June 5, 1997

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Facilities and Equipment

4.3 Collections

4.4 Curriculum Planning

4.5 Clientele

4.6 Staffing

4.7 Medical School Library

4.8 Reorganization

4.9 Recommendations

The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (UNR Libraries) is comprised of five libraries: Getchell (main) Library, the Engineering Library, the Life and Health Sciences Library, the Mines Library, and the Physical Sciences Library. Responding to the rapid and sweeping changes occurring in libraries and information technologies, the libraries have recently been placed under a wider organizational umbrella, Information Resources and Technologies (IRT). One person serves both as dean of the Libraries and as associate vice president for Information Resources and Technology. The School of Medicine Library is funded separately from the UNR Libraries and reports to the dean of the University of Nevada School of Medicine.

While libraries have historically been analyzed in terms of the services they offer under their roofs, the advent of the digital age has challenged this mode of analysis. Increasingly, libraries are the center of a vast network of interrelated information services, many of which do not even have to be accessed from within the library itself. Thus, an analysis of the library and information services at UNR is inseparable from an analysis of how the library and related services are facing the challenge of the rapid growth of new information technologies.

In response to the rapidly changing climate, UNR Libraries revised its mission statement in 1992 and developed a comprehensive strategic plan in 1994. The new mission statement, developed with wider university concurrence and incorporated into the strategic plan, emphasizes a commitment to service and places UNR Libraries squarely within the context of the information revolution:

For additional information on resources, policies, and procedures, see the following documents available on file for the accreditors: UNR Libraries operating budgets for last four years, an organizational chart, a list of personnel which includes titles, training and experience, copies of policies and policies and procedures documents, and copies of planning documents.

Due to the growth of the collection and the increase in number of students and faculty, the present facilities have become inadequate. A study requested by the State of Nevada Public Works Board, undertaken by a consulting team supervised by the Welles-Pugsley Architects, identified "a critical shortage of user seating, an inability to accommodate growth of book stacks, inadequate power supply and distribution for increasing technology, poor security, and questionable floor loading capacity." At the present rate of growth, the library collection will require 136,411 square feet by 2005. Currently, UNR Libraries has 138,918 square feet of usable space---for book stacks, student study areas, reference facilities, and so forth. The growth of the book stacks is reducing the number of study spaces for students. Based upon current student FTE enrollment, a formula developed by UCCSN requires 1792 study spaces; present seating accommodates 1182. Together, projected enrollment increases and growing book stacks imply a future of decreasing amounts of study space for increasing numbers of students.

UNR Libraries has responded to this situation by proposing a four-floor extension to the west of Getchell Library, resulting in a net gain of 134,000 square feet. The planned addition will provide additional book stacks and seating, more space for microform storage, a distance education/teleconferencing facility, classrooms with advanced technology capabilities, a multi-media/public access computing center, group study rooms and faculty carrels, and a new location for the film and video library and learning lab. Obtaining funding for planning the library expansion is among the university’s priorities for the 1997-98 legislative session. However, given that the legislature has failed to fund more modest requests for similar projects the last three bienniums, it is not clear that the required political support will be forthcoming.

Recognizing that it is not likely to receive enough state provided resources to meets its needs, UNR Libraries has developed ambitious external fund-raising goals. Among others, these goals include:

• $3 million for the completion of the Mines and Engineering Library;
• $19 million for the expansion of Getchell Library.

UNR’s physically decentralized library system has long been controversial. The 1988 self-study report and the 1988 accreditation evaluator’s report each noted that decentralization was no longer feasible. There is increasing consensus among library staff that some consolidation must take place. UNR Libraries placed a recommendation for consolidating the science libraries in its 1994 strategic plan. Support for centralization was also voiced in the 1993 UNR Academic Master Plan. Given the libraries’ chronic staffing shortages, the digital revolution, and the critical deficiencies in the Medical School Library, it appears that an overall consolidation plan will move forward. However, faculty from some academic units with discipline-oriented branch libraries have reservations about consolidation. For example, immediate access to the Physical Sciences Library is an integral component of teaching chemistry laboratory courses, which invariably require frequent short visits to the library for data collecting and brief checking of the scientific literature during the time that laboratory experiments are being conducted.

Like the rest of the campus, the libraries face challenges in procuring equipment, particularly digitally based equipment. There is not enough of it; it tends to become outdated; and there are insufficient maintenance funds. Last year, the Vice President for Academic Affairs furnished the libraries with a one-shot transfusion of $135,000 to purchase equipment. The libraries do not have formalized procedures for ascertaining equipment needs, but in practice they seem to have effectively identified what it is that is needed. In this regard, the university needs to acknowledge its responsibility to consistently provide students and faculty with the latest in technologies and information resources, meaning there needs to be a regular infusion of equipment money.

Faculty, administrators and outside evaluators have consistently observed that the library collections have been grossly under funded over a long period of time. The 1988 accreditation evaluators’ report observed that, although the libraries had received relatively constant funding from the university, its collection grew at a declining rate because of the increased cost of books and materials. Although the Nevada legislature has committed itself to fund the libraries according to a State of Oregon University Libraries formula, it has consistently failed to fund the libraries according to its own criteria.

UNR collection problems are compounded by the way that the formula is applied. Funding is divided equally between UNR and UNLV, yet UNR has historically offered the majority of the state’s graduate programs. The present formula is not consistent with building a collection supportive of graduate education. In a recent survey, a significant proportion of UNR graduate students responded that they view the libraries' holdings as being inadequate in their particular disciplines.

Comparatively speaking, the UNR Libraries can be looked at from two perspectives. It can be compared with 9 other Western land grant institutions of comparable size. Alternatively, it can be compared to the top 108 research libraries in the country--those that make up the Association of College Research Libraries (ACRL). The first perspective is historically relevant, while the second perspective is relevant to the university’s aspirations to be a significant research institution.

According to 1994 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) statistics, the total size of UNR’s collection--881,223--is the median for a group of 10 Western land grant universities. UNR Libraries’ total operating budget ($6,335,467) and the amount spent per student ($522) were the highest among these ten universities. However, when compared to the 108 ACRL Libraries, UNR Libraries lags far behind. UNR’s collection is nearly half the size and expands at nearly half the rate as the smallest ACRL library. While UNR Libraries’ current expenditures are comparable to the smallest ACRL library ($5,797,784 versus $6,284,966), its staff size is significantly smaller (77 versus 112). The Dean of Libraries points out, however, that some Library activities such as cataloguing, are now being performed on a contract-basis by external companies.

The collection and use statistics in the following tables are, for the most part, self- explanatory. The increasing use made by students and faculty of Internet access to the UNR libraries may help explain the observed changes in turnstile count. Like many libraries nationwide, UNR Libraries is struggling to devise ways to determine Internet uses of its facilities.

It is unlikely that UNR Libraries will soon be funded at levels necessary to propel it into the ranks of the ARL libraries, but efforts to facilitate research on campus have intensified. This effort has been spearheaded by the Libraries’ 1994 strategic plan, which developed from a process of extensive consultation with the library staff. The plan fuses a reaffirmation to expand the collection as traditionally defined—it continues to grow at the rate of about 18,000 volumes per year—and a new commitment to the rapidly expanding field of information technologies, which make available in electronic form many items which cannot be made available in print.

The 1994 strategic plan recognized that a significant increase in state appropriations for acquisitions is not likely and presented a four-pronged approach to the problem of collection development, including 1) the acquisition of materials that support curricular and scholarly programs identified in the university’s academic master plan; 2) the examination of all of the libraries’ current acquisition policies with regard to the master plan; 3) the implementation of methods to supplement the owned collection by having access to electronically delivered materials and data bases; and 4) the development of cooperative arrangements with other libraries to complement UNR’s permanent collection. With regards to the last of these, UNR has been actively cooperating with UNLV and with the state community colleges in complementary collection acquisition.

The building of the electronic collection has taken place on several fronts. CD-ROM technology provides access to indexing for periodical articles and microform collections, full-text of specialized collections (e.g. literature and poetry), and databases containing scientific and statistical information. Between 1992-93 and 1994-95 the number of CD-ROMs increased from 116 to 524. UNR Libraries’ growing and evolving on-line system, NEON, makes it possible to connect with dozens of databases, including those which index academic journals and provide article citations, abstracts, and, increasingly, full-text. The acquisition of Infotrac and First Search on-line products make available more than 60 databases, which include the full-text of more than a million articles drawn from 1500 journals. When full-text is not available on-line, UNR Libraries provides a full range of interlibrary loan and document delivery services. A rush article delivery service provides photocopies of journal articles within 48 hours at a minimal cost. Finally, UNR Libraries have just launched a web-based version of NEON in which the user will be able to access electronic versions of journals on the World Wide Web.

While the increased emphasis on electronic services has been beneficial, it has also created problems. First, electronic services are only as good as their reliability, and there is always the concern that vendors will not be able to deliver them on a consistent basis. Second, the spread of electronic texts (whether CD-ROM or on-line) has not affected all disciplines on an equal basis. Third, faculty have complained about the readability of faxed articles, especially in fields where graphics play a critical role. Fourth, the shift of resources from buying serials to delivering journal articles through a document delivery service means that users must know what they want in advance, and "browsing"--a less directed form of searching that is nonetheless relied upon by researchers in many fields--has taken on a different form that is unfamiliar to many researchers.

As indicated by the faculty survey for the self-study and a faculty focus group on information services, the Libraries’ planning efforts are given consistently good marks, particularly in the area of electronic collection building. Discussions with library staff indicated both satisfaction with their involvement in the planning process and a feeling of having significant input into how planning goals have been implemented as policies and procedures. Perhaps the weakest link between the Libraries and its constituencies in transforming planning into concrete practice is the faculty Library Committee. Conceivably, this body could act as an important consultative body, advising the Libraries on acquisition policies and setting general policy goals. In fact, the faculty Library Committee meets infrequently, and has struggled to find a meaningful role for itself.

Library and Information Resources and Technologies (IRT) staff are effectively involved in curriculum planning and implementation. IRT has added two professional staff who function as curriculum designers for the university faculty. They are available to help design courses, beginning with the basics of defining goals and learning outcomes and continuing with consulting about the integration electronic teaching aids delivery systems. When called upon, they are also available to help produce extended syllabi. Before courses and curricula can be added or changed, library staff evaluate library resources necessary to support requested additions or changes. The University Courses and Curricula Committee takes into account the library’s analysis before rendering a decision.

Finally, both IRT and library staff play a significant role in the delivery of electronic distance education (EDE) (See also Standard VI). IRT staff help design EDE classes and are responsible for technical support (designing and retrofitting classrooms, determining equipment specifications, providing production supervision within the classrooms, maintenance, liaison with UNR Continuing Education and the UCCSN). Library staff work with Continuing Education, community college libraries and librarians, schools, and community libraries to secure, deliver and make available needed materials to remote sites in support of EDE delivered classes and degree programs. In general, the UNR Libraries work diligently to increase the interconnectedness of all libraries in the state.

The 1994 strategic plan identifies and prioritizes the clientele of UNR Libraries. The first priority belongs to the university’s students, faculty, and staff. The second priority is other parts of UCCSN. The third priority is outside groups.

To better serve its first priority clientele, UNR Libraries has implemented an action plan aimed specifically at increasing faculty and student awareness of its resources. Particular emphasis has been placed on increasing familiarity with resources germane to the core curriculum (Western Traditions, the writing program, capstone courses). Also, over the last ten years, the number of operating hours has increased. The main library increased its hours from 93 to 97 per week, while the reference desk increased its weekly hours from 72 to 78. While the Learning Lab has seen a small decline in its hours, the Business and Government Information Center, the Basque Library, and Special Collections have experienced increases. Of particular note is a change which provides library access during "break periods" and on Saturdays.

The 1994 strategic plan calls for expanded access to campus library resources and remote sources. Because this goal must be achieved using relatively static financial resources, UNR Libraries is having to reorganize and re-focus its priorities. With regard to locally housed resources, the focus has been on those materials and collections deemed most important by the libraries’ first priority clientele--students, faculty, and staff. Consequently, priority has been given to developing WolfPAC---the UNR Libraries on-line catalog---and adding materials to it. With regard to remote sources, the focus has been on developing NEON and the document delivery system. Since 1994, document delivery has improved dramatically, measured both by the range of material capable of delivery and the length of time required to deliver them. The libraries have internally reorganized to provide more support for NEON.

UNR Libraries has looked critically at its basic services---circulation, reference, interlibrary loan, reshelving---to determine how each might be improved from the perspective of the clients who use them. A number of changes have occurred, including a new position in support of electronic distance education (EDE).

Although UNR has had electronic distance education capabilities since 1980, until 1990 EDE was used almost exclusively for the delivery of discrete courses, primarily to school teachers for recertification purposes, not as part of off-campus degree programs. During the past five years, however, UNR has moved increasingly toward the delivery of degree programs via EDE. This change has increased demands on UNR Libraries for the delivery of both paper and electronic materials to students in UNR’s service area. The existence of NEON, our own library staff, and some very cooperative librarians in Elko and other communities has resulted in the EDE students being provided an admirable, but unsustainable, level of service. As UNR Libraries has responded to the intensifying demands on an ad hoc basis, the strain on library resources has intensified.

Three recent changes will facilitate UNR's offering of EDE-based degree programs. First, the libraries hired an EDE librarian to provide information about e-mail, Internet, and electronically and paper delivered resources to EDE students and the faculty teaching them. Second, library staff are now included in discussions about possible EDE-based degree programs. Finally, the reorganization of the libraries and information sources means that the technical side of EDE is now organizationally integrated into the information support side. Further discussion of this significant educational initiative must nonetheless occur, as recommended in Standard VI.

An on-going difficulty for UNR Libraries, only accentuated by its decentralized facilities, is an inadequate number of professional and classified staff. In 1993, the UNR Institutional Budgets Committee drafted a report on library staff funding. The report compared numbers of UNR professional library staff against three widely accepted formulas. At the time the report was written, UNR Libraries had 23.26 professional staff members. The Oregon Higher Education Formula recommended 32; the Virginia State Council on Higher Education formula recommended 46.41; and the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) formula recommended 33. By 1996, the libraries had increased its professional staff to 25.66, still 7.34 positions below the ACRL formula. These widely accepted formulae recommend 2.5 to 3 classified staff for every professional position, meaning UNR Libraries should have 64 to 77 classified positions in 1996. UNR Libraries has 54 classified positions.

Nowhere has rethinking within UNR Libraries been developed more assiduously than with regard to its staff. In the past decade, UNR Libraries has rethought its priorities, adopted rigorous staff development, and increased productivity by using digital information technologies. A staff development committee was established in the spring of 1995 to address the training needs of both classified and professional staff. The Library Staff Development Committee is charged with assessing training needs, connecting the need to an opportunity, and evaluating results. A team of in-house technology trainers offered a number of technology related classes in 1995. The focus of technology training in 1996 has been on Netscape and Windows 95. In addition to internal training efforts, UNR Libraries sponsors classes taught by State Personnel and System Computing Services.

Library staff are encouraged to participate in professional associations and to attend conferences and workshops relevant to their areas of specialization. Library Travel Support Guidelines and Procedures establish funding levels available for professional development activities and outline the kinds of activities for which financial support is appropriate. The libraries expect faculty and staff to invest in their own personal and professional development, while library funds are intended to support administrative and other travel from which the libraries derive a clear and direct benefit.

The 1988 self-study and report noted UNR Libraries’ reliance on the use of student workers. The practice has become more prevalent during the intervening years, leading to two chronic problems. First, as student workers increase as a percentage of the libraries’ labor force, student workers are more often assigned tasks more appropriately done by classified or professional staff. Second, because the amount of wages budgeted for student labor is about half of what is normally spent, with the remainder coming from extraordinary resources, staff planning for UNR Libraries is difficult, and even the limited service provided using the high numbers of student workers cannot be guaranteed.

1987-88 127,443 127,443

1992-93 159,478 369,548

1993-94 158,478 350,797

1994-95 158,478 325,087

1995-96 162,735 322,796

The University of Nevada School of Medicine’s library is separately funded and administered. The 1996 report of the Liaison Committee for Medical Education, Medicine’s specialized accreditation organization, found the medical library to be substandard in terms of staff, collections, facilities, and electronic infrastructure. There is a plan in place to remedy the library’s most chronic deficiencies by the time the Northwest Association evaluation team arrives.

Recognizing the sweeping changes in information technologies, the university has reorganized its delivery of information services. In accordance with various versions of its academic master plan and the Technology Task Force Report of November 1992, UNR created in 1995 the position of Associate Vice-President of Information Resources and Technology. Because of the importance of the function, this position reports directly to the president. It carries authority over all information services on campus--the libraries, instructional technologies, academic computing, and the campus radio station. In the future it may also include responsibility for telephones.

In Spring 1996, an ad hoc committee on information resources recommended a restructuring of information services to create a more coordinated and flexible organization with clearer reporting lines. The committee’s recommendations were endorsed unanimously by the Faculty Senate in June 1996. To help achieve the reorganization, the university has created a Director of Computing and Telecommunications, who both assists the associate vice-president and has direct responsibility for academic computing support, networking, and telephones. As part of the restructuring, the associate vice-president will convene an information services and technology advisory board which is comprised of representatives from each of the vice-presidents, and he/she will meet with the newly created Faculty Senate Technology Committee.

Among the most important developments resulting from the approved reorganization was the transformation of one organization, Instructional Media Services, into three smaller ones--Information Resources and Technologies (IRT), Computing and Telecommunications, and KUNR (public radio station). The removal of KUNR management and the splitting off of networking and some aspects of computing has made it possible for IRT to focus extensively on teaching and learning issues.

A strategic emphasis has been placed upon instructional technology services in the Academic Master Plan. In response, IRT is in the process of moving from the provision of lower- skill, audio-visual services toward assisting and training faculty in creating instructional materials; e.g., creating a Web site for a course. However, as IRT moves toward offering high- demand new services, it must continue to provide the existing services desired by faculty. This strains the resources of IRT. Moreover, several key IRT endeavors---e.g. Internet development, distance education, classroom support---are at present supported by temporary funding. This funding must be sustained if IRT is to keep pace with the increased demand for services.

The mission of the revamped Computing and Telecommunications is to provide the University with: (1) access to better equipment and newer technology, (2) higher levels of service and support, both in quantity and quality, and (3) improved reliability of networking and computing support services. The organization strives to make the most efficient and effective use of available resources to support and to serve the academic as well as the administrative information technology and resource needs on campus.

Computing and Telecommunications’ support is dependent on fees and outside funding. Personal computer maintenance is funded by individual departments who choose either an annual contract or a fee for service. Student labs and student network support are funded by student fees. The campus backbone network and campus cabling have been funded by state networking funds and by individual departments. Currently, Computing and Telecommunications needs funds to complete the fiber network and to ensure that every faculty member is connected to the Internet.

The greatest challenge faced by Computing and Telecommunications is that demand for computing resources and services far exceeds its ability to deliver. For example, although UNR has nearly doubled the number of student lab seats with the opening of the student union lab, there are only 65 seats for a student body of 8558 undergraduates. Lines at these labs are common. Other labs, with more limited hours, provide an additional 42 seats. Even factoring these seats, the student to lab seat ratio is approximately 80:1.

Critical to UNR’s rethinking about information technology have been its efforts at achieving full control of computer resources on campus. The university has its own computing system, but it is also serviced by System Computing Services (SCS)--a statewide organization reporting to the chancellor of the University and Community College System of Nevada--which many at UNR believe has failed to meet the demands of its clients. Arguing the effective deliverance of computing services is dependent on their integration, UNR has fought hard to claim a fair share of the resources traditionally allocated to SCS. The chancellor has agreed to the principle of the decentralization of some of the SCS resources and has asked UNR to put together a plan for how it would use these reallocated resources. Accomplishing decentralization remains a formidable challenge, however.

The reorganization of information services at UNR is a step in the right direction. However, at present, one person is both Dean of Libraries and Associate Vice-President of Information Resources and Technology (AVPIRT). There is concern that this job may be too much for one person and that the organization may become so centralized and bureaucratic that it fails to be a flexible and responsive unit as intended. To maintain flexibility and responsiveness, the AVPIRT should find ways to listen to students and faculty beyond a Faculty Senate committee. For example, an ad hoc committee meeting last spring expressed concern about whether information services provided by the university--such as computer maintenance or media services such as slide duplication--could not be more effectively provided by outside sources. The AVPIRT should compare costs of services provided by the university and the private sector and, in consultation with the wider university community, formulate a policy based on the findings.

Present funding levels for library and information services are inadequate and incompatible with the university’s mission. This funding inadequacy has long been recognized but has never been adequately addressed. To their credit, the UNR Libraries staff have been good stewards, innovatively using the funding which has been provided. Nonetheless, as indicated in the above discussion and following recommendations, UNR Libraries has become or is becoming a bottleneck in UNR’s pursuit of excellence due to the perennial under-funding.

• Obtain additional funding for library staff. Despite contract services, the present size of the library staff is incompatible with the growth of and increasing focus on graduate programs (See Standard XI).

• Obtain additional funding for collection development.

• Continue to raise funds from private sources to augment the resources provided by the State of Nevada.

• Secure funding for a library addition, and if the project is not funded in the near future, rethink the strategy for achieving it. By any measure, the recommendation that the university make library expansion an important priority carries more weight in 1997 than when it was originally voiced by the accreditation evaluators in 1988. In addition to expanding the Getchell Library, UNR Libraries should implement their goals to reclaim the space in Getchell Library used by other entities, complete the Mines-Engineering library, and implement a master plan for the Stead storage facilities.

• Reduce the number of discrete library facilities on campus so as to use the available staff more efficiently.

• Increase the number of study seats in the library. The library is a major focal point of student intellectual and social life, meaning the current trend toward replacing student study areas with book stacks threatens the quality of student life on campus.

• Continue to consolidate information services across campus, without creating an inflexible and bureaucratic organization. In this regard, faculty involvement---perhaps through an enlarged and revamped library committee---and student involvement would be helpful.

• Continue to balance the expansion of electronic services with augmentation of the physical collection, while expanding the lines of communication already developed with faculty and student users. Faculty and students throughout the campus have benefited from the libraries’ efforts in this context, but too many still have little or no awareness of the services that the libraries offer.

• Continue to integrate electronic distance education as part of the university’s educational offerings, but develop a policy about how many resources the university should commit to electronic delivery systems.

• After two or three years, evaluate whether one person being both Associate Vice-President for Information Resources and Technology and Dean of Libraries has been successful.

• Strengthen the role of the faculty Library Committee, making it an advisory board for achieving policy goals.

1. Operating budget
2. Organizational chart
3. List of personnel
4. Copies of Policies
5. Planning Document: "Approaching the 21^st Century: A Plan for the University of Nevada, Reno Libraries"