BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
reference questions which are frequently directed to a specific format. Another means of drawing the patron's (here, the health professional's) attention to this material is the integration of cards for patient and medical library material in the medical library catalog. In addition, this integrated catalog facilitates the location of material, because the library staff and patrons have only one catalog to check in order to find what they need. REFERENCES 1. GOODCHILD, E. Y., ET AL. The CHIPS project: a health information network to serve the consumer. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 66: 432-436, Oct. 1978. 2. SORRENTINO, S.; FIERBERG, J.; AND GOODCHILD, E. Y. CATLINE as an acquisitions tool for health and patient education materials. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 66: 458-460, Oct. 1978.
Received November 2, 1978; accepted November 20, 1978.
Getting Workshops to Work: A Step Toward Media Resource Sharing* BY LUELLA S. ALLEN, Assistant Project Librarian Media Resources Center Health Sciences Library State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, New York
WORKSHOPS have become an increasingly accepted and important activity for librarians. But as anyone who has attended a dull or unproductive workshop can testify, they can be full of problems. When the Media Resources Center of the Health Sciences Library at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo applied for an NLM library resource project grant in 1975, a series of workshops was one of the goals described in the project plan. The workshops were to be held at regular intervals, "to acquaint hospital librarians (and other interested members of the health sciences community) with the basic skills to maintain audiovisual service programs as well as the fundamentals of media methods and services." The project plan also emphasized that the workshops were to be "an effort to coordinate and systematize *This project is supported by NIH Grant No. 1G08-LM02575-01 from the National Library of Medicine.
260
health media development in Western New York." Specific topics to be covered included: media cataloging principles; the development of hospital learning centers; selection processes for media materials and equipment; and software interlibrary loan procedures. The workshops were also seen as a vehicle to bring together, in a cooperative working arrangement, the people in the western New York area who administer health sciences media. These personnel represent a broad spectrum of competency. For example, some have library training but no media experience; others are highly trained in television production but have no library training. They are also situated in a variety of health sciences institutions with widely divergent library services. As a subregional library, SUNY/Buffalo Health Sciences Library maintains a close working relationship with the hospitals and health-related agency libraries in the eight-county western New York area. The library also serves eight affiliated teaching hospitals utilized by the university's five professional schools of the health sciences for their clinical programs. In the immediate area there are also nursing homes, community colleges offering programs in allied health fields, and several specialized research libraries with health-related orientations. Because audiovisual collections tend to be small, specialized, and expensive, the goal of coordinating and systematizing the collection development and interlibrary loan of these materials through a series of workshops was one of the prime considerations when the grant was approved in late 1976 and then funded in January 1977. The objectives of the workshops would have to evolve from the needs of those attending. This much seemed obvious. We also hoped to create situations that would promote exchange of information, discussions of mutual problems, and recognition of that interdependency which makes resource sharing a necessity. Although we had attended a number of workshops (mostly dull), we had never produced one ourselves. At first we went to "the literature," where we found formulas for successful workshops: how long they should last; what table arrangement to use; when to break for coffee; how to build to an informational climax; and so on. The disquieting aspect was that these accounts sounded like descriptions of the workshops (mostly dull) we had attended. We sent for a book and a literature kit on workshops. The information offered was basically well-organized common sense and served to Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 67(2) April 1979
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
confirm our faith in our own instincts, but otherwise was little more than a modest triumph in packaging. We consulted SUNY/Buffalo professionals specializing in interpersonal relations. Because we would be urging our workshop participants to make changes in their cataloging routines and loan procedures which would involve extra work on their part, these experts advised us to proceed with tact and caution and to take pains to emphasize the eventual benefits of cooperation and resource sharing. It was sound advice, but we were still left without any explicit ideas. At this point, fortunately, one of us was asked to cochair a hands-on media workshop for western New York health sciences librarians. Thus, we were forced by circumstance to stop reading about how to produce a workshop and actually do one. The hands-on workshop, "Making Friends with Mechanical Marvels," served to introduce us to western New York medical librarians. We presented a brief introduction to the role of media materials in health sciences libraries and then invited participants to use the wide variety of audiovisual equipment set up at stations around the room. We chose programs which provided various examples of subjects which lend themselves to media presentation, such as: detailed clinical procedures; in-service programs on hospital safety; histological identification; interview techniques; and nursing procedures. Attendants at each station emphasized the advantages of the particular format and gave basic instruction on its use. Evaluating this workshop later, we felt it had served a useful purpose in bringing us, the media, and the librarians all together for the first time, so that we had at least a nodding acquaintance with each other. We then began our series of teaching workshops, scheduling one about every two months. The first, entitled, "Media Cataloging Malpractice," emphasized cataloging principles; the second was a workshop on how to apply for grant funds; a third, called "Spacewars," dealt with media facilities planning. These programs were scheduled from 9 A.M. until noon. When there was sufficient interest in further discussion, we would reconvene after lunch. Aside from staff time, costs for the workshops were minimal. The grant provides a salary for the assistant project librarian, who spent approximately five days preparing the program, visuals, and other materials for each workshop. Outlines, diagrams, lists, and bibliographies were duplicated and arranged in a handout packet for Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 67(2) April 1979
participants. These costs and the costs for light refreshments were absorbed by the grant. Following the "Spacewars" workshop, we attempted a self-critique to evaluate our progress in relation to our original goals. We had certainly been teaching a number of procedures and principles. In fact, it amounted to teaching overkill. As a result, in subsequent workshops we tried to use a less tightly structured program. We found that, if we provided an introduction to the subject and then guided discussion, keeping in mind the general objectives of the workshop, we created a better atmosphere for information exchange. Often participants had things to teach us as well as each other. In short, we felt we had been doing too much talking and not enough listening; too much directing, not enough interacting. To remedy the situation, instead of asking participants to turn in an evaluation at the end of each session, we asked what suggestions there were for the next workshop. Our concern was to get as much creative input as we could. Thus, if someone felt our approach had been too general, they might suggest the next workshop deal with problems of, to take an actual example, space allocation in specific hospital libraries. At this point we also noticed that, although the workshops attracted librarians with a variety of skills and backgrounds, it was almost always the same people who came each time. We wanted others to come as well and wondered why we were failing to attract them. Were we holding the workshops at times they could not arrange to come? Were our topics too dull, too superficial? Was it simply that our notices were being buried under other papers on the desk? With these questions in mind we planned a workshop on the evaluation of software materials. This is a problem we all have-attempting to evaluate the content of medical and health-related programs when we have insufficient knowledge in the subject field. This time, instead of mailing notices or announcing the workshop in our newsletter, we telephoned all the librarians, asked if they would be interested in talking about this topic with others who had similar problems, inquired if the scheduled time was free for them, and requested them to bring one of their programs that presented a particular evaluation problem. The response was positive and enthusiastic. Two days before the workshop date, we telephoned again-ostensibly to ascertain the format of their "problem program" so that we could have appropriate equipment available. We also asked them to bring a copy of 261
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS their evaluation form if they used one. Actually, we wanted to remind them of the workshop once again and to learn whether any last-minute problems might prevent them from coming. The response again was positive, and in fact, everyone who had been invited did attend. This workshop was the most successful in terms of our goal of bringing area librarians together in a realization of their interdependency and getting them to discuss mutual problems and offer each other suggestions and information. Perhaps one reason for the success was that the participants were "involved" even before they arrived rather than being passive recipients. Our conclusion is that groups interact best when everyone attends with the expectation of actually contributing. We also think telephone contact works better than mailed announcements, which tend to become buried and forgotten. Once a group has assembled we try to give a brief overview of the problem and then open the discussion as quickly as possible, so that participant contribution is not delayed. Still, some guidance must come from the leaders. It is helpful to have a few direct questions in mind: "Could you draw on the board a simple outline of your floor plan? Maybe someone has had a similar problem." "How do you contact hospital staff for program evaluation?"-or other directive promptings. The most important lesson we have learned is to keep our ears open for serendipitous suggestions from the workshop participants. The topic for the next workshop was suggested by participants, and another library has offered to be host. We are learning about each other's collections and as a result are able, to provide better referrals and service to our clients. In one case a library with thirty-six programs in 16 mm film cartridges but lacking the equipment to play them found another library with the proper hardware but no programs. The workshops have helped to create a network based on mutual interests and information exchange. The hints and practical suggestions we had read about or been given by individuals were certainly a useful base on which to build, but trial and error turned out in the end to be crucial, as long as critical evaluation was used to identify weaknesses. The prime weakness we discovered was our own over-conscientiousness. One cannot preplan and structure everything. The best plan is the one that is clear but loose. The best tactic is to foster real involvement. We seem to have rediscovered the validity of the old rule that says you can read
262
extensively about how to swim, but you have to get wet to actually do it. Received November 3, 1978; accepted December 21, 1978.
Adopt a Journal? BY MICHAEL A. CAMPESE, Medical Librarian St. Elizabeth's Hospital Belleville, Illinois
THE insane combinations of rising cost, the copyright law, and possible cost containment regulations have blended together to intensify the difficulties of shrinking budgetary resources of the small medical library. While subscription rate increases are explained away by increases in the costs of goods, labor, and postage, inflation destroys the buying power of the library dollar. Using the figures given in Brandon's "Selected list of books and journals for the small medical library" [1], the average cost per journal subscription for 1977 was $35.14. This was an 18.3% increase over Brandon's previous figures, for 1975. Maintaining a budget becomes challenging indeed when these inflationary costs are coupled with the pressures of the copyright law. While there should be an intimate relationship between a library's new purchases and material continually being requested from outside the collection, the copyright law takes that relationship from one of dating to one of marriage. Prior to the enactment of the present copyright law, Public Law 94-553, studies of interlibrary lending were considered a barometer of need. With language that allows interlibrary lending, the new law has provided that the purpose or effect of those loans be not "in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of [a] work." The National Commision on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) has established that an aggregate quantity with respect to a given periodical consists of no more than five copies in a year from the last five years of a given title. The copyright law, with the aid of CONTU, has mandated either purchase of a work or a royalty payment to the copyright holder [2]. The budgetary burden is heightened by the promoting of particular library services. When a bibliographic researching service is promoted, consequential service demands for interlibrary Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 67(2) April 1979
reference questions which are frequently directed to a specific format. Another means of drawing the patron's (here, the health professional's) attention to this material is the integration of cards for patient and medical library material in the medical library catalog. In addition, this integrated catalog facilitates the location of material, because the library staff and patrons have only one catalog to check in order to find what they need. REFERENCES 1. GOODCHILD, E. Y., ET AL. The CHIPS project: a health information network to serve the consumer. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 66: 432-436, Oct. 1978. 2. SORRENTINO, S.; FIERBERG, J.; AND GOODCHILD, E. Y. CATLINE as an acquisitions tool for health and patient education materials. Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 66: 458-460, Oct. 1978.
Received November 2, 1978; accepted November 20, 1978.
Getting Workshops to Work: A Step Toward Media Resource Sharing* BY LUELLA S. ALLEN, Assistant Project Librarian Media Resources Center Health Sciences Library State University of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, New York
WORKSHOPS have become an increasingly accepted and important activity for librarians. But as anyone who has attended a dull or unproductive workshop can testify, they can be full of problems. When the Media Resources Center of the Health Sciences Library at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo applied for an NLM library resource project grant in 1975, a series of workshops was one of the goals described in the project plan. The workshops were to be held at regular intervals, "to acquaint hospital librarians (and other interested members of the health sciences community) with the basic skills to maintain audiovisual service programs as well as the fundamentals of media methods and services." The project plan also emphasized that the workshops were to be "an effort to coordinate and systematize *This project is supported by NIH Grant No. 1G08-LM02575-01 from the National Library of Medicine.
260
health media development in Western New York." Specific topics to be covered included: media cataloging principles; the development of hospital learning centers; selection processes for media materials and equipment; and software interlibrary loan procedures. The workshops were also seen as a vehicle to bring together, in a cooperative working arrangement, the people in the western New York area who administer health sciences media. These personnel represent a broad spectrum of competency. For example, some have library training but no media experience; others are highly trained in television production but have no library training. They are also situated in a variety of health sciences institutions with widely divergent library services. As a subregional library, SUNY/Buffalo Health Sciences Library maintains a close working relationship with the hospitals and health-related agency libraries in the eight-county western New York area. The library also serves eight affiliated teaching hospitals utilized by the university's five professional schools of the health sciences for their clinical programs. In the immediate area there are also nursing homes, community colleges offering programs in allied health fields, and several specialized research libraries with health-related orientations. Because audiovisual collections tend to be small, specialized, and expensive, the goal of coordinating and systematizing the collection development and interlibrary loan of these materials through a series of workshops was one of the prime considerations when the grant was approved in late 1976 and then funded in January 1977. The objectives of the workshops would have to evolve from the needs of those attending. This much seemed obvious. We also hoped to create situations that would promote exchange of information, discussions of mutual problems, and recognition of that interdependency which makes resource sharing a necessity. Although we had attended a number of workshops (mostly dull), we had never produced one ourselves. At first we went to "the literature," where we found formulas for successful workshops: how long they should last; what table arrangement to use; when to break for coffee; how to build to an informational climax; and so on. The disquieting aspect was that these accounts sounded like descriptions of the workshops (mostly dull) we had attended. We sent for a book and a literature kit on workshops. The information offered was basically well-organized common sense and served to Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 67(2) April 1979
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
confirm our faith in our own instincts, but otherwise was little more than a modest triumph in packaging. We consulted SUNY/Buffalo professionals specializing in interpersonal relations. Because we would be urging our workshop participants to make changes in their cataloging routines and loan procedures which would involve extra work on their part, these experts advised us to proceed with tact and caution and to take pains to emphasize the eventual benefits of cooperation and resource sharing. It was sound advice, but we were still left without any explicit ideas. At this point, fortunately, one of us was asked to cochair a hands-on media workshop for western New York health sciences librarians. Thus, we were forced by circumstance to stop reading about how to produce a workshop and actually do one. The hands-on workshop, "Making Friends with Mechanical Marvels," served to introduce us to western New York medical librarians. We presented a brief introduction to the role of media materials in health sciences libraries and then invited participants to use the wide variety of audiovisual equipment set up at stations around the room. We chose programs which provided various examples of subjects which lend themselves to media presentation, such as: detailed clinical procedures; in-service programs on hospital safety; histological identification; interview techniques; and nursing procedures. Attendants at each station emphasized the advantages of the particular format and gave basic instruction on its use. Evaluating this workshop later, we felt it had served a useful purpose in bringing us, the media, and the librarians all together for the first time, so that we had at least a nodding acquaintance with each other. We then began our series of teaching workshops, scheduling one about every two months. The first, entitled, "Media Cataloging Malpractice," emphasized cataloging principles; the second was a workshop on how to apply for grant funds; a third, called "Spacewars," dealt with media facilities planning. These programs were scheduled from 9 A.M. until noon. When there was sufficient interest in further discussion, we would reconvene after lunch. Aside from staff time, costs for the workshops were minimal. The grant provides a salary for the assistant project librarian, who spent approximately five days preparing the program, visuals, and other materials for each workshop. Outlines, diagrams, lists, and bibliographies were duplicated and arranged in a handout packet for Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 67(2) April 1979
participants. These costs and the costs for light refreshments were absorbed by the grant. Following the "Spacewars" workshop, we attempted a self-critique to evaluate our progress in relation to our original goals. We had certainly been teaching a number of procedures and principles. In fact, it amounted to teaching overkill. As a result, in subsequent workshops we tried to use a less tightly structured program. We found that, if we provided an introduction to the subject and then guided discussion, keeping in mind the general objectives of the workshop, we created a better atmosphere for information exchange. Often participants had things to teach us as well as each other. In short, we felt we had been doing too much talking and not enough listening; too much directing, not enough interacting. To remedy the situation, instead of asking participants to turn in an evaluation at the end of each session, we asked what suggestions there were for the next workshop. Our concern was to get as much creative input as we could. Thus, if someone felt our approach had been too general, they might suggest the next workshop deal with problems of, to take an actual example, space allocation in specific hospital libraries. At this point we also noticed that, although the workshops attracted librarians with a variety of skills and backgrounds, it was almost always the same people who came each time. We wanted others to come as well and wondered why we were failing to attract them. Were we holding the workshops at times they could not arrange to come? Were our topics too dull, too superficial? Was it simply that our notices were being buried under other papers on the desk? With these questions in mind we planned a workshop on the evaluation of software materials. This is a problem we all have-attempting to evaluate the content of medical and health-related programs when we have insufficient knowledge in the subject field. This time, instead of mailing notices or announcing the workshop in our newsletter, we telephoned all the librarians, asked if they would be interested in talking about this topic with others who had similar problems, inquired if the scheduled time was free for them, and requested them to bring one of their programs that presented a particular evaluation problem. The response was positive and enthusiastic. Two days before the workshop date, we telephoned again-ostensibly to ascertain the format of their "problem program" so that we could have appropriate equipment available. We also asked them to bring a copy of 261
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS their evaluation form if they used one. Actually, we wanted to remind them of the workshop once again and to learn whether any last-minute problems might prevent them from coming. The response again was positive, and in fact, everyone who had been invited did attend. This workshop was the most successful in terms of our goal of bringing area librarians together in a realization of their interdependency and getting them to discuss mutual problems and offer each other suggestions and information. Perhaps one reason for the success was that the participants were "involved" even before they arrived rather than being passive recipients. Our conclusion is that groups interact best when everyone attends with the expectation of actually contributing. We also think telephone contact works better than mailed announcements, which tend to become buried and forgotten. Once a group has assembled we try to give a brief overview of the problem and then open the discussion as quickly as possible, so that participant contribution is not delayed. Still, some guidance must come from the leaders. It is helpful to have a few direct questions in mind: "Could you draw on the board a simple outline of your floor plan? Maybe someone has had a similar problem." "How do you contact hospital staff for program evaluation?"-or other directive promptings. The most important lesson we have learned is to keep our ears open for serendipitous suggestions from the workshop participants. The topic for the next workshop was suggested by participants, and another library has offered to be host. We are learning about each other's collections and as a result are able, to provide better referrals and service to our clients. In one case a library with thirty-six programs in 16 mm film cartridges but lacking the equipment to play them found another library with the proper hardware but no programs. The workshops have helped to create a network based on mutual interests and information exchange. The hints and practical suggestions we had read about or been given by individuals were certainly a useful base on which to build, but trial and error turned out in the end to be crucial, as long as critical evaluation was used to identify weaknesses. The prime weakness we discovered was our own over-conscientiousness. One cannot preplan and structure everything. The best plan is the one that is clear but loose. The best tactic is to foster real involvement. We seem to have rediscovered the validity of the old rule that says you can read
262
extensively about how to swim, but you have to get wet to actually do it. Received November 3, 1978; accepted December 21, 1978.
Adopt a Journal? BY MICHAEL A. CAMPESE, Medical Librarian St. Elizabeth's Hospital Belleville, Illinois
THE insane combinations of rising cost, the copyright law, and possible cost containment regulations have blended together to intensify the difficulties of shrinking budgetary resources of the small medical library. While subscription rate increases are explained away by increases in the costs of goods, labor, and postage, inflation destroys the buying power of the library dollar. Using the figures given in Brandon's "Selected list of books and journals for the small medical library" [1], the average cost per journal subscription for 1977 was $35.14. This was an 18.3% increase over Brandon's previous figures, for 1975. Maintaining a budget becomes challenging indeed when these inflationary costs are coupled with the pressures of the copyright law. While there should be an intimate relationship between a library's new purchases and material continually being requested from outside the collection, the copyright law takes that relationship from one of dating to one of marriage. Prior to the enactment of the present copyright law, Public Law 94-553, studies of interlibrary lending were considered a barometer of need. With language that allows interlibrary lending, the new law has provided that the purpose or effect of those loans be not "in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of [a] work." The National Commision on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) has established that an aggregate quantity with respect to a given periodical consists of no more than five copies in a year from the last five years of a given title. The copyright law, with the aid of CONTU, has mandated either purchase of a work or a royalty payment to the copyright holder [2]. The budgetary burden is heightened by the promoting of particular library services. When a bibliographic researching service is promoted, consequential service demands for interlibrary Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 67(2) April 1979
