Stats

I recently posted to my Facebook page that I was working on the fun part of stats. Immediately a friend replied that she wasn't aware that there was a fun part. Another friend suggested the fun part was when you are done. He was right (although he later confirmed my suspicion that he was talking about the beer you drink when you are done). The data tabulation is a necessary evil: the fun part for me is looking for patterns once all the data is there.

This year's "annual report" is a little different from previous years: the deadline is moved up so it's really an 11 month report (Sept 2009-July 2010). And it's needed urgently so I'll work on the full stats for comparison with last year later. But, I have identified a couple of cool things I'd like to share with you.

Quick Checks:
Our self service check-out machines have been very popular. The account for about 23% of the 326,291 loans we charged out over the past 11 months.

Email Reference:
The Access Sups answered 501 Ask-A-Librarian (email reference) questions on Access Services topics, or about 14% of the total traffic on AAL.

Offsite:
We discarded over 50,000 duplicate volumes (including print journals we have electronically) and sent 253,218 low-use titles offsite. We now have about a million items at our Clancy-Cullen managed facility in Patterson, New York. This year users requested 21,667 items. Although still a reasonable 2% recall rate, this number is three times what it was last year.

Recalls:
28,898 recalls were placed on materials charged out by other users. This means that 9% of all check-outs are recalled. While certainly staggering, this number isn't all that surprising: recalls jumped when we rolled out Aleph, presumably because the request button is more prominent.

Stacks:
Our Stacks staff shelved 532,879 bound volumes and 7,078 current periodicals and newspapers. Last year's numbers appear to be an anomaly, but if you look over the past two years in-house use is down 15% while general reshelving is up 6%.

Microforms:
Microform use is down 18% but is still over 8,000 uses for the year.

Entrances:
I'm still waiting for final numbers on swipes into Bobst (usually they are over a million) but we issues 2,210 collection passes, 14,905 general passes and 9,838 visitor passes for a grand total of almost 27,000 passes, many of which allow multiple entries.

Quick Search:
The number of Quick Searches placed is down about 15% to 2,772. Percentages found on the three searches remains just about the same (58%).

Interlibrary Lending:
We filled 13,444 of the 24,333 requests we received or 55%. Common reasons we are unable to fill requests are that we lack the volume requested (27%), the item is in use or in processing (18%), the item is non-circulating (18%) or the item is not on the shelf (12%).

Interlibrary Borrowing:
We obtained 30,281 of the 40,005 items requested by our users. By far the most common reason we cancel borrowing requests is because we own the item (42%). Other reasons include not being able to fill the request by the user's deadline (13%), or the item is not available from all possible lenders (17%). The number of returnable (book) ILL requests is on the rise: this year 61% of our requests were for returnables.

Reserve:
We processed 1,158 course lists, 4% less than last year. We also created 1012 durable links for professors in 146 courses (that they can then add to their blackboard courses). This number is also down compared with last year.

There is still a lot more to do for our annual report before I get that beer, but I wanted to share some of what I had found out with you.

Empathy

I can't get Justin's comment from the last, last Access Services meeting out of my mind. When we were talking about the Service Excellence experiences, he mentioned the role of empathy in the service interaction. This is what I was writing about as we kicked off Service Excellence, although I didn't put the eloquent label on it that Justin did.

Just what is empathy and how does it relate to positive interactions? We have too many Star Trek: The Next Generation fans in Access Services to leave out an analogy to Deanna Troi, the empathic counselor who can sense people's emotions. Although Commander Troi is "empathic" as opposed to "empathetic" (she can actually feel the emotions of the people around her) she still serves as a relatable example.

Empathy is the ability to understand the world from another person’s viewpoint and the motivation to treat another kindly based on that understanding. Excellent service isn't about bending rules, waiving fines or smiling (although all of these may be the result of empathy). First and foremost it's about putting yourself in the other person's shoes.

When I think about the most positive service interactions I've had over the years (especially the times when I've been able to turn around a negative interaction) it's always been when I've channeled my inner Troi.

The Librarian Stereotype... on the Big Screen and Beyond

I've been thinking a lot, as I often do, about the topics that Jen raised in her last post, on Librarians, Stereotypes, Professionalism, and Pop Culture.

Then earlier today, I came across a new piece on a feminist blog and magazine to which I subscribe:

From the Library: The Librarian Stereotype on the Big Screen

Here, librarian and blogger Ashley McAllister looks at librarian characters in a few famous films through the ages (with clips!), and concludes: "When we see librarians in the movies, they are usually fulfilling the role of a very narrow stereotype."

In my professional experience, the Real World Workplace of the large university library has not had a majority of female staff-members, but has been pretty evenly split. However, most popular stereotypes about librarians and library workers tend to portray them first and foremost as women.

As a well-read feminist, it is hard for me not to get deep into the long and complex history of why that may be the case, or of the general history of Women in Libraries, but I will say that I believe it is very important to debunk these kinds of stereotypes.

How to go about doing so?
That's a whole different story: the story at the heart of Jen's post.

However, where Jen mentions the argument made by some people that "librarians shouldn't complain 'about the deprofessionalization of librarianship... and then do things like this [funny video] and still expect to be taken seriously'", I can't help but point out that in our culture it is most often women who have trouble being taken seriously as professionals in general, and that most of the library professionals in that video also happen to be women.

For me, questions about library work, stereotypes, professionalism, and pop culture are always bound up in questions about gender and sexism. And of course this effects everybody, not just women!

I don't have any answers. Just more food for thought.

Librarians, Stereotypes, Professionalism, and Pop Culture

A little bird (one of the students working in ILL) recently sent me a link to a YouTube video featuring students and faculty at the University of Washington's Information School (teaching Library and information Science) doing their rendition of Lady Gaga's "Poker Face." Less than a week later, I saw the link to this video posted on one of our library's internal list servs (lib-all, I think).

In the video, the students and faculty librarians at UWash changed the lyrics to relate to libraries; the chorus lets the world know that they "can use my, can use my, you can use my catalog (don't forget the databases)."



The video is certainly entertaining and good for a laugh. What I found interesting were a couple of comments posted on New York Magazine's website in reaction to the video.

One comment says that librarians shouldn't complain "about the deprofessionalization of librarianship (i.e. people who don't have a library science degree doing 'professional' library jobs) and then do things like this and still expect to be taken seriously."

A self-identified library student then replied to this comment, stating that there's difference between professionalism and having a sense of humor.

In my library school classes, we talk a lot about the level of professionalism in the field of librarianship. There is a drive to publish scholarly articles and make the profession comparable to other professional occupations in law (lawyers), medicine (doctors), etc. I think, though, that the professionalism of librarianship need not confine itself to the standards set by other long-established professional occupations.

Librarians work with a whole host of people in the library, not just "professionals" with Master's degrees. It is the total group, consisting of library student assistants, staff, administrators, professionals and faculty, that projects whatever level of professionalism they wish for their library. We do so by helping patrons and giving them a sense of how we do business, how we treat them, and how we demonstrate to them that we have specialized knowledge that will help them use the library.

What do you think of this video? What do you think patrons at this library would think of this video? What would they think about their library after seeing this video?

Also, should we make a video?

Day Jobs

I've been thinking a lot about the staff art exhibit, The Memory Salon, on display now through July 16th in the Fales Tracy/Barry Gallery. What really strikes me is the huge number of colleagues we have for whom this library thing is really just a day job. Please don't misunderstand me, I really don't think there is anything wrong with that. In Access Services alone we have athletes and actors, film makers and illustrators, musicians and music aficionados, photographers and textile artists, painters and parents, writers and scholars, all of whom feed their soul by something other than library work.

As day jobs go, it's not so bad. Despite the building's HVAC problems for the most part we work in air conditioned comfort. We get paid breaks and paid time off. We get tuition benefits and health insurance. Heck, we sometimes even get small discounts at local merchants for showing our IDs. Oh, and don't forget my former favorite benefit, those movie passes from ticket central (and, if they ever offered free babysitting perhaps I could use them again--wait, they do have that babysitter referral service...).

I wonder if other industries employ people with such a huge diversity of interests and such a huge pool of talent.

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?

I don’t know many people that would say ‘not me’ to that question. The harder question is what are you willing to do to get it? This past week I took a step outside my regular routine and explored my options. Specifically, I had an ‘audition’ to be on the day-time TV game show with the above name.

It was a very simple process and anyone who feels they know a decent amount of trivia ought to give it a try. I simply went online and visited the Millionaire web site, filed out a quick form, and selected my preferred days to attend an audition. The next day I was notified by email when my scheduled appointment would be and where I should go.

On the day of the audition I went to ABC’s studio on 66th street and checked in with the cheerful intern waiting out front to greet people. After standing in line for a short while we were let into what looked like a cafeteria, handed a closed envelope containing a test, and directed to take a seat along with all the other participants in the room. Then, as a group, we were given 10 minutes to answer 30 multiple choice questions. Once the time had passed tests were collected and taken to be corrected. Those who ‘passed’ would be asked to stay for an interview. Those who did not would be asked to leave.

While waiting for our tests to be corrected a number of people asked questions about how the process worked of the intern overseeing the testing. Listening to her cheerful response to every questions, a ubiquitous “that information is on the web site”, I started thinking about how we have all become so reliant on the internet. Not just using it for our own information needs but also using it as a tool to provide information to our patrons.

As I watched the eye rolling around me at the lack of knowledge displayed by using this generic answer I wondered if I rely too much on the “check web site” answer. Have I allowed myself to take a knowledge short cut because the information is easy to access online? Is my staff undertrained because the information is available online? The short answer to that is no simply because I have a very knowledgeable staff. But there is a small piece of me who sees this as a cautionary tale about how we provide information to patrons and making sure we don’t assume that because information is available online people don’t still want good answers provided in person by well trained staff.

We are Library Professionals: we know stuff. Let’s remember to share what we know in all the ways that patrons want to receive the information.

The critical question for this blog though is am I going to be on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? For now I will say maybe… someday…

It is easy enough to try out if you are interested. All the information about how is available online at:
http://www.dadt.com/millionaire/

Renovation

This interesting video, an interview with Bobst renovation architect Jake Alspector, came up on my Google alert this morning. It's an interesting commentary on the previous and current library renovations. Worth watching when you have a spare 17 minutes.