/Allen periodicals and monographs. This arrangement has worked very well in NSL and we have had positive comments from users since this change was made as was pointed out in the SASSCR reading materials. That being said, I have to admit it is not clear to me why some of the other “separate existing sequences” are not being considered for inclusion into Suzz/Allen main collection, as disciplinarily they make more sense in that collection than pulling a science collection into a humanities/social sciences collection.
I believe that those few science-related materials that already exist in Suzz/Allen would better serve our users and enhance “discovery and learning” by being in the sciences collection rather than doing it the other way round and fitting the larger science collection into the small number of science items in the Suzz/Allen collection. I also think it would enhance “discovery and learning” to bring up another Sciences unit, Maps, out of the basement and combine their unique and subject-related materials to the current science collection in NSL. It would be beneficial to both collections as they overlap and complement each other well and would provide more staff for both collections.
I was somewhat discouraged at how the HSLIC idea was presented in the Town Hall documents. The whole plan did not come across as it was explained in the Biosciences report. The report mentioned combining the “life sciences library collections and services”. The fact that this scenario was presented on the handouts in its oversimplified form as “integrate the Natural Sciences Library into the Health Sciences Library” I think lead to some automatic negative reactions by many. While combining the life sciences collections into the HSLIC collection makes more sense than adding them to Suzz/Allen, disciplinarily and geographically, I do not think it is enhancing service to our users to place those collections in what I see as an inferior physical space.
I have no concrete suggestions for what could be done with the remaining subject areas housed in NSL (Earth & Space Sci, Atmospheric Sci, etc.) though in the spirit of truly being an exercise in “thinking out of the box” I’d take a look at other units/services housed in Suzz/Allen where there would be less detrimental effect on our users and consider some reshuffling there. Perhaps move ILL to a different location and put the remaining sciences there, or move ITS which needs more space and more personnel to meet the cyber-infrastructure challenges mentioned in the Biosciences report and Neil Rambo’s recent InForum presentation. MicNews is housed in an area of Suzz/Allen with considerable natural light which seems like a misuse of space considering so many of the resources in that unit are better used with less light. None of these is a solution in itself but I think if one were to step back and look at all the possibilities there may be a better combination of solutions that haven't been considered. Scenarios provided were mostly centered around NSL and removing it from its current location.
Town Hall attendees were asked to keep the following in mind:
What ideas fulfill the vision of the Libraries as an active and vital place of discovery and learning in the next 5 years?
What changes will move us forward?
There's all this discussion on campus and in the Libraries about being interdisciplinary and the creation of new buildings and the proposed new College on the Environment related to that. Without a pressing reason to shuffle things around, it seems the most economical and long-term solution with greatest benefit to the campus and our users would be to pro-actively seek funding and ideas to re-work existing space on campus for a combined sciences library.
"This ignores, I believe, the fundamental difference in Science reference work and collection development from that of the humanities and social sciences, the way sciences materials are used, and simply the way science material ages."
How does having a single LC run affect the way you do collection development? The way that material is used in the social sciences differs from the way it is used in the humanities and they age at different rates, yet they suffer not at all from being in a single LC run. Are you suggesting that you have different shelf maintenance practices for NSSTX than they do for SZSTX, therefore you need to have a separate LC run? If you have an argument to make, then you need to make that argument, and not just throw out unelaborated, unsupported and unfinished thoughts.
"Is a biologist going to gain some great understanding of the function of cells by coming across a Shakespearean play?"
Is this an attempt at being sardonic? If so, it fails not only in its lack of any kind of ironic humor, but also in trying to make your point. All you've succeeded in doing is suggesting a completely ridiculous scenario that suggests a complete lack of understanding of LC classification. If you have a faculty browsing through the Q's and comes across a volume of Shakespeare, that's a cataloging problem, not a problem with the layout of the library.
The arguments against a single LC run seem to suggest that all the NSSTX stuff will be randomly interfiled in SZSTX, when in reality, the collection will likely remain completely intact, just in a different location in the building. The parts of the collection that I suspect will have a great deal of interfiling, primarily in G-K classes, would benefit from interfiling. Right now our collection to support environmental science/studies is spread out over too many collections. Bringing together the NSSTX and SZSTX parts of this collection would be a real benefit to our patrons.
While I agree with some of the comments that a better long term solution would be to have a single combined sciences or sciences/engineering library, I don't think the best position to take is 'we don't want to change unless we get what we really want.' We need to continually change not only to remain relevant, but to be out in front of what our students and faculty want and what they don't yet know they want.
In my opinion, integrating the Suzzallo Periodicals into the main Suzzallo collection will be an obvious improvement for usability. Most users don't easily distinguish between bound volumes of journals and books.
An option I find interesting is to create a multi-use display area that could be used as a combo periodical display, special topic and other exhibit area, relaxing seating area and technology zone. People could meet, chat, browse displays & exhibits and use wireless and other technologies in a comfortable, inviting environment - plentiful power outlets, some hardwire connection availability.
I'm not too excited about a complete absorption of the Natural Sciences collections and services. I, too, agree that the disappearance of a Sciences entity on a campus that is so strong academically and financially in all areas of science and technology to be disturbing. Some integration of the collection into the Suzzallo-Allen whole may be possible, but a presence of a specialized Natural Sciences area to serve Sciences students, faculty and staff should be maintained in some form. Identifiable collaborative and research space is still important, even in an environment of constant change and interdiscplinarity. The space could be radically re-designed and services re-imagined, but still be "Natural Sciences." I would rather that the Libraries take this re-thinking of Suzzallo-Allen as a good opportunity to enhance the profile of the Natural Sciences Library, not as the chance to completely erase its existence.
I don't think anyone has made the statement that there shouldn't be any change. In these comments, for the most part, folks are genuinely trying to come up with alternate scenarios to a particular scenario that some believe has flaws. That was part of the purpose of the Town Hall and this comment section. It isn't about not wanting "to change unless we get what we really want". It's more about not changing just for the sake of change, particularly when that change could create barriers for a more meaningful and forseeable change in the future.
I agree wholeheartedly with Lori
Tschirhart's comments- well-said.
Closing NSL would be a huge mistake. I would imagine that most major universities comparable to the UW in size and reputation have a distinct sciences library. What would the UW Libraries gain by closing NSL? Library users have not been asked for input. The closure of Forest Resources Library
was traumatizing- imagine what the closure of NSL would mean. The impact on users is tremendous and would be a public relations nightmare. Do the UW Libraries really need such bad press? I would feel very sorry for users wandering lost among the stacks in Suzzallo/Allen- I work for the libraries and I still get lost. Combining NSL with HSL is not a viable idea. HSL is too far away for most users- it is also one of the most ugly, unattractive and unwelcoming libraries on campus. Please do not close NSL- it does not make sense on so many different levels.
I think it's a bit reactionary to say that this is 'change for the sake of change.' If we can gain efficiencies and reduce confusion by going to single LC run, and at the same time free up valuable space that can be used in more innovative ways to enhance student research and learning, I think those are all positive changes.
There are easier and more cost effective ways (which is of course the bottom line) than re-arranging a whole building in order for people to find things easier, especially when we don't know that it would in fact solve the problem.
I suggest we improve online finding resources. Perhaps use the public display field to list the building and floor the book is located on or perhaps expand the location field to display a greater number of characters for the same purpose. Perhaps a link to a Find it Fast form, perhaps a pop up box when you roll over the call number. I know we can figure out something more practical to try out before doing something so drastic.
A few thoughts in addition to (or as comments on) what others have already left. And while I agree that there is a definite need to restructure existing spaces within Suzzallo/Allen to meet the changing way in which many of our users study and work, my comments will be primarily collections-related, although hopefully still with the focus on changes that will offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of users.
First of all, kudos in particular to Lori Tschirhart for her extended comments and how well supported most of those comments were. I agree with the vast majority of what she contributed. She has saved me a lot of typing.
:-)
OK, some not entirely random additional points.
Given the large number of students and faculty in various areas of the sciences at UW, and given the $$$ that researchers in those areas bring in to university coffers, I believe that any de-emphasis in support of that user population by the Libraries (whether real _OR_ perceived by those user groups) would be a mistake. Therefore I support the continued existence of a separate science library presence in the Suzzallo Allen complex. Whether that is the Natural Sciences Library in exactly its current configuration or whether the location of that unit continues to be on Allen South ground and first floors is another question, one that should be addressed in connection with how best to lay out the other collections and user spaces within Suzzallo/Allen.
I agree with Corey's comment about it being a good thing for our users if the environmental science/studies content currently in NSSTX and SZSTX were brought together in one place. With the possible pending creation of a UW college specifically focused on the environment, I just disagree with him on where that combined collection should be located. Put it all in the sciences unit and tout that unit as being the Libraries point of focus in support of that new college.
With the emphasis on science on campus that I mentioned in the first point above, and the possible creation of this new college, take the example above a step further. INCREASE the image and stature of science collections and services on campus by moving science-related materials OUT of SZSTX (and yes, there are some - not many, but some) and locate them in a science library unit within S/A. That unit might also at some point absorb other science branch libraries, but if that happens, those branch collections are absorbed into a strengthened central science location. That arrangement also addresses a point made elsewhere in these blog comments - that while there IS increasing interdisciplinary study across large subject clusters such as humanities, social sciences and sciences, that increase is far greater across the subject areas _within_ those large clusters, i.e. across various science disciplines.
There _are_ positives to locating bioscience materials in a single location. There are also positives about locating environmental, climate, ecology, and habitat materials in a single location, as there are for locating other groupings of like or related materials together, in order to minimize the need for users to either march from location to location to acquire the materials they need, or to wait to have those materials delivered to them. But I don't believe we currently HAVE such a location where these kinds of groupings can occur that doesn't involve taking over space currently in use for other purposes (e.g. an expanded central science library needing additional floors of Allen South) or that involve cramming collections in a particular subject grouping into space that is ill-suited to accommodate the influx of material that would result (e.g. moving all bioscience material into HSL).
Any sort of clustering of subject content is to a degree artificial. What constitutes a bioscience resource and what doesn't - where do you draw the line? Moving biosciences materials out of NSL to HSL simply divides up existing collections in a different way. And while such a move, if adequate facilities were available to accommodate it, might be a benefit to core biosciences researchers, it might just as easily be a detriment to researchers in other areas, particular interdisciplinary ones that overlap with biology. Those researchers, who rarely would have needed materials from HSL in the past, likely would find themselves having to acquire materials from HSL far more than they had previously. Without a more centralized location in which to merge sciences collections, moving materials from one location to another benefits some users at the same time it inconveniences others.
Aren't most of the biosciences materials already located in a single spot -- online? So the argument is over where to house the shrinking percentage that isn't online? Do users really care where that goes (or will they in 5 years)?
The de-emphasizing science argument is easily refuted by examining the resources budget, where the sciences are decidedly NOT de-emphasized.
Which users are being served by a place-bound reference service in Allen South? The surveys show faculty visits declining dramatically and grad visits are following the same trend. What will those numbers look like in 5 years? Isn't any real interaction with faculty taking place out of the library?
This whole thread seems to focus on preserving support structures needed for libraries in the 1980's, not the 2010's.
The biosciences are spread throughout every science branch as well as HSL, so no, they are not already in located together? Should they be? Possibly but I'm not fully convinced yet. Certainly eventually-2010?-that will likely be the case. Actually, I don't think that soon though andnot just because there is currently no physical location to do it. Bioscience takes on many forms, some overlapping with the physical sciences and technology, some sitting apart in more `traditional' forms. Certainly putting all the sciences and technology together can have advantages but having worked in a combined collection as well as branches at different universities, I still see advantages to keeping our branches for some time into the future.
It has been mentioned that there would be some monetary savings by combining the sciences. Science more things are electronic and budgets cuts have removed almost all duplication, make sure we all understand that almost the only area of savings will be from salaries because we will be cutting staff of all levels.
I do agree our users are changing and we are also. Having Natural sciences as a separate unit still serves the users because they can contact a specific unit and have the best chance for getting an answer to their question in a reasonable amount of time. Whether they come in, call, or email, I think they benefit from this as do the librarians by having others who understand the range subject areas covered. In the spectrum of questions asked, there are many which can be handled by anyone. That is why chat and 24/7 reference is a huge advantage for users. Where it and a combined desk with people who don't have cross broad subject expertise (we already have some who have no problems crossing the two desks so it can be done) will fail the users is when they require more detailed subject specific information. Having a Natural Sciences library means that students/faculty/staff who need this kind of information know where they are likely to get a good answer. If the person initially contacted can't handle it, they have a better chance of knowing who does have the expertise. Triaging questions when you are a long ways away from the topic, is not easy.
As for the physcial collections, several potential arrangements have been suggested. I can see several of them being useful if space allows. Something must be done. I suspect we have users who have been never found again because they were so lost (and some of them have been libraries' staff!). I do think it would be nice to have all the science stuff in one range and the resst in another range but am most concerned about making it rational, however it is arranged.
SASSCR Committee -- one space consideration I would like to propose -- that wasn't discussed at the Town Hall gatherings -- is a designated training space for staff, which would include computers for hands-on training.
Currently there are several labs in SAB, but curriculum needs (rightly so) have first priority. The computers in these labs are also loaded with the public image which makes teaching library-specific applications more difficult because it involves attendees using remote desktop to connect to their computer.
Well said.
Post a Comment