Provision of Local Assisted Access to SelectedInternet Information Resources by ARLAcademic Librariesby Thomas J. Waldhart, Joseph B. Miller, and Lois Mai Chan

There is a critical need toprovide academic libraryclients more efficient and

effective access to Internetinformation resources that

have value for highereducation. This study examines

local systems that Associationof Research Libraries (ARL)

academic libraries havedeveloped over the last severalyears in response to this need.

Thomas J. Waldhart is Professor, School ofLibrary and Information Science, University

of Kentucky, 502 King Library South,Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0039

,Twald@pop.uky.edu.; Joseph B. Miller isCoordinator of Computing Services,

University of Kentucky, 502 King LibrarySouth, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0039,jbmill00@pop.uky.edu.; and Lois Mai

Chan is Professor, University of Kentucky,502 King Library South, Lexington,

Kentucky 40506-0039,loischan@pop.uky.edu..

M ost members of the higher ed-ucation community know, ingeneral terms, what the Inter-

net is, and most realize that it has affectedmany aspects of higher education over thelast decade. Many are also aware that thechanges that the Internet has brought tohigher education to date are only sugges-tive of what it is likely to bring in thefuture. Indeed, some in higher educationbelieve that computer and communicationtechnology, combined with a rapidlyevolving Internet, will contribute greatlyto a redefinition of the nature of highereducation and academic libraries in theUnited States.1 A search of theChronicleof Higher Educationdemonstrates highereducation’s interest in the subject. From1995 through 1998, theChronicle pub-lished more than 180 articles and shorterreferences relating to the Internet and itsimpact on higher education. Althoughmost of the references focus on the role ofthe Internet in instruction and research,many recognize its contribution to insti-tutional service and administration aswell.

The number of information resourcesthat are available on the Internet is enor-mous and growing rapidly, and because oftheir number and their variability in sub-ject, treatment, complexity, language,etc., they provide something of potentialvalue to all members of the higher educa-tion community. Offering one measure ofscale and growth, Steve Lawrence and C.Lee Giles estimated, in early 1997, theInternet included at least 320 million in-dexable Web pages.2 Two years later,Lawrence and Giles estimated that theWorld Wide Web contains about 800 mil-lion pages.3 Defining the size of the In-ternet in a different way, in 1997, Brian

Lavoie, Edward T. O’Neill, and PatrickMcClain estimated that the Web consistedof 1.1–1.3 millionunique Web sites.4 Asanother indicator of size and growth, Al-taVista, one of the largest Internet searchengines in terms of pages indexed, re-ported that it indexed approximately 30million Web pages in 1996, 90 million in1997, and more than 150 million in 1998.5

Two recently completed studies of theInternet support the view that it has valuefor higher education. Joseph R. Zumaltand Robert W. Pasicznyuk found that61.7% of a test sample of reference ques-tions received at Pikes Peak Library Dis-trict could be answered by using the In-ternet alone. They also found that theaccuracy of the information provided bythe Internet was comparable to that oftraditional reference sources and that theInternet sites used were surprisingly du-rable over the course of the study.6 Inanother study, Joseph Janes and CharlesR. McClure also found that, when usingfreely available Internet resources, factualreference questions can be answered atlevels of accuracy and timeliness that arecomparable to those achieved by usingtraditional print-based resources.7

Although there are millions of infor-mation resources available on the Inter-net, these resources are not of uniformlyhigh quality, nor do they offer equal valueto all elements of the higher education.Identifying or locating Internet resources,in a consistently efficient and effectiveway, that are both relevant and of highquality poses significant information stor-age and retrieval challenges for highereducation. Although existing browsers,search engines, and directories have en-hanced their performance over the lastseveral years, these Internet search sys-

100 The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 2, pages 100–109

tems have not yet demonstrated that theycan provide the kinds of selective, spe-cialized access to high quality Internetresources in a way that institutions ofhigher education both need and value.

By the mid 1990s, most academic li-brarians recognized that the Internet couldbe used to satisfy a wide variety of infor-mation needs and that members of thehigher education community needed as-sistance in using it as an informationsource. Over the last decade, academiclibraries have facilitated the use of theInternet by their clients in several ways,including:

● Acquiring and managing an importantpart of the institution’s computer andcommunication infrastructure that isused to access information on the In-ternet;

● Providing an institutional focus for ed-ucation and training about the Internetthrough their instructional programsand services;

● Offering direct advice, assistance, orcounsel, through the mediation func-tion of reference service, to those whoare using library workstations to ac-cess the Internet;

● Serving their institutions as an expertresource regarding the Internet and itseffective use; and

● Developing local strategies for identi-fying Internet information resources ofspecial value to the academic commu-nity and using various methods to pro-vide their clients with efficient andeffective access to those selected re-sources.

This last form of client assistance pro-vides the focus for this research.

The local systems of assisted accessthat have been created by academic librar-ies involve library staff in the identifica-tion and selection of Internet informationresources judged by some evaluative cri-teria to be of high quality and of lastingvalue to the academic community.8 Thelibraries then provide some form of as-sisted access to the selected resources bydescribing and presenting them as HTMLdocuments and by organizing them insome structured way, often with a localsearch engine to facilitate their retrieval.9

In designing local systems that provideassisted access to Internet resources, aca-demic libraries address a wide range ofimportant issues and problems relating tothe selection of information resources, the

creation and maintenance of the system,the description and organization of theselected resources in some structuredway, the selection and use of a searchengine that allows clients to search thedatabase effectively, the development ofan effective service interface, and the de-velopment and maintenance of recordsand linkages. Although local systems ofassisted access frequently begin as littlemore than a simple alphabetical list of afew Internet resources with linkages, thissimple strategy soon begins to break-down. As the number of information re-sources that are selected and added to thelocal systems grows, it becomes increas-ingly necessary for libraries to adopt moresophisticated methods of informationstorage and retrieval to ensure that thesystems are both efficient and effective inretrieving needed resources. Most of theselocal systems that provide assisted accessto selected Internet resources are notbased on a formally structured database,as such, but rather rely on a structuredsystem of linked Web pages.

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

Although it is likely that most academiclibraries have developed some type of lo-cal system to help their clients identifyand effectively use Internet informationresources in their instructional, research,service, and administrative activities, lit-tle systematic information is available re-garding the form that such local systemshave taken or the attitudes that academiclibrarians have toward the development ofsuch systems. The primary purpose of thisstudy was to explore what Association ofResearch Libraries (ARL) academic li-braries, the largest and most complex ac-ademic libraries in the United States, arecurrently doing to provide their clientswith assisted access to Internet informa-tion resources, and how they are doing it.This study characterized the local effortsof academic libraries to facilitate accessto selected Internet information resourcesasassisted access systems.Thus, Internetassisted access systems are locally devel-oped systems that: (1) identify and selectInternet information resources that offerspecial value to the students, faculty,staff, and other institutional stakeholders;(2) describe, organize, and maintain thoseresources in ways that are designed toprovide improved access to them; and (3)create a set of HTML documents thatprovide links to selected Internet re-sources that can be browsed or searched ifa local search system is available.

Initially, it was hoped that the studycould take all academic libraries as itsfocus. Because of limited resources, itsoon became apparent that the studycould not survey all practices becausethey exist in the more than 3,000 aca-demic libraries in the United States. As acompromise, it was decided to focus onthe practices of academic libraries that areARL members. ARL academic librarieswere selected as the group to study forseveral reasons. First, because of the sizeand complexity of the libraries and theinstitutions they support, they offer abreadth and depth of topical interests andscale of effort that spans the likely inter-ests of all types of academic libraries and,therefore, present the most complex situ-ation in terms of organizing Internet in-formation resources locally. Second, ARLacademic libraries have moved relativelyfast in the development of assisted accessto selected Internet information resources.All ARL academic libraries currently pro-vide some form of assisted access to In-ternet information resources. Many ofthese libraries have already committedsignificant time, effort, and institutionalresources to the selection and organiza-tion of Internet resources, and they haveaccumulated considerable institutionalexperience in organizing these resources.

“Many of these libraries havealready committed significanttime, effort, and institutionalresources to the selection and

organization of Internetresources, and they haveaccumulated considerableinstitutional experience in

organizing these resources.”

Third, the needs of academic libraries andtheir clients are sufficiently similar thatunderstanding the strategies and methodsused by the largest, most complicated ac-ademic libraries can be generally infor-mative to all academic libraries. In manyways, the responsibilities of ARL aca-demic libraries span the full range of re-sponsibilities of all types of academic li-braries. ARL academic libraries supportlarge research universities that offer lowerdivision courses of study that are compa-rable to those of community colleges: un-dergraduate degree programs that are

March 2000 101

comparable to those of four-year col-leges; graduate programs at both the mas-ter’s and doctoral levels, as well as numer-ous professional programs; well-developedresearch programs; and complex adminis-trative systems. In addition, many researchuniversities have important public serviceroles as well.

Although focusing on ARL academiclibraries offered the study a number ofimportant advantages, the sheer size andcomplexity of both the supported institu-tions and the ARL academic librariesthemselves created the problem of howthe individual institutions were to be sur-veyed. Because most ARL academic li-braries actually consist of multiple librar-ies, sometimes many libraries, withvarying degrees of autonomy, it was con-cluded that the study could not reasonablysurvey the individual libraries at the insti-tutions to arrive at an overall compositefor the institutions. Rather, the initial let-ter asked the directors of their libraries todesignate a local contact person who wasfamiliar with the status of the library sys-tem’s efforts to provide assisted access toInternet resources and who could speakfor the library system as a whole. Thecover letter accompanying the question-naire requested that the contact personserve as the “library’s expert” regardingthe efforts of the library system to provideassisted access to Internet resources. Inaddition, it was emphasized that in com-pleting the questionnaire the contact per-son should do so from the perspective ofthe university library system as a whole.Because the development of Internet as-sisted access systems is a fairly recentphenomenon, it was thought unlikely thatmost of the participating institutionswould be gathering institution-wide dataabout their Internet assisted access systemin any systematic way, and it would havebeen unreasonable to assume that theywould be willing to gather the neededdata as part of this study. Therefore, con-tact people were asked to report data ifthey were available, but when data werenot available they were asked to offer bestjudgments or estimates based on their per-sonal experience, knowledge, and beliefs.Thus, because of the exploratory nature ofthis study, where quantitative data arepresented it should be considered indica-tive or suggestive rather than absolute. Incases where a contact person was unwill-ing to offer his or her best judgment re-garding some subject, that fact is reflectedin the adjusted number of respondents tothe question.

In April 1998, a letter was sent to thedirectors of the 110 ARL academic librar-ies. It explained the intentions of the re-search study and sought the director’s ap-proval to include his or her institution inthe survey. The directors of 65 of the 110ARL academic libraries (59.1%) indi-cated their willingness to participate inthe survey and designated an institutionalcontact person who would be responsiblefor completing a questionnaire. The sur-vey questionnaire was developed and pre-tested during the summer and distributedto the participating institutions in Septem-ber 1998. Of the 65 libraries indicating awillingness to participate in the study, 38contact persons returned completed ques-tionnaires, for a survey response rate of58.5%.

The results of the survey are presentedbelow in four sections: (1) Structure ofAssisted Access Systems (organizationand management of the systems); (2) In-stitutional Resources (participants, func-tional responsibilities, adequacy of re-sources); (3) Characteristics of AssistedAccess Systems [scale and duration ofefforts, description of Internet resources,inclusion in online public access catalog(OPAC), organization of Internet re-sources, and use of search engines]; and(4) Views of Respondents (need for localsystems, adequacy of existing Internetsearch engines and directories, coopera-tive development of systems, external de-velopment of systems, and value of exist-ing systems).

STRUCTURE OF ASSISTED

ACCESS SYSTEMS

Respondents were asked to select one offour strategies that best described howtheir university library system structuredits assisted access system. A fifth option,other,was made available for those insti-tutions that did not feel the four availablestrategies adequately described their situ-ation, and two respondents selected theother category. After reviewing each ofthe two libraries’ Web sites, it was con-cluded that both could be safely movedfrom the other category to one of thebasic four options.

The four strategies for organizing as-sisted access systems varied in degrees ofcentralization and coordination of the sys-tem within the individual institutions. Op-tion 1, a centralized, university-wide sys-tem that is centrally managed and coversall subjects, was selected by 19 (50%)libraries. Option 2, a decentralized sys-

tem, where separate systems are devel-oped and managed by individual librarieswith system-wide coordination, was se-lected by 5 (13.2%) libraries. Option 3, adecentralized system, where separate sys-tems are his or her developed and man-aged by individual libraries without sys-tem-wide coordination, was selected by 6(15.8%) libraries. And, Option 4, a mixedsystem, where a number of librarieswithin the institution participate in a sin-gle coordinated system, and several otherlibraries have developed and managed in-dependent systems, was selected by 8(21.1%) libraries.

Two of the criteria for membership inARL are similarity of parent institutionsand similarity of size.10 These criteriasuggest that ARL academic libraries are arelatively homogeneous group of large li-braries that support large research univer-sities. Although similar in size and in thekinds of institutions that they support,there is great variation in the way thatARL academic libraries are administra-tively structured or organized. Because oftheir size, ARL academic libraries fre-quently employ some degree of decentral-ization, which, it seems, would also sug-gest the use of a general pattern ofdecentralization in the organization oftheir assisted access systems. With 50%of the libraries describing their assistedaccess systems as centralized, university-wide systems, this assumption appearsunwarranted.

It is likely that the administrative struc-ture of assisted access systems has beenaffected by not only the general manage-ment philosophy of the institution, butalso other factors. Some factors, whichalmost certainly contributed to the wide-spread adoption of a centralized strategy,at least early in the development of as-sisted access systems, are the limitednumber of people within the organizationwho possessed the needed expertise, lim-ited computer and communication re-sources, and a desire to eliminate redun-dant efforts and to maintain a consistentlook and feel to the system.

At the same time, a more decentralizedassisted access system, one that takes ad-vantage of available subject expertise andan intimate knowledge of their clients,could perhaps result in a system that ismore responsive to the information needsof particular client groups. A decentral-ized approach may become more com-mon as additional personnel gain theneeded expertise, institutions commitmore resources to these efforts, and effec-

102 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

tive methods of coordinating distributedefforts that would allow more local con-trol over the development of the systemcan be put into place. Weighing the rela-tive advantages and disadvantages of dif-ferent methods of administrative organi-zation and choosing between them wereidentified by a number of respondents asan important and complicated issue thatmust be addressed when developing as-sisted access systems.

“Weighing the relativeadvantages and disadvantages

of different methods ofadministrative organization andchoosing between them were

identified by a number ofrespondents as an importantand complicated issue thatmust be addressed when

developing assisted accesssystems.”

INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES

Respondents were asked a series of ques-tions that examined the number and typeof people who are involved in their as-sisted access system, the functional re-sponsibilities of the participants, and theirperceptions regarding the adequacy ofvarious forms of institutional support forthe service.

Participants

Five categories of personnel werelisted in the survey: Web librarian, pro-fessional staff, nonprofessional staff, stu-dents, and others. Respondents wereasked to estimate the total number of peo-ple involved in each of the categories andthe total number of hours committed perweek by people within each category.

The termWeb librarianwas defined asan individual who serves as the coordina-tor or manager of the assisted access sys-tem. Thirty-two of the 35 institutions re-sponding to this question indicated thattheir institutions had someone functioningas a Web librarian; 25 of the 32 institu-tions indicated that they had 1 or 2 Weblibrarians, suggesting that assisted accesssystems have achieved an institutionalidentity that warrants the formal assign-ment of a coordinating or managing roleto one or more staff members. Whereas ahigh number of Web librarians would per-haps suggest a fairly decentralized sys-tem, the four institutions with the highestnumber of Web librarians (10–10-20–20)characterized their systems as “a central-ized, university wide system that is cen-trally managed and covers all subjects.”

Table 1 shows the estimated total num-ber of staff involved in assisted accesssystems. Almost half of the libraries re-sponding to the question estimated thatfewer than 10 people were involved intheir assisted access system. At the otherend of the spectrum, one institution re-ported a high of 81 participants (1 Weblibrarian, 50 professional staff, 20 non-professional staff, and 10 students).Eleven of 35 institutions reported that noprofessional staff beyond the indicatedWeb librarians were involved. These 11institutions were of two types: large sys-tems that report the involvement of manyWeb librarians with nonprofessional staff,and small systems that report one to four

Web librarians that function alone. At thesame time, more than half of the respond-ing libraries (19, or 54.3%) indicated thatthey relied exclusively on full-time staff(Web librarians, professional staff, and non-professional staff) to support their systems.

Of the 38 libraries completing the sur-vey, 29 estimated the number of partici-pants, the number of hours per week, andthe number of items included in their In-ternet resources database. These institu-tions were grouped in three categoriesbased on database size: small systemswith, less than 500 items; medium sys-tem, with 500–5,999 items; and large sys-tems, with 6,000–15,000 items.

Although all ARL academic librariesare large libraries that support large re-search universities, the data presented inTable 2 indicate that there is enormousvariation among them regarding the de-velopment of their assisted access sys-tems. Within the small, medium, andlarge systems, this variation is illustratedby the ranges of data within each group.Variability among the small, medium, andlarge systems was expressed by the cate-gorical means for the number of items andthe number of participants.

It was hoped that respondents couldoffer an estimate of the total number ofperson-hours given to the assisted accesssystem each week as one dimension ofscale. Nine of the 38 libraries (23.7%)were unable to estimate the total person-hours per week, and others offered esti-mates that failed a test of reasonableness,leading the investigators to conclude thatin some cases where data were providedthe respondents appear to have misinter-preted the question. Because of the lowresponse rate, and the uncertainty of someof the data that were reported, the esti-mates of person-hours contributed weeklyto the assisted access systems are not pre-sented here.

Table 1Estimated Number of Participants

in Assisted Access System(N 5 35)

Number ofParticipants

Number ofInstitutions Percentage

1–9 17 48.5

10–19 5 14.3

20–29 9 25.7

30–39 2 5.7

40–49 1 2.9

50–59 0 0.0

60–69 0 0.0

70–79 0 0.0

80–90 1 2.9

Total 35 100.0

Table 2Size of Internet Resources Databases, Number of Participants (N 5 29)

System SizeNumber ofInstitutions

Items in Database Participants

Mean Range Mean Range

Small system(Less than 500) 8 210 35–400 9.5 3–25

Medium system(500–5,999) 11 2,503 1,000–4,740 13.7 3–25

Large system(6,000–15,000) 10 10,870 6,000–15,000 29.2 1–81

March 2000 103

Functional Responsibilitiesof Participants

Five functional responsibilities relatingto the development of assisted access sys-tems were identified and are presented inTable 3. Respondents were asked to indi-cate the extent to which each of the re-sponsibilities was assumed by partici-pants in the different categories ofpersonnel. Because the categories arenonexclusive, the totals do not add up to100%.

The Web librarian and the library com-mittee/team were cited most frequently byrespondents as being responsible for themanagement of the assisted access sys-tem. Indeed, both of these groups pos-sessed significant responsibilities acrossall functions of the assisted access system.Subject selectors/collection developmentstaff and public service staff were mostfrequently cited as having responsibilityfor identifying resources; the final selec-tion of resources; indexing, describing,and annotating resources; and modifyingand maintaining records.

Technical services staff were not fre-quently cited as being responsible formost functions of assisted access systems.Even in the areas of indexing, describing,and annotating resources, and modifyingand maintaining records, subject selec-tors/collection development staff, Web li-brarian, and public services staff were allmore frequently identified as being theresponsible parties than were technicalservices staff. This is probably becausethe technical services staff involvement inassisted access systems is largely limitedto the development and maintenance of

records for Internet resources that are in-cluded in the institution’s online publicaccess catalog (OPAC), and because re-sources included in the OPAC typicallyrepresent only a fraction of the total se-lected resources. Whether this modestlevel of participation by technical servicesstaff is a result of the diminishing size oftechnical services departments, and con-sequently a limited ability to contribute,or a planned division of labor could not bedetermined from our survey. Heads ofindividual libraries, university faculty,and students were not cited as havingmajor responsibility for any of the func-tional activities of assisted access sys-tems.

Adequacy of Institutional Support

Respondents were asked to indicatetheir perceptions regarding six general in-dicators of system-wide support for theInternet access system by rating eachform of support on a four-point scale (15inadequate,2 5 adequate,3 5 good,and4 5 outstanding). The percentage of peo-ple selecting each of the four qualitativeranks are presented in Table 4, along withthe mean ranking for each form of support(total ranking points/number responding).

The majority of respondents rated in-stitutional support in all six areas as eithergoodor outstanding.Internal staff supportwas rated as eithergoodor outstandingby76.3% of respondents, for an overallmean ranking of 2.89; however, a rela-tively large group (18.4%) of the respon-dents ranked this area asinadequate.Commitment of library administrators tothe program was perceived as especially

high, with an overall ranking of 3.34.Although support from colleagues wasviewed by 78.9% asgoodor outstanding,another 10.5% ranked it asinadequate.Most rated their hardware and softwaresupport asgoodor outstanding,but theseareas were also ratedinadequateby 7.9%and 10.5%, respectively. The lowest over-all mean ranking (2.58) was given to theexternal staff support category. However,18.4% of respondents indicated that ex-ternal staff support was not an issue attheir institutions. In summary, 80–90% ofthe respondents felt that institutional sup-port of the assisted access system wasadequate to outstanding, with internalstaff support from within the library sys-tem representing the area of most seriousconcern.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ASSISTED

ACCESS SYSTEMS

Several survey questions examined howlong the systems had been in place, thegeneral scale of the systems, how the se-lected Internet resources were describedand organized to facilitate access, and theinstitution’s use of local search engines.

Scale and Duration of Systems

To examine the general size and scopeof the assisted access systems, we askedrespondents when their systems were firstput into place; the number of Internetresources selected to date; and the rate atwhich Internet resources were beingadded to, and deleted from, the system.

Of the 37 institutions that responded tothe question regarding duration, five(13.5%) reported six years; eight (21.6%),

Table 3Functional Responsibilities of Participants (N 5 38)

Participants Manage SystemIdentify

Resources

FinalSelection ofResources

Index,Describe,Annotate

Modify,MaintainRecords

% % % % %

Web librarian 21 55.2 13 34.2 13 34.2 21 55.2 26 68.4

Library committee/team 24 63.1 16 42.1 20 52.6 9 23.6 13 34.2

Heads of libraries 8 21.0 14 36.8 8 21.0 6 15.8 8 21.0

Subject selectors/collection develop 12 31.5 34 89.5 30 78.8 24 63.1 19 50.0

Public services 7 18.4 23 60.5 18 47.4 19 50.0 13 34.2

Technical services 8 21.0 10 26.3 6 15.8 16 42.1 11 28.9

Faculty NA NA 9 23.6 1 2.6 1 2.6 NA NA

Students NA NA 5 13.1 1 2.6 1 2.6 3 7.8

Other 3 7.8 1 2.6 1 2.6 3 7.8 5 13.1

104 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

five years; 13 (35.1%), four years; 10(27.0%) three years, and one (2.7%), twoyears. A separate examination of the Webpages of all 110 ARL academic librarieswas conducted to determine whether theprovision of assisted access to Internetresources was as widespread among ARLacademic libraries as was suggested bythe survey responses. The institution-by-institution analysis revealed that all ARLacademic libraries provided, at the time ofthis analysis, some form of assisted accessto selected Internet resources, althoughseveral institutions included only a hand-ful of Internet resources in their systems.

The responses of those libraries thatcould offer an estimate of the number ofInternet resources currently included intheir assisted access programs indicatedthat there exists a wide variation in thesize and growth rates of these programsamong ARL academic libraries. As seenin Table 2, eight (27.6%) of the respond-ing institutions had fewer than 500 itemsin their databases of Internet resources inFall 1998; 11 (37.9%) had between 500and 5,999 items; and 10 (34.5%) had be-tween 6,000 and 15,000. Thus, almosttwo thirds of the responding libraries es-timated that they had fewer than 6,000items in their Internet resources database.The mean number of items for all institu-tions was 4,598, while the median was2,500. The relatively high mean is a resultof the small number of libraries surveyedand because several of the responding li-braries reported a very large number of

items in their assisted access systems.Seven of the 38 institutions responding tothe survey (18.4%) did not estimate thenumber of individual Internet resourcescurrently included in their system.

To determine how fast the Internet re-sources databases are growing, we askedthe institutions to estimate the number ofitems that were added to, and deletedfrom, their databases during 1997. A largenumber of institutions did not respond tothese questions. That, in combinationwith the dangers inherent in projectingfuture growth based on a single year’sdata, argues strongly that these datashould only be considered preliminaryand suggestive. Fewer than 1,000 Internetresources were added by 36.8% of theinstitutions in 1997, 26.3% added be-tween 1,000 and 4,999 items, and 2.6%added between 5,000 and 10,000 items.More than one third of the participatinginstitutions (34.2%) did not indicate howmany items were added to their Internetassisted access programs in 1997.

As one might expect, the rate at whichInternet resources are deleted from as-sisted access databases is substantiallylower than the rate at which they areadded. Of the participating institutions, 18(47.4%) indicated that they deleted fewerthan 100 items from their institution’s da-tabase during 1997; and 7 (18.4%) esti-mated that between 100 and 500 Internetrecords were deleted. Again, more thanone third of the participating institutionsdid not report how many Internet re-

sources were deleted in 1997. In general,the data indicate a high growth rate in theInternet resources databases (mediannumber of items included in the Internetresources databases in Fall 1998 was2,500; median number of items added in1997, 500; median number of items de-leted in 1997, 25). Given the growth thatis occurring in the number and variety ofquality information resources on the In-ternet, it is likely that the number of se-lected Internet resources identified byARL academic libraries will not slowanytime soon.

The large number of non-responses tosurvey questions relating to the total num-ber of Internet resources identified by in-dividual institutions and the number ofitems that were added and deleted in1997, along with the marginal commentsof many who did respond to the questions,suggest that most of the participating li-braries do not maintain current data abouttheir assisted access systems. Over thenext several years, academic research li-braries, and other academic libraries forthat matter, will be making important de-cisions regarding the future of such pro-grams (e.g., What priority should suchprograms be given?, What library re-sources should be committed to such pro-grams?, What role should the institution’sOPAC play in providing access to Inter-net resources?, and What kinds of recordprocessing are most appropriate or neces-sary?). Knowing the current scale of theprogram (e.g., the number and level of

Table 4Perceived Adequacy of Institutional Support

(N 5 38)

Institutional Support1

Inadequate2

Adequate3

Good4

Outstanding Mean Ranking

Internal staff support within library 18.4% 5.3% 50.0% 26.3% 2.89

n 5 7 n 5 2 n 5 19 n 5 10

External staff support outside library 3.2% 38.7% 54.8% 3.2% 2.58

n 5 1 n 5 15 n 5 21 n 5 1

Hardware support 7.9% 15.8% 57.9% 18.4% 2.76

n 5 3 n 5 6 n 5 22 n 5 7

Software support 10.5% 26.3% 44.7% 18.4% 2.61

n 5 4 n 5 10 n 5 17 n 5 7

Commitment library administrators 2.6% 18.4% 34.2% 44.7% 3.34

n 5 1 n 5 7 n 5 13 n 5 17

Commitment colleagues across library 10.5% 10.5% 50.0% 28.9% 2.76

n 5 4 n 5 4 n 5 19 n 5 11

March 2000 105

staff involved, the number of items al-ready identified, and the number of itemsthat are added and deleted annually) willbe critical for informed decisions regard-ing the programs.

“Over the next several years,academic research libraries,and other academic libraries

for that matter, will be makingimportant decisions regardingthe future of such programs(e.g., What priority should

such programs be given? Whatlibrary resources should be

committed to such programs?What role should the

institution’s OPAC play inproviding access to Internet

resources? What kinds ofrecord processing are mostappropriate or necessary?).”

Description of Internet Resources

How libraries describe their selectedInternet resources can be expected to havean important impact on the effectivenessof the assisted access system and on thekinds of institutional resources that willbe required to operate the system. MARCrecords, which have been used to repre-sent and to provide access to print mate-rials in libraries, have also been applied toelectronic resources. Because of the vol-ume involved, the ephemeral and chang-ing nature of many Internet resources, andthe labor and costs involved in creatingand maintaining the highly structuredMARC records, many in the professionhave questioned their cost-effectivenessas a means of describing Internet resourc-es.11 Metadata schemes, particularly theDublin Core,12 provide an alternative toMARC records that is simpler in structureand offers more descriptive flexibility. Athird method of describing Internet re-sources, and one that is currently widelyused by most libraries that provide as-sisted access to Internet resources, relieson a locally developed format for describ-ing the resources. That local format typi-cally includes a URL; a title for the re-source; and, in some cases, an annotationof variable length.

Before presenting the responses to the

question asking how the libraries de-scribed their Internet resources, we shouldpoint out that these three methods or strat-egies of describing Internet resources arenot mutually exclusive, even within a par-ticular institution. Indeed, most librariesindicated that more than one method wasused to describe their selected Internetresources. Of the 37 libraries providing aresponse to the question, 34 (91.9%) re-port they used a locally developed strat-egy consisting of a combination of URLs,titles, and/or annotations to describe from5% to 100% of their selected Internetresources. And, 30 libraries (81.1%) re-ported using MARC records to describefrom 1% to 100% of the Internet re-sources included in their assisted accesssystem. Seven libraries (18.9%) indicatedthat they did not use MARC records todescribe Internet resources, and only fivelibraries (13.5%) reported the use ofmetadata records to describe 1% to 100%of the selected resources. Three libraries(8.1%) indicated that all of their selectedInternet resources were described by us-ing either MARC or metadata records.

Because many of the libraries reportedthe use of one or more of these descriptivemethods without indicating the extent towhich they were used, no meaningful av-erage can be derived from the survey data.Nonetheless, the available data suggestthat the most common strategy is to em-ploy a locally developed format usingURLs, titles, and perhaps annotations todescribe most of their selected resources,with MARC records for Internet re-sources included in the institution’sOPAC. Metadata records, on the otherhand, were not widely used. This condi-tion will likely change in the future be-cause of OCLC’s CORC (CooperativeOnline Resource Catalog) project that isdesigned to encourage the use of DublinCore metadata records among libraries todescribe Internet resources.13

MARC records are highly structuredand complex, and their creation is time-consuming and costly. Their use to de-scribe Internet resources is most justifiedwhen describing resources of significantcurrent and/or lasting value and, there-fore, should be represented in the institu-tion’s OPAC. Although the use of titlesand URLs to describe selected resources,with or without annotations, is wide-spread, this strategy does not do justice tothe rich content of many resources. Meta-data schemes, such as the Dublin Core,offer alternatives to the structure, com-plexity, and cost of MARC records while

maintaining more structure and consis-tency in the descriptive process than iscommon with locally developed records.The more widespread adoption of a meta-data scheme to describe Internet resourceswould be greatly encouraged by the co-operative development of a national data-base of metadata records as envisioned byOCLC’s CORC project.

Inclusion in OPAC

Whether or not libraries should includeInternet resources in their OPAC is animportant issue that is being widely dis-cussed by the library profession. Respon-dents were asked to estimate the percent-age of their selected Internet resourcesthat they included in their OPAC.

As indicated in Table 5, a significantnumber of institutions (43.3%) included10% or less of their selected Internet re-sources in their OPACs. At the same time,many institutions indicated they includeda significant proportion of their selectedInternet resources in the institutions’OPACs. This variation in practice illus-trates the uncertainty, or lack of consen-sus, within the profession regardingwhether or not Internet resources, espe-cially those representing resources notpaid for, or subscribed to, by the library,should be include in the library’s OPAC.It was expected that institutions with largedatabases of Internet resources wouldlikely include a smaller percentage of

Table 5Percentage Internet ResourcesIncluded in Institutional OPAC

(N 5 37)

Percentageof InternetRecords in

OPAC

Numberof

Libraries

Percentageof

Libraries

0 3 8.1

10 13 35.2

20 7 18.9

30 5 13.5

40 2 5.4

50 1 2.7

60 1 2.7

70 1 2.7

80 2 5.4

90 2 5.4

100 0 0.0

Total 37 100.0

106 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

those resources in their OPACs (becauseof the large numbers and associatedcosts), and those with small databaseswould include a larger percentage of theirselected Internet resources in theirOPACs (because of the small numbersand lower costs involved), but that doesnot appear to be the case. In fact, theresponses to this question indicate that allof the institutions included only a smallpart of their selected Internet resources intheir institution’s OPAC. Three out offour institutions indicated that they in-cluded 30% or less of their selected Inter-net resources in their OPACs. Of the nineinstitutions that reported the inclusion of40% or more of their selected Internetresources in their OPACs, only one re-ported a database of more than 3,000items.

Organization of Internet Resources

There are two common strategies thatlibraries use to organize and display acollection of resources for information re-trieval purposes, and both are used byARL academic libraries to organize theirselected Internet resources: (1) organizingand displaying the resources in alphabet-ical order and/or (2) categorization of theresources in some helpful way. For a verysmall collection of resources, an alphabet-

ical arrangement is often sufficient foreffective retrieval. For larger collections,however, users find that categorization bysubject or some other characteristic (e.g.,by type of resource, such as people,places, and e-journals) greatly facilitatesinformation retrieval. Categorization maytake the form of a single-level subjectgrouping or multilevel hierarchical struc-tures.

Survey respondents were asked todescribe the different strategies thattheir institutions used to organize theirselected Internet resources. A summaryof the responses is presented in Table 6.Again, it should be pointed out that thecategories offered are not mutually ex-clusive at any given institution. Evensingle and multilevel categories can co-exist at a given institution because manyARL academic libraries consist of mul-tiple libraries that frequently use differ-ent methods to organize their selectedInternet resources.

Only one of the 38 responding librariesindicated that it used, exclusively, an al-phabetical list to organize and display itsselected Internet resources. Twenty-eightlibraries (73.7%) reported that they usedboth alphabetization and categorizationstrategies to organize their Internet re-

sources, whereas 10 libraries (26.3%) re-lied exclusively on categorization.

Regarding their use of categorization,30 libraries (81.1%) indicated they usedsingle-level categorical lists, and 24(64.9%) used multilevel hierarchical cat-egorization. Among those institutions us-ing single-level categorization, the mostcommon methods of categorization wereby subject (27 libraries, 90.0%) and bytype of resource (23 libraries, 76.7%). Al-though a number of libraries reported us-ing subject categorization without catego-rization by type of resource, only onelibrary reported categorization using asingle-level display by type of resourceonly.

Of the 24 libraries that reported usingmulti-level categorization, 21 libraries in-dicated that they categorized items bysubject, and 16 indicated categorizationby type of resource. Of the 24 librariesthat used an hierarchical scheme of somesort, 14 used locally devised schemes, oneused the full version of the Dewey Deci-mal Classification (DDC), five used thefull version of the Library of CongressClassification (LCC), three used a modi-fied version of LCC, and four used ahierarchical structure based on some otherscheme (e.g., National Library of Medi-cine Classification and the university’sdepartmental and programmatic struc-ture).

The use of single and/or multilevel cat-egorization within any particular institu-tion presents a rather mixed picture. Four-teen libraries (37.8%) indicated that theyused single-level categorization only, 7libraries (18.9%) reported using multi-level categorization, and 16 libraries(43.2%) reported using both single andmultilevel categorizations. As the Webcontinues to grow rapidly and more se-lected resources are included in local sys-tems, an increasing use of multilevel cat-egorization can be expected in order toimprove the retrieval process. Among themultilevel schemes, the majority of thelibraries (58.3%) currently used locallydevised schemes, an indication that exist-ing library classification schemes are notdeemed suitable as the basis for organiz-ing selected Internet resources.

Among the small number of libraries(nine of 24) reporting the use of existinglibrary classification systems to organizetheir selected Internet resources, thosethat used the LCC outnumber those usingthe DDC by 8 to 1. This is probably areflection of the fact that the LCC is thepredominant scheme used in academic re-

Table 6Methods Used to Organize Selected Internet Resources

(N 5 38)

Organizational MethodNumber libraries

using method Percentage

Alphabetical list 28 of 38 73.7

Single-level categories: 30 of 37 81.1

By subject 27 of 30 90.0

By type of resourcea 23 of 30 76.7

Otherb 3 of 30 10.0

Multi-level categories 24 of 37 64.9

By subject 21 of 24 87.5

By type of resource 16 of 24 66.7

Hierarchical scheme 24 of 37 64.9

Local 14 of 24 58.3

DDC (full) 1 of 24 4.2

DDC (modified) 0 of 24 0.0

LCC (full) 5 of 24 20.8

LCC (modified) 3 of 24 12.5

Other (e.g., NLM) 4 of 24 16.7

Notes: aIncludes categories such as people, places, and e-journals.bIncludes categories by author, collection, locally defined list, etc.

March 2000 107

search libraries for arranging their printcollections.

Search Engines

Regardless of the method of displayand the organizational scheme used, manylibraries (66%) reported that they alsomade use of one of a variety of searchengines that can be adapted to index theresources on a local host or across multi-ple servers at a single site and processkeyword queries. In fact, given the rela-tively large size of most of the systemssurveyed, the difficulty of locating spe-cific resources within any of the devisedaccess schemes, and the availability ofmany powerful, low cost, or free searchengines, it is surprising that 34% of thesesystems did not provide this alternateform of access. Most of the local searchengines employed were either based onexisting Internet search engines or weredescribed as a locally developed, in-houseprogram or database system (six of the 25with search capability). HTDig (devel-oped at San Diego State University) wasmentioned by four of the 25 systemswhere a local search engine was em-ployed; some others mentioned includedThunderstone’s Webinator (2), OpenText’s LiveLink (2), Excite (2), Lycos(1), AltaVista (1), and HotBot (1). In gen-eral, these search engines all provide asearchable index to resources as well assome type of relevance ranking of re-trieved resources. Given the size of theexisting local databases of Internet re-sources, their rapid rate of growth, and thefact that many such search engines can belicensed for free, the benefits of using alocal search engine are obvious.

Views of Respondents

The 38 respondents were asked to in-dicate the extent to which they agreed ordisagreed with a series of statements re-garding the development of assisted ac-cess systems:

● Statement 1:ARL academic librariesmust provide an effective system ofassisted access to Internet resourcesthat support the educational, research,service, and administrative activitiesof their clients [23.7%,agree;76.3%,strongly agree].

● Statement 2:Existing Internet searchengines and directories (e.g., Alta-Vista, HotBot, and Yahoo!) providethe clients of ARL academic librarieswith adequate access to Internet re-sources of special value to research

universities [26.3%, strongly dis-agree; 50.0%, disagree; 21.1%,agree;and 2.6%,strongly agree].

● Statement 3:It would be more effi-cient and effective for ARL academiclibraries to participate in the develop-ment of a cooperative system that pro-vides the students, faculty, and staff ofall research universities with access toselected Internet resources rather thaneach developing a unique, local sys-tem for the use of their clients [5.3%,strongly disagree;39.5%, disagree;31.6%,agree;18.4%,strongly agree;5.3%, did not respond].

● Statement 4:Rather than using limitedlibrary resources to provide locally as-sisted access to Internet resources thatare important to their clients, ARL ac-ademic libraries should rely on exist-ing, or developing, systems (e.g., theWWW Virtual Library, OCLC’s Net-First, Scout Report Signpost, Health-Web, and Infomine) to provide theneeded access [13.2%,strongly dis-agree; 50%, disagree;31.6%,agree;and 5.3%,strongly agree].

● Statement 5:We believe, on the basisof available Web use data and infor-mal feedback, that our clients find oursystem of assisted access to selectedInternet resource very helpful for iden-tifying quality Internet resources thatsupport their academic related infor-mation needs [15.8%, disagree;71.1%,agree;13.2%,strongly agree].

“All of the respondents eitheragreed or strongly agreed thatARL academic libraries must

provide their clients witheffective assisted access to

Internet resources, and morethan 75% of them did notbelieve the existing general

Internet directories and searchengines, such as Yahoo! and

HotBot, can satisfy thatrequirement.”

All of the respondents either agreed orstrongly agreed that ARL academic li-braries must provide their clients with ef-fective assisted access to Internet re-sources, and more than 75% of them did

not believe the existing general Internetdirectories and search engines, such asYahoo! and HotBot, can satisfy that re-quirement. Although 63.2% of the re-spondents did not feel that ARL academiclibraries should rely on the external de-velopment of an assisted access system, asignificant number of the respondents(36.9%) agreed or strongly agreed thatARL academic libraries should rely onexternal systems rather than spendinglimited local resources on the develop-ment of local systems. Clearly there aremixed opinions, with respondents beingequally divided on the subject, regardingthe cooperative development of an as-sisted access system that could serve theneeds of all ARL academic libraries and,thus, relieve individual institutions fromthe necessity of developing and maintain-ing their own local systems.

In all likelihood, the views of ARLacademic libraries regarding the develop-ment of assisted access systems will re-main rather fluid over the next severalyears until it becomes clear what kinds ofinstitutional resources will be made avail-able to support the local development ofthe systems and how relevant externaldevelopments play out (e.g., improve-ments in existing search engines and di-rectories and the enhancement of existingor the development of new systems toaccess Internet resources).

CONCLUSION

Although all of the survey respondentsagreed or strongly agreed that ARL aca-demic libraries must develop and main-tain effective systems of assisted access toInternet resources that support the educa-tional, research, service, and administra-tive activities of their clients, and all didprovide some form of local assisted ac-cess, the specific form that assistancetakes varies considerably among these li-braries.

“Based on the results of thissurvey, there does not appear

to be anything that couldqualify as a typical or average

system of assisted access toselected Internet resources

among ARL academiclibraries.”

108 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Based on the results of this survey,there does not appear to be anything thatcould qualify as atypical or averagesys-tem of assisted access to selected Internetresources among ARL academic libraries.Even where a large number of librariesare employing the same strategy (e.g., theinclusion of some of the selected re-sources in the institution’s OPAC and theuse of a hierarchical scheme to organizethe selected Internet resources), the wayin which the strategy is actually imple-mented varies enormously among libraries.

As the higher education communitycomes to recognize the value of informa-tion resources that are available on theInternet and the problems associated withaccessing those resources in an efficientand effective way, academic libraries willincreasingly be asked to assume a leader-ship role in improving access to thoseresources. Most likely that role will in-clude the continued development, expan-sion, and refinement of existing local sys-tems of assisted access. Although thateffort will be strongly influenced by de-cisions made by the individual institu-tions, decisions taken by academic and

perhaps other types of libraries as a group,and developments that are likely to occuroutside the library community, will alsoinfluence the way these systems evolve.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. John Barnard, “The World Wide Web andHigher Education: The Promises of Vir-tual Universities and Online Libraries,”Educational Technology37 (May-June1997): 30–35.

2. Steve Lawrence & C. Lee Giles, “Search-ing the World Wide Web,”Science280(April 3, 1998): 98–100.

3. Steve Lawrence & C. Lee Giles, “Acces-sibility of Information on the Web,”Na-ture 400 (July 8, 1999): 107–109.

4. Brian Lavoie, Edward T. O’Neill, &Patrick McClain, “OCLC Office of Re-search Examines Web-Accessible Infor-mation to Find Order in Chaos,”OCLCNewsletter 230 (November/December1997): 19–22.

5. Danny Sullivan, “Search Engine Sizes,”in Search Engine Watch[Online]. Avail-able:http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/sizes.html(February 1, 1999).

6. Joseph R. Zumalt & Robert W. Pasic-znyuk, “The Internet and Reference Ser-vices: A Real-World Test of Internet Util-

ity,” Reference & User Services Quarterly38 (1998): 165–172.

7. Joseph Janes & Charles R. McClure,“The Web as a Reference Tool: Com-parisons with Traditional Sources,”PublicLibraries 38 (January/February 1999):30–39.

8. Gregory F. Pratt, Patrick Flannery, & Cas-sandra L. D. Perkins, “Guidelines for In-ternet Resource Selection,”College & Re-search Libraries News57 (March 1996):134–135.

9. Ron Chepesiuk, “Organizing the Internet:The ‘Core’ of the Challenge,”AmericanLibraries 30 (January 1999): 60–63.

10. Association of Research Libraries, “State-ment on Qualifications for Membership inthe Association of Research Libraries”[Online]. Available: http://www.arl.org/stats/qualify.html(April 26, 1999).

11. Chepesiuk, “Organizing the Internet,” p.61.

12. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, “TheDublin Core: A Simple Content Descrip-tion Model for Electronic Resource” [On-line]. Available: http://purl.org/dc (April28, 1999).

13. OCLC Research, “CORC–CooperativeOnline Resource Catalog” [Online]. Avail-able: http://www.oclc.org/oclc/research/projects/corc/(April 28, 1999).

March 2000 109