The Alabama Librarian, Vol. 59, Issue 1

VOLUME 59, ISSUE 1 SPRING 2021

THE

ALABAMA LIBRARIAN An Open Access Journal

The Alabama Library Association

THE

VOLUME 59, ISSUE 1

ALABAMA LIBRARIAN

SPRING 2021

A Message from the Editor-in-Chief…………………………………………………….……………….3 Jessica E. Platt

The Editorial Board of The Alabama Librarian……………………………………………………….4 Meet the Editorial Board………………………………………………………………………………….5 Guest Editorial……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 Sheila Snow-Croft and Nancy Pack

Measure Twice, Cut Once: A Baseline Survey of Library Makerspaces …………………………...11 James Mitchell and Robert Wilson

The Alabama Academic Library Homepage: An Analysis of Design Trends……………………..35 Daniel Moody

You Can’t Read That!: Banned Books Week and Its Celebration at an Alabama University….49 Rachel Hooper and Kelly Marie Wilson Call for Articles…………………………………………………………………………………………...58

The Alabama Librarian is a biannual, open access, peer reviewed journal published by the Alabama Library Association.

ISSN 0002-4295 Cover designed by Nystasha Kelly

2

A Message from the Editor-in-Chief

Dear Readers, It is my pleasure to present to you the premier issue of the newly resurrected journal published by the Alabama Library Association. The A labama Librarian is an open access journal that publishes peerreviewed articles and other scholarly information of relevance to Alabama’s library community twice per year. Of the 2 types of Open Access, we are a gold journal--meaning that articles are freely available from the moment of publication on ALLA’s website.

In this issue of The A labama Librarian, you will find a guest editorial co-written by Sheila Snow-Croft, the Executive Director of the NAAL (the Network of Alabama Academic Libraries) and Nancy Pack, the Director of APLS (the Alabama Public Library Service). We are truly grateful to be able to feature this piece by two established leaders in librarianship in our state who have shared information on how Alabama’s libraries have persevered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other noteworthy articles in this issue cover makerspaces in libraries, design trends in academic library homepages, and an overview of Banned Books Week celebrations at one university in Alabama.

In an effort to eliminate the possibility of bias in reviews, all submissions to this journal undergo a double blind peer review process. Submissions may be written by librarians outside our state as long as they’re relevant to librarianship in AL. We always accept submissions for publication consideration, so please feel free to submit at any time.

Authors can expect for accepted submissions to be published within 6 months of the submission date.

While ALLA membership is encouraged, it is not required at this time. I encourage you to read our Call for Articles on page 58 and to visit our website for more information (https://www.allanet.org/alabamalibrarian).

Thank you for reading this issue! Your interest is greatly appreciated. We hope to feature your work in a future issue and are thrilled to be able to highlight the work of librarians in our state in this peer-reviewed publication.

Jessica E. Platt Education Doctoral Librarian Alabama State University Editor-in-Chief, The A labama Librarian 3

The Editorial Board of

The Alabama Librarian

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Jessica E. Platt Alabama State University

EDITORIAL BOARD M. Delores Carlito, Editor University of Alabama at Birmingham Tim Dodge, Editor Auburn University Charlotte E. Ford, Editor University of Montevallo Michelle Hamrick Irondale Public Library Jessica Hayes, Editor Auburn University Montgomery Peggy Kain, Editor University of Alabama at Birmingham Lori Northrup Samford University Laura Pitts Scottsboro Public Library Jodi Poe Jacksonville State University Kathy Wheeler University of South Alabama Kelly Marie Wilson Independent Researcher 4

Meet the Editorial Board M. Delores Carlito

Tim Dodge

Charlotte E. Ford

Delores Carlito is the Head of the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Mervyn H. Sterne Library, Department of Research and Learning.

She is also Information Literacy Coordinator and is Liaison to the Department of English. Her research interests are information and metaliteracy, multimodal assignments, information literacy outreach, and mentoring.

Tim Dodge has been employed at Auburn University since 1992. His current position is History and Political Science Librarian in the Research and Instruction Department. Tim held previous positions at the University of New Hampshire library (twice) and Barry University library going back to 1980.

He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in History from the University of New Hampshire, an M.L.S. from Columbia University, and a B.A. in History from Swarthmore College. Tim has published four books in History and over a dozen peerreviewed articles in Library Science and History. He has also been active in library associations including the Alabama Library Association (President, 2004-2005), the Alabama Association of College and Research Libraries (President, 2000-2001 and 2008-2009), and the Southeastern Library Association (President, 2019-2020, a two-year term). He has served as a manuscript reviewer for The Southeastern Librarian since 2001. Tim lives in the small town of Camp Hill, Alabama and his interests include vegetable gardening, hiking, and playing boogie woogie piano.

Tim has also hosted the Golden Oldies radio program on Auburn University’s WEGL FM 91.1 since 1998.

Charlotte Ford is the Library Director at the University of Montevallo. Her first library job was as a page in a public library in Kentucky when she was a teenager. Since that long-ago time, she has published peer-reviewed articles in a number of library science journals and has worked in libraries or LIS programs in five states, as well as in Colombia and Honduras...but she keeps coming back to Alabama, where she has lived on and off since 1991.

5

Meet the Editorial Board (continued)

Michelle Hamrick

Jessica Hayes

Peggy Kain

Michelle Hamrick is the associate director of Irondale Public Library and has served ALLA as the Public Relations committee chair since 2018. Prior to serving with ALLA, she served on the Jefferson County Public Library Association Executive Council for three years.

Michelle has served the American Library Association as a grant reviewer periodically since 2014. At the Irondale Public Library, her responsibilities include adult and teen programming, library marketing, grant writing, and outreach. Being from a smaller library means that she gets to participate in all aspects of the library. Public Service is a personal and professional passion for Michelle. She served as a Girl Scout Troop leader for nine years and has continued to support local Girl Scouts. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic Michelle sewed masks for UAB Hospital, friends, and colleagues.

If you are interested in marketing and have a passion for Alabama libraries, Michelle encourages you to contact her about joining the ALLA Public Relations Committee: Michelle.Hamrick@IrondaleLibrary .org.

Jessica Hayes is the Head of Public Services Librarian at Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM).

Her past professional roles include Director of Online Library Services for South University, and Library Director at South University, Montgomery. She holds degrees from Samford University and the University of Alabama; currently, she is pursuing her Master of Liberal Arts - History Concentration from AUM. Hayes is the author of the article, "Well-Behaved Librarians Rarely Make History: Juliette Hampton Morgan and Alabama Librarianship in the 1950s" and the book Historic Photos of Birmingham, Alabama in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. She is co-author on several articles, including "Boomers to Millennials: Generational Stereotypes at Work in Academic Librarianship." She also co-authored the book chapter "Getting Things to POP: How Collaboration, Umbrellas, and Popcorn Machines Changed the Relevancy of the Auburn University Montgomery Library” in the book, Expanding Library Relevancy: Innovation to Meet Changing Needs.

Her research interests span many areas with her current focus centering on history of Alabama librarianship, the assessment of user services, and academic librarians' role in combating misinformation.

Margaret (Peggy) Kain, Associate Professor, is Head of Resource Acquisitions and Discovery for UAB Libraries. Peggy joined UAB Sterne Library faculty in 2006; prior to that, she served as the director of a small special library. She has presented and published for local, regional, and national library venues. Peggy lives in a historic home in Birmingham, Alabama with her collie Hannah and cat Daphne.

6

Meet the Editorial Board (continued)

Lori Northrup Lori Northrup is Associate Dean and Chair of Collection Management/Acquisitions at Samford University Library, where she has worked since 2002. From 2009-2012, she served as Assistant Editor of the International Journal of Pharmacy Education and Practice. Lori lives in Pelham, Alabama, with her husband Jeff and cats Wally and Matilda.

Laura Pitts

Jessica E. Platt

Laura Pitts is the Director of the Jessica E. Platt is the Education Scottsboro Public Library in ScottsDoctoral Librarian at Alabama boro, Alabama. She will serve as the State University's Levi Watkins 2021-2022 President of the Alabama Learning Center. Her educational Library Association and has been background includes a Master of involved in many different aspects of Library and Information Studies library work throughout the state and degree from The University of Althe North Alabama region. Prior to abama, a Master of Education deher transition into the world of librar- gree from Auburn University, and ies, Laura worked as reporter and a Bachelor of Science degree in lifestyles magazine editor for The Early Childhood Education from Daily Sentinel (also in Scottsboro), Alabama State University. She has and held numerous internships as she published articles and book restarted her journalism career at both views in a number of journals in Trucker's News and Cooking Light. librarianship and education and has Her educational background includes worked in libraries since 2002. Her a Master of Library and Information research interests include reference Science degree from The University services, information literacy, community outreach, diversity in of Alabama, a Master of English and librarianship, and the effects of yoCreative Writing degree from The University of Alabama Birmingham, ga and meditation on learning. She and a Bachelor of Journalism and lives in Alabama's capital city with English degree from The University her husband, her daughter, two elof Alabama. She is currently pursuderly dogs, and a cat with many ing a PhD in Mass Communication names. with an emphasis in public libraries.

Her research interests include the role of small and rural public libraries, the services they provide communities, and the challenges they face to continue providing those services.

7

Meet the Editorial Board (continued) Jodi Poe

Kathy Wheeler

Kelly Marie Wilson

Jodi Poe, Head of Technical Services at Jacksonville State University, is currently the editor of the Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning. She has been a guest editor for the Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery, and Electronic Reserves and a reviewer for Choice, Journal of Web Librarianship, and Reference Reviews. She is currently a reviewer for The Southeastern Librarian, and she lives in Anniston and works in Jacksonville.

She has been a full-time employee at the Houston Cole Library at JSU since September 1991 as the Acquisitions Assistant, and a librarian since 2001, first as the Distance Education/Electronic Resources Manager (2001 – 2008) and now as Head of Technical Services (2008 – present), and she has the rank of full professor.

Kathy Wheeler is currently the Assistant University Librarian for Collections at the University of South Alabama University Libraries, where she has worked for over 20 years in both reference and collection management.

Kathy has an MLIS from LSU, an MA from the University of South Carolina, and a BA from Newberry College in South Carolina. In her free time, Kathy likes to read, swim, walk, and spend time at the beach.

Kelly Marie Wilson is the Librarian for the City of Industry Campus of Angeles College, where she has been since November 2020. She has been the editor and one of the primary contributors for the ALLA's GODORT newsletter: GODORT Connection since April 2018. In August of 2020, Kelly and her husband (Daniel), dog (Zara), and cat (Harley) finally made their dream move from Alabama to California, where they now live in the beautiful city of Chino Hills.

When not being overly focused on tiny, unimportant details and proofreading everything she can get her hands on, Kelly enjoys reading most genres, watching horror movies (even the bad ones), and playing tabletop games.

8

Guest Editorial

Alabama Libraries and COVID-19 When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, we were all reminded that no matter our differences, we share similar struggles. Librarians understand the importance of working together, so we knew cooperation would be key to not just survival, but also to truly meeting the information needs of our state. Alabama has 1,685 libraries: 1,327 K-12, 210 public, 87 college/academic, and 61 special libraries. The Alabama Public Library Service (APLS) and the Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (NAAL), a consortium of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) and Alabama’s four-year public and private institutions, were main players in making sure the information needs for all Alabama citizens were met during this time.

We know that libraries are essential; they were recognized as such when disaster struck. Decades of effort to provide online resources for all Alabama citizens via the Alabama Virtual Library was brought into sharp focus: teachers and librarians were well aware of this invaluable resource, but now parents helping their kids learn from home needed to know. And after so much effort and time spent encouraging users to visit our physical spaces, we had to focus on providing seamless service from a distance. Cooperation, communication, and support for each other were prioritized.

Alabama academic librarians and school library media specialists took the lead in helping teachers make the transition from face-to-face classes to online instruction. Many embedded themselves into courses to extend their help. Those not well versed in online instruction had a steep learning curve. The NAAL Continuing Education Committee applied for IMLS CARES Act funding to provide training to ensure expertise; others wrote grant proposals and scoured their budgets.

As our libraries tirelessly addressed their user needs in inventive and interesting ways, state-funded resources such as the Alabama Virtual Library and Homework Alabama were heavily in demand. We worked with vendors and content providers to minimize costs. School media specialists and acquisitions/collection development librarians sought out databases, eBooks, and streaming video to meet changing user needs. Cata-

loguers worked to ensure discoverability of new resources. Museums and libraries teamed together to translate traditional exhibits into online environments so students could complete assignments. Archivists stepped up to document the pandemic, photographing empty campuses and recording the stories of students, faculty, and staff. Just as we learned from 1918 pandemic history, we worked to ensure future generations can learn about life during COVID-19.

Academic, public, and school librarians were tasked with distributing laptops, tablets, and hotspots to those with technology needs. Chat services exploded as reference departments moved online. Universities with health science programs and medical schools had additional tasks of support, including an intense focus on

9

assessing and providing the latest COVID-19 information. Librarians at the University of Alabama at Birmingham shared their 3D printers with the medical school to explore making protective gear for healthcare providers and nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 testing. Many colleges became testing and vaccination sites.

Safety precautions, such as quarantining returned items, created spacing challenges; APLS provided guidelines that were distributed by OCLC’s REALM program. NAAL held Zoom chats to enable those making similar decisions to brainstorm solutions, share experiences, and support each other from a distance.

Curbside service became a standard on college campuses and took on new importance in the public/school library realm, where children’s grab bags filled with reading activities and other information were provided for those without access to technology. They used buses to provide hot spots for communities where broadband is out of reach. Old technology, such as recorded story times via telephone, got a second chance on life. Librari-

ans adapted services to technology by making videos that they uploaded to YouTube, and, in the process, found themselves the stars of the show.

Reopening our physical library spaces presented yet more challenges. With a focus on keeping everyone safe, libraries rearranged traffic patterns and seating to encourage social distancing, installed sanitization stations and plastic dividers, regularly cleaned shared spaces, and monitored policy adherence. They addressed staffing and budgeting needs to meet heavier workloads. Beyond the physical tasks, our largest challenge remains rethinking how to serve everyone in our state: those who have internet access and those who do not.

Many of these changes will continue after the pandemic, at least to some degree. Users really enjoy curbside service and access to materials online, while staff have discovered they like having flexible schedules

and teleworking options. We have grown in knowledge and capability, and have formed partnerships and bonds that will continue. Librarians excel at connecting people to the information they need regardless of obstacles. Alabama librarians definitely rose to the challenge of COVID-19.

Nancy C. Pack, PhD Director, Alabama Public Library Service

Sheila L. Snow-Croft, MLIS, MA Director, Network of Alabama Academic Libraries

10

Measure Twice, Cut Once: A Baseline Survey of Library Makerspaces

Robert Wilson Assistant Professor, Systems Librarian Middle Tennessee State University robert.wilson@mtsu.edu

James Mitchell Systems Librarian University of North Alabama jmitchell20@una.edu

11

Abstract In the fall of 2019, the researchers conducted a survey of libraries in an attempt to establish a baseline for measuring the trends and future developments of library makerspaces. This survey attempted to measure demographics, staffing and hours, funding, technology offerings, and assessment for these relatively new library spaces. While observations were shared on the current data, future iterations of the survey will permit stakeholders to identify the shift and trends in the library makerspace environment.

Keywords: makerspaces, libraries, assessment, collaborative technologies

Measure Twice, Cut Once: A Baseline Survey of Library Makerspaces For the library community, both for those who work in them and those who use them, there is an intuitive sense that library makerspaces—dedicated spaces within the physical library space or maintained by li-

brary personnel where library community members come together to participate in in the creation of physical and digital artifacts—have grown, developed, and established themselves as an integral part of library services over the past decade. However, while there have been several within the profession who have undertaken efforts to collect and interpret data on makerspaces in public, academic, and other libraries, there has been no sustained effort to routinely collect, analyze, and disseminate basic data on these spaces in libraries.

The results set forth in this article are a first attempt to establish a baseline for tracking the growth, development, and maintenance of library makerspaces and to address this lacuna in gauging the state of makerspaces from the present into the future. While other aspects of makerspaces could have been covered in this survey, this study largely focuses on the number of makerspaces within libraries, the types of libraries with makerspaces, operating hours, staffing, tools, and other aspects of makerspace management. More advanced questions (e.g., assessing learning outcomes and methods of instruction) have not been considered as a part of this study. The goal has been to document the existence and practices of library makerspaces to identify their current operations and the means librarians use to maintain these operations.

12

Literature Review This study is not the first general survey of library makerspaces. Perhaps the first significant attempt to offer an overview of the state of library makerspaces was conducted through a survey in 2013 by John Burke. Burke shared the results of this survey in a subsequent book, Makerspaces: A practical guide for librarians, published in 2014 (Burke, 2014) and in the proceedings of the 2015 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) conference (Burke, 2015). With 143 respondents from eight different countries, 109 of whom either represented libraries currently providing a makerspace or planning to establish one in the near future, the survey measured aspects ranging from funding sources to tool offerings. In this survey, a majority of respondents represented public libraries (51%), and almost half of the respondents (46%) had established their makerspaces within a year of responding to the survey. Makerspace offerings primarily consisted, according to respondents, of computer workstations with editing software, 3D printers, scanners, and crafting supplies. Burke’s survey demonstrated the relative novelty of makerspaces within libraries as well as the significance of technologies such as 3D printing, robotics, and digital media to these creative spaces.

Burke’s book was subsequently revised by Ellyssa Kroski and published as a second edition in 2018. In conjunction with this second edition, Kroski conducted an almost-identical survey in 2017 (2018). Representing six different countries, 273 respondents contributed to Kroski’s revised survey. Kroski’s survey demonstrated that public libraries continue to represent the majority of libraries with makerspaces, even though representation of school libraries increased 13% between the two surveys. The percentage of academic libraries decreased by just under 5%—from 38% to just over 33%—even though the number of survey participants representing academic libraries almost doubled. Just as Burke’s original survey demonstrated, Kroski’s survey revealed that makerspaces were still relatively new to many libraries. While the percentage of new—less than two years old—makerspaces had dropped almost 5%, over 18% of participants in Kroski’s survey stated that they had not yet opened their makerspaces. Taken together, these two categories of respondents made up over 70% of respondents. Additionally, there were significant continuities between Kroski’s 2017 survey and Burke’s previous survey. For example, Kroski’s survey, like Burke’s, showed that 3D printing, computer workstations with editing software, and crafting supplies remain some of the most popular resource offerings

13

in makerspaces. Furthermore, library budgets continue to be the most important funding sources for these new

spaces. Finally, library staff continue to be the primary instructors and leaders within these spaces. Taken together, these two surveys represent the most comprehensive attempt to measure and share data on the state of library makerspaces to date.

Objective and Methods During the months of September and October 2019, data from this study were collected through an online survey using Qualtrics. Anyone with the URL to the online survey could participate. Requests for participation were distributed through the general Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) mailing list, the code4lib mailing list, and through an email distributed to institutions associated with the Network of Alabama Academic Libraries (NAAL).

The authors created the survey to gather basic information on the libraries that had currently established makerspaces (e.g., library type, size, etc.) as well as information on the organization and maintenance of library makerspaces internationally. The survey consisted of 28 total questions, 17 of which were multiple choice. The remaining 11 questions required brief responses. The survey followed this composition to keep the

survey brief for participants and to encourage participants to complete the survey. (See Appendix for survey question details.)

The data collected from respondents in Qualtrics were exported to a comma-separated value file and normalized using Microsoft Excel and OpenRefine (https://openrefine.org/). All graphs, maps, and visualizations were created in Tableau Public (https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/).

The authors identified several opportunities for improving future survey questions for a higher quality and quantity of answers. For example, many questions were not required, so the percentages and visualizations may not reflect the full population of those that completed the survey. Additionally, because many fields were open text response fields, normalizing the case and converting responses to the standard spelling, standard category, or abbreviation was necessary. For the assessment questions of the survey, the responses were put into general categories. Responses for assessment sometimes described the system or technology for collection ra1

In consultation with the chair of the Institutional Review Board where the online survey was developed and shared, the survey was determined to be exempt from the IRB approval process, since all survey questions were related to institutional practice and not to personal attitude or preference.

14

ther than the type of collection. Where it was clear, these responses were placed under the appropriate general

category. This was done at the authors’ discretion and may be interpreted differently by others. The authors encourage the reader to view the raw survey data if more in-depth detail is desired.

Results Demographics Overall, there were 138 respondents who answered at least some portion of the survey and a total of 81 respondents who completed the survey. Incomplete responses were not considered as a part of the

results. The majority of respondents who completed the survey (75) were from the United States, but other countries included Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Turkey. Within the United States, respondents from 32 states completed the survey.

When completing the survey, respondents identified themselves as representing these types of libraries: 76.5% academic, 19.6% public, 3.7% other. Of the 81 respondents completing the survey, 61 responded to having a makerspace, while 20 responded that they did not. Of those representatives who responded that their institution did not have a makerspace, 70% of the institutions were academic libraries, 20% were public, and 10% other. Of those representatives who responded in the affirmative when asked if their institution had a makerspace, 79% of the represented institutions were academic, 20% were public, and 1% were other. With the overall low response (3 total) by non-public or academic libraries, other responses were deemed too statistically insignificant to include in the remainder of results.

Among the representatives of public libraries with makerspaces who responded, 41.67% indicated their libraries had a large-sized collection, 41.67% a medium-sized collection, and 16.67% a small collection (see Figure 1).

For academic libraries, the survey authors used the full-time equivalent value (FTE) to determine library size rather than collection size. Of the respondents who represented academic libraries with makerspaces, 41.46% had an FTE of 5,000 or fewer, 24.39% an FTE of 5,001 to 15,000, 17.07% an FTE of 15,001 to 25,000, and 14.63% an FTE of 25,001 or more (see Figure 2).

2

The results of this data, after anonymization, have been posted as a CSV to a public GitHub repository. Researchers and any other interested parties are welcome to examine and analyze the data. For more information, please see the public repository site at https:// github.com/rtwilson/makerspacesurvey.

15

Figure 1 Response by Public Library Size

Figure 2 Response by Academic FTE

Respondents identified their affiliated institutions as 75.61% public college/university and 24.39% private institutions (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Response by Academic Library Type

16

Respondents representing academic libraries with makerspaces were from doctoral (56.25%), master’s

(22.92%), baccalaureate/associate’s (18.75%), or associate’s (2.08%) colleges or universities (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Academic Library Respondents by Carnegie Classification

Of the 60 respondents representing libraries who identified what year their makerspace was established, 2014 and 2015 were the most popular years with 12 respondents selecting each year. Only 13 public libraries responded with 2014, 2015, and 2016 being the most active establishment years. However, not enough public libraries responded to identify any statistical trends. Of the 47 academic libraries who responded, the responses indicate initial growth starting in 2013 with 3, peaking in 2015 with 10, and the overall average from 2013 to 2019 of 6.5 makerspaces being established per year.

17

Figure 5 Number of Library Makerspaces by Year Established

Staffing and Operations Weekly hours of operation for academic libraries with makerspaces are 48.94% for 50 or more hours, 12.77% for 41-50 hours, 17.02% for 31-40 hours, and 20% for 30 or fewer hours (see Figure 6).

18

Figure 6 Number of Academic Libraries by Hours Open

Hours open categorized by FTE show that the majority of academic libraries serving 25,001 and more and 5,000 or fewer were open 50 or more hours weekly, while the medium to medium-large schools were more distributed across brackets.

Public library hours were much more evenly distributed across the range of options with 27% open 10 or fewer hours a week, 21-30 hours a week, or 50 or more hours a week. Similarly, hours open broken down by size of the library were spread evenly across brackets (see Figure 7).

Figure 7 Number of Public Libraries By Hours Open

19

Hours open categorized by FTE show that the majority of academic libraries serving 25,001 and more

and 5,000 or fewer were open 50 or more hours weekly, while the medium to medium-large schools were more distributed across brackets.

Public library hours were much more evenly distributed across the range of options with 27% open 10 or fewer hours a week, 21-30 hours a week, or 50 or more hours a week. Similarly, hours open broken down by size of the library were spread evenly across brackets (see Figure 7).

Figure 7 Number of Public Libraries By Hours Open

Several (23%) of the academic libraries surveyed indicated access to space is restricted to certain patrons. Of those that have restrictions in place, 70% indicated only students, faculty, and staff have access. One response indicated approved alumni are able to access, and one response indicated space is only accessible to students.

Several (25%) of the public libraries indicated access to space is restricted to certain patrons. Of those that indicated they restrict, one indicated space was only open to adults, one only available to teens, and one indicated different areas are open to different ages of patrons.

Participants were asked if they offered instruction on the use of equipment in makerspaces. Ninety-five percent of academics that responded indicated their library does offer instruction, while 92% of public libraries indicated they offer instruction.

20

Of representatives from academic libraries who responded, 65.96% responded that they have a dedicat-

ed campus liaison, 27.66% said they do not, and 6.38% said they did not know. Of those that responded to having a liaison, 74.19% identified their staffing classification as full-time librarian/faculty, 16.13% as staff, 6.45% as administrator, and 3.23% as part-time librarian/faculty (see Figure 8).

Figure 8 Liaison Status

When queried regarding staffing, academic libraries reported that 62% had full-time dedicated staff, 55% had student workers, 27% had part-time dedicated staff, 10% had student volunteers, 8% had graduate assistants, 8% had community volunteers, 6% had no one, and 12% noted other as the kind of staffing structure used in their makerspaces (see Figure 9).

Figure 9 Staffing in Academic Libraries

21

Funding and Fees The survey also found 75% of academic libraries (state and private academics) and 70% of public libraries do not charge fees. Participants were asked several questions about funding sources. When academic library participants were asked about funding sources, 27.5% reported they were funded in full or partially by a university technology fee, while 21.95% were funded in full or partially by a library fee (see Figures 10 and 11 respectively).

Figure 10 Academic Library Makerspace Funded by Technology Fee

Figure 11 Academic Library Makerspace Funded by Library Fee

Outside of the overall library budget and charging users directly for cost of use, other sources of funding identified came from grants, awards, and student government funding. Another respondent described a system in which proposals are submitted for use of funds and students vote on each proposal.

22

Technology Respondents were asked about technology available in the space. In descending percentages, 81% of all libraries responded that they had audio/video software, 78% had audio/video equipment, 64% had 3D printers, 58% had virtual reality (VR) technologies, 57% microcontrollers, 57% art/crafting supplies including LEGO, 52% Raspberry Pi, 49% electronic hardware, 48% green screen, 42% vinyl cutter, 36% other, 29% laser cutter, and 19% augmented reality (AR) technologies (see Figure 12).

Figure 12 Technology Breakdown in Makerspaces

Popular responses for ‘other’ included sewing machines, computer numerical control (CNC) routers, embroidery machines, and hand and power tools (see Figure 13).

23

Figure 13 Normalized Responses to 'Other’ Category in Technology Offered in Makerspace

Assessment Historically, there is a general lack of information on how makerspaces are being assessed, both in their use and their impact on the communities they serve. The survey requested open-ended responses to document the full scope of a library’s makerspace assessment activities.

Of those that responded, the highest percentage general category was head count at 25% followed by

room access count at 24% which included methods like sign-in logs, reservation statistics, and card-swipe count. Surveys including feedback and comment cards represented 15% of the total results. Item usage count represented the fourth and final general category at 12%. Other categories that had multiple responses were class count, training count, and stories/case studies (see Figure 14).

24

Figure 14 Assessment Method Categorized and Normalized

Discussion Demographics One of the first striking observations from this survey is the proportion of participants from academic library settings. Similar surveys conducted previously (See Literature Review section above) show a larger percentage of participation from public libraries. The researchers expected a greater proportion of participants

to be from public libraries, since they had represented the majority of participants in previous surveys and public libraries have historically been some of the first to establish makerspaces. It is unlikely that the results indicate an inversion in the popularity and establishment of these spaces between academic and public libraries. It is possible that the representation is unbalanced because the communication methods used to request participation were so limited. In future iterations of this survey, data collection will benefit from efforts to disseminate the survey by sharing the requests for participation through a greater number of communication channels as well as through a diversity of channels.

25

Staffing and Operations The researchers also found one observation worthy of note in the category of staffing and operations.

Of the almost two-thirds of respondents representing academic library makerspaces with a dedicated liaison, 75% of those liaisons were identified as full-time librarians and/or faculty rather than a full-time library administrator or staff. This suggests many academic libraries are treating their makerspaces along much the same lines as traditional programming and services. This could also suggest similar approaches to collection development and outreach as between various technology-centric spaces. Having a librarian and/or faculty member as the dedicated liaison to the makerspace could also have a positive impact on the type of research being conducted on these spaces in academic libraries.

Technology Technology is often thought of as the distinguishing feature of a makerspace when compared to other library services. 3D printers, particular among the various tools and equipment often held in a makerspace, are an iconic feature of makerspaces. The results of this survey, however, demonstrate that 3D printing, while it is a popular service in makerspaces, isn’t the only or even the most popular technology in makerspaces. Video

and audio editing equipment and software, for example, are found more consistently within library makerspaces. Additionally, the survey demonstrates the variety of tools library makerspaces offer their communities.

While some makerspaces will have similar offerings, other library makerspaces may offer tools one may not commonly think of when considering a makerspace. There is no particular set of tools one must have in order to properly equip a makerspace. The researchers are interested to see what tools arise, diminish, or remain consistent in future iterations of this survey.

Assessment Makerspace managers are gathering data in a multitude of ways to determine makerspace usage. The assessment methods identified in this survey diverge at points from approaches libraries have traditionally utilized. Sign-in logs and training counts, for example, may be new metrics for some librarians who are more familiar with gate count and circulation statistics for demonstrating usage. The varied responses documented in this survey may be a result of varying factors that include staffing, space restrictions, how well integrated space and operations are with library-wide systems like an integrated library system (ILS), space reservation 26

system/calendar, and gate count technologies or the unique objectives, goals, and/or missions of these spaces.

Conclusion This survey is the first step in an attempt to regularly collect information on library makerspaces. While the growth of makerspaces internationally within and without libraries has been widely discussed within the library profession and even in popular culture over the past decade, there has been no sustained effort to continuously collect basic data on these spaces in order to identify trends and developments. It is difficult to track trends in library makerspaces without a routine for measuring the basic structure and activities of these creative spaces. For example, as the presence of makerspaces continues to develop and grow in libraries, do the methods for assessing the usage of makerspace services develop and become more sophisticated? Will vendors or open source communities develop library technologies to manage these spaces? What do changes in the tools used and associated with makerspaces mean for these spaces? How do libraries sustain these spaces as they become more established? Without a basic tool to gauge these changes, people who follow the trends and developments in library makerspaces must depend on intuition. To the researchers’ knowledge, no prior studies have attempted to gather information on the subject of makerspace assessment. As this survey indicates,

there are no standards in place yet, and this area is in need of more research. However, as makerspaces mature, practitioners within the library profession can expect an increase in the standardization of assessment methods as funding becomes dependent on demonstrating the value these spaces provide to their community.

References

Burke, J. J. (2014). Makerspaces: A practical guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.

Burke, J. J. (2015, March 25-28). Making sense: Can makerspaces work in academic libraries? [Paper presentation]. Association of College and Research Libraries, Portland, OR, United States.

Burke, J. & Kroski, E. (2018). Makerspaces: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

27

Appendix Makerspaces in Libraries Survey Hello. We are James Mitchell (University of North Alabama) and Robert Wilson (Middle Tennessee State University).

We'd like to invite you to participate in this survey of library makerspaces. The goal of this survey is to establish a baseline of the current state of library makerspaces and to answer the "what" questions often associated with these creative spaces. We plan to periodically offer this survey (or an iteration of it) to observe the changing landscape of library makerspaces as it relates to their presence, sustainability, personnel, services, and technologies.

For the purpose of this survey, the phrase "library makerspace" is used to denote a dedicated space within the physical library space or maintained by library personnel where the university community comes together to participate in hands-on learning experiences.

Additionally, this survey's authors plan to make this data freely available in a stable repository for all interested parties to use as they see fit in the future.

The survey should take between 5-10 minutes to complete and should only be completed by one respondent per represented institution.

If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact James Mitchell at jmitchell20@una.edu or Robert Wilson at robert.wilson@mtsu.edu.

Please complete this survey by September 14, 2019.

By clicking to the next page, you acknowledge that you are voluntarily participating in this survey, are over the age of 19, and are aware that you may withdraw participation form this survey at any time by closing out of the survey.

No personal data will be intentionally collected or requested as a part of this survey. Any personal data unintentionally collected by free-text open questions will be stripped from data before being made publicly available.

In what country is your library located?

________________________________________________________________ In what province/state/territory is your library located? (if applicable)?

________________________________________________________________ Does your library currently have a makerspace?

Yes No Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Public Academic Public Other ________________________________________________

28

Please select the option that best describes your library: Very Small (Collection Size < 30,000) Small (Collection Size > 30,000 and < 100,000) Medium (Collection Size > 100,001 and < 500,000) Large (Collection Size > 500,001)

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

When did your library first establish its makerspace? (If only year is known, put year.) ________________________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Do you offer instruction for the usage of equipment for the makerspace?

Yes No

I don't know

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Do you charge fees to use the makerspace? Y es Yes No I don't know

Can you briefly describe your fee structure? ________________________________________________________________

29

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Approximately how many hours per week is the makerspace open?

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 50+

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Yes Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Public

Is your makerspace restricted to a specific patron type? (children, teens, etc.)

Yes No I don't know

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Public Is your makerspace restricted to a specific patron type? (children, teens, etc.) Y es

Please list patron types who have access to the makerspace.

________________________________________________________________

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Is the institution you represent designated as private or public?

Public Private

30

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic Please select the option that best describes your academic institution: Doctoral University Master's College or University Baccalaureate/Associate's College Associate's College

Please select the option that best describes your academic institution: Special Focus Institution

Please indicate which type of special focus institution you represent: Two-Year Four-Year Tribal College Other ________________________________________________

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Please provide an estimate of your institution's full-time equivalent (FTE).

________________________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Do you have an assigned campus liaison for the makerspace? Y es Yes No I don't know

Do you have an assigned campus liaison for the makerspace? Y es

31

Select the position that best describes your campus liaison:

Full-time Librarian/Faculty Part-time Librarian/Faculty Administrator Staff Committee

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es your library currently have a makerspace? = Yes Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Is your makerspace restricted to certain group of patrons? (e.g., students only) Yes No I don't know

Is your makerspace restricted to certain group of patrons? (e.g. students only) Y es

Please specify what group(s) may use the makerspace: ____________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace?

Yes No

32

In what province/state/territory is your library located? (if applicable)?

________________________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es Yes No

Is the library you represent an academic or public library? Academic

Is your makerspace funded, either partially or in full, by a library fee? __________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es Yes No Is the library you represent an academic or public library? = Academic

Is your makerspace funded, either partially or in full, by a university technology fee?

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es Yes No Is the library you represent an academic or public library? = Academic

Is your makerspace funded by any other fees? If so, please describe the fee below.

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es Yes No

Display This Question: Does your library currently have a makerspace? = Yes

33

What services/technology do you provide in your makerspace? (Check all that apply)

3D Printer Vinyl Cutter Laser Cutter Green Screen Audio/Video Software Audio/Video Equipment Microcontrollers Raspberry Pi VR Technology AR Technology Art/Crafting Supplies (Construction Paper, Paint, LEGO, etc.)

Electronics Hardware (Capacitors, Resistors, Soldering Equipment, etc.)

Other ________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

Please list any open source software/hardware you use in your makerspace: ____________________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

What kind of staffing structure does your makerspace have? (check all that apply) Full-time dedicated staff Part-time dedicated staff Student workers Graduate assistants Student volunteers Community volunteers

None Other ________________________________________________

Does your library currently have a makerspace? Y es

What methods are used to assess the usage of the makerspace? ____________________________________

34

The Alabama Academic Library Homepage: An Analysis of Design Trends

Daniel Moody Emerging Technologies Librarian

Auburn University at Montgomery dmoody2@aum.edu

35

Abstract A library’s homepage is typically the first thing a user will see, but structure and features vary widely, even among the same types of libraries. A quantitative analysis of 26 Alabama academic library homepages shows the trends in design that exist across the state. Certain features are common, such as chat, search, and being hosted on a dedicated site as opposed to being a subdomain of the main university URL, but implementation varies, and no feature is universal. Other features, such as social media integration, are rare, reflecting the results of prior studies. Links between these features show various trends in homepage design for Alabama academic libraries and create a composite image that developers/designers can use in development of academic library website homepages.

Keywords: library homepage, Alabama academic libraries, Alabama libraries, CMS, Content Management System, OPACs, Chat

Introduction This exploratory study examines academic library homepages in Alabama to create a composite image of the features that constitute the “average” academic library homepage for this state. While an entire industry exists to cater to building university websites, and standard practices have emerged over the years, the same is not true for academic library websites or library websites in general. There is no real standard, and content and layouts can vary widely. Design is often done in-house by the librarians/library staff themselves, albeit with restrictions imposed by the university in terms of color, images, etc. By examining the trends that have developed across a range of academic library homepages in Alabama, and by gaining an understanding of the current overall condition, it is possible to create a standardized template from which developers/designers working with/at these libraries can build.

A similar study (Wilson, 2015) looked at the same topic though with a slightly different focus. Whereas the focus then was content analysis and structure of the library websites, this study focuses on the home36

pages specifically. Aside from Wilson (2015), there is a dearth of studies relating to Alabama academic librar-

ies in general. A study from 2011 on library homepage design only included four Alabama libraries (Jones & Leonard, 2011). More recent studies include Chow, Bridges, and Commander’s 2014 nationwide study of 1,496 library websites, though the scope included both public and academic libraries. Most research done on library website homepages are specific to individual institutions, typically usability studies done during website redesigns. Examples include Overduin (2019), Becker & Yannotta (2013), and Desmarais & Louderback (2020) which all focused on specific institutions and redesign efforts rather than on the current condition of a selected population.

Methodology and Definitions This is a quantitative study analyzing Alabama academic library homepages based on the following factors/attributes: Embedded Type of

or dedicated library website

CMS

Catalog Search Hours Chat

on homepage

displayed

feature

Embedded Social

or linked through external service

media links/integration

Before beginning, it is helpful to clarify the definitions of terms as they are used by this study:

Academic Library For the purpose of this study, “academic libraries” are those associated with institutions that meet the following criteria:

37

Baccalaureate

college or above according to Carnegie classification

Non-profit Not

a special focus institution according to Carnegie classification

Twenty-six institutions in Alabama, drawn from the Network of Alabama Academic Libraries members list (ACHE, 2020), meet these criteria and the main library homepage for each is examined. The focus is on general academic libraries and, as such, specialized libraries such as law or health science are not consid-

ered as part of the study.

Embedded or Dedicated Website Though not a technical definition, this study considers a library website to be “embedded” into the main university website when it is a subdomain of the university, often with “/library” appended to the main university URL, and the main university navigation menus frame the site with library navigation being secondary at best. The effect is similar to the inline frame created by the <iframe> HTML tag and is not uncommon since it allows universities to impose standardized templates across the university’s web presence. However, it can also create restrictions on who can edit and how a site is edited/maintained.

Content Management System (CMS) A CMS (content management system) is an abstraction layer between the codebase and the human builders of a website. The aim is to simplify the process by doing things like database creation, security set-

tings, and user profile setup in the background. They are ubiquitous in academic libraries and allow members of library staff with little to no technical background to maintain a website efficiently. Some CMSs can involve a great deal of customization and coding, while others will work out-of-the-box and be more or less drag -and-drop. Amsler & Churchville (2021) define them as follows: “A content management system (CMS) is a software application that enables users to create, edit, collaborate on, publish and store digital content. CMSes are typically used for enterprise content management (ECM) and web content management (WCM).” (para. 1)

38

Catalog Search This study defines “Catalog search” as a search box allowing a user to search library materials, rather than a link to search on a separate page. For the purposes of this study “Catalog” is a catch-all term that includes both the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) and the library’s chosen discovery service.

Hours Displayed “Hours Displayed” in this study refers to any method used to indicate operating hours, whether live

and updated daily and automatically using a widget or calendar tool or simply a static block of text stating general hours.

Chat Feature This study defines a “chat feature” as a method of text-based, one-to-one, instant communication between a user and a member of the library staff. This can be browser-based via a widget such as the LibApps chat tool that is integrated into the site or can come from a service or tool like WeChat or Google.

Social Media Integration Many social media platforms provide a way for users to take a live feed of their posts and embed it into a website, typically using HTML and JavaScript to catch all posts from a specific user or tag. “Social Media Integration” here means that a library website has done this with one or more of their social media accounts on the library homepage.

Analysis and Trends Although the population size is small, the data allow the author to draw a composite portrait of the average Alabama academic library homepage features. In short, it is likely to have the following: Chat

feature

Catalog search

on homepage 39

Hours

displayed on homepage

Hosted Social

separately from the main university website

media links but no integration

Beyond these features, the libraries display a range of attributes.

A search feature on the homepage is common; only five sites lack this tool and if a site lacks a search feature, it is also likely to lack a chat feature. Four of the five sites lacking a search feature also lack a chat feature, and all five are embedded into the university site as opposed to being on their own. This accounts for

half of the embedded library sites. Only one standalone site lacks a search feature on the homepage, and all the sites using LibGuides have a search feature.

While it is more common for a library site to stand alone (16 vs. 10), their chosen CMSs vary widely.

LibGuides is the most common (see Table 2) but Drupal, Joomla, WordPress, Atriuum, and Sirsi are also represented. Conrad and Stevens (2019) comment on the features that make LibGuides popular for libraries, saying “The popularity of LibGuides is due in part to its removal of technological barriers to online guide creation, making it possible for those without web-design experience to create content.” (p. 49) Even more than the average CMS, it provides a layer of abstraction away from maintaining code.

The breakdown of these CMSs, with five using LibGuides and ten lacking their own CMSs entirely and being part of the main university site, could imply that a majority of Alabama academic libraries lack dedicated web developers. Most libraries, academic or otherwise, do not have a dedicated member of staff who is responsible solely for designing and managing the website. In their study of 1,469 academic and public library websites, Chow, Bridges, and Commander (2014) found that fewer than 50 libraries have a dedicated librarian

for web development (p. 262). They note that most commonly, “the majority of library websites are designed and managed by librarians who work on the website part-time as part of their regular librarian duties” (Chow et al., 2014, p.263). However, this is not necessarily the only reason a library may choose LibGuides as their CMS. The decision may come down to simple university-level constraints. Academic libraries often lack autonomy when it comes to their own website, and this is possibly an extension of that trend. LibGuides can serve as a way around university mandates and is a “particularly attractive product for libraries constrained by campus or library web templates, affording librarians and library staff the freedom to design pages without 40

requiring higher level permissions to websites” (Conrad and Stevens, 2019, p. 49). Such restrictions are rela-

tively common; Connell (2013) states “at a significance level of p = 0.001, libraries at smaller institutions are more likely to share a CMS with their parent” (p. 49) and are unlikely to have a choice. He notes: For libraries that transitioned to a CMS with their parent institution, the transition was usually forced. Out of the 88 libraries that transitioned together and indicated whether they were given a choice, only 8 libraries (9 percent) had a say in whether to make that transition. (Connell, 2013, p. 51) It is necessary for librarians to have a degree of control over their sites because as Cockrell and Jayne (2002) state in their usability study: Academic library Web sites are necessarily complex. They must fulfill multiple overlapping roles that combine reference, research, informational, and instructional services for a broad constituency that includes undergraduates, graduates, faculty, and staff. The result is a large, complex structure that may easily exceed 1,000 pages. (p. 122) Using the LibGuides platform as their CMS gives libraries some measure of choice in how their website looks and functions.

The dominant discovery service found in Alabama academic libraries is EBSCO, which is among the most popular discovery services for academic libraries. Fourteen of the 25 sites use EBSCO and a majority of those using EBSCO also utilize a chat feature. Only three of those fourteen do not. Use of the EBSCO Discovery service is comparable to national trends for academic libraries. According to Hochman & David (2020), Carnegie classification for the schools chosen for this study breaks down as follows in Table 10.

EBSCO is the leading discovery service for each of those categories, except “Level 15: Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activities” and “Level 21: Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts and Sciences Focus” where Primo and WorldCat discovery services respectively lead, as shows in Tables 11-18, the following tables of national discovery service usage display (Breeding, 2018).

Chat is a common feature across Alabama academic libraries, but the library homepages embedded in their institution sites are slightly more likely to have a chat feature than the ones that maintain distinct sites.

41

Of the ten embedded sites, six have a chat feature as opposed to seven of those 15 with distinct sites having a

chat feature. It is also somewhat less common for the libraries that use LibGuides as their CMS to have a chat feature. Of the five sites using LibGuides, only two of them have a chat feature. Notably, the overall percentage of Alabama academic library homepages with a chat feature is very similar to Wilson’s findings in 2015.

He notes that “over 40 percent of libraries still do not provide such services” (Wilson, 2015, p. 100). While his study explored the sites as a whole, a similar percentage of library homepages today lack this service. Ten (38%) of the 26 homepages of sites chosen for this study also lack a chat feature.

With regards to social media, Wilson found that “these tools are not universally embraced” (p. 100).

That is still true. This study found that only 13 of the 26 sites have social media links on the homepage and only 5 of the 26 have integrated social media posts into the page. However, a library site that lacks social media does not necessarily imply no digital communication at all. The sites lacking social media links are no more or less likely than sites with social media links to have a chat feature.

There are some trends shown by homepages with hours displayed vs. homepages with no hours displayed, though caveats apply. Homepages lacking hours displayed are more likely to have social media inte-

grated (33% vs 11%) but less likely to have chat (33% vs 64%) or social media links (33% vs 47%). Social media integration is where, rather than simply providing links to social media, the feeds are embedded into the pages allowing real-time display of posts. Social media integration is lacking across Alabama academic library homepages, with only 19% of the analyzed pages having it. Although those with no hours displayed have a greater percentage with the integration (33% vs. 11%), the small overall sample does not allow for any conclusions. As such, the standard “correlation is not causation” caveat applies. Lacking displayed hours does not equate to causing a lack of social media integration but it may suggest something related. All four features

(hours, chat, social media integration, and social media links) require basic site editing and two (chat and social media integration) require embedding code into the HTML itself. This could imply a lack of comfort/ familiarity with editing on the part of the library employees, though such a conclusion requires more data.

Conclusion The sample size is small, but the gathered data do allow for a composite image of what constitutes a 42

what constitutes a “normal” academic library homepage in Alabama and show enough trends to suggest further

exploration to see if the same trends hold up across different states or countries. Chat is a popular feature for academic library homepages throughout the state, regardless of whether the site is embedded or dedicated, and a catalog search is almost ubiquitous. However, discovery service and CMS usage vary widely. By applying the same methodology to a range of states or by looking at a more granular level at the libraries at different types of schools (public vs private, religiously-affiliated vs. non, etc.), more patterns should emerge and allow for a better picture of the common design trends across the spectrum of academic libraries.

Additionally, by looking at the results of this study in conjunction with data from Wilson’s prior study (Wilson, 2015) it can be surmised that overall development for Alabama academic library site homepages has been largely stagnant. This is an oversight that we would benefit from correcting. Jones and Leonard (2010) opened by noting, “The homepages of academic libraries are increasingly critical to successful research and learning outcomes now that the majority of library resources are available online and virtual visitors outnumber in-person visitors” (p. 24). If that was true in 2010, it rings truer now with the massive proliferation of digital resources over the last decade. While a bare-bones library homepage is perfectly functional, it does not benefit the users, nor does it meet user expectations, as much as one that more readily adopts and adapts newer tools. Jones and Leonard note that “every advance by Google, Amazon, and Wikipedia raises user expectations, and libraries are losing ground” (p. 25). The first step to advancing is knowing where we are and what we have. In creating a composite image of what constitutes “average” for Alabama academic library homepages and by examining the trends that exist, librarians may be able to develop a list of best practices for use in academic library homepage development.

43

References

ACHE. (2020). NAAL Member List. https://ache.edu/ACHE_Reports/Forms/NAAL/Members.pdf Amsler, S. & Churchville, F. (Eds.) (2021). Content Management System (CMS). https:// searchcontentmanagement.techtarget.com/definition/content-management-system-CMS Becker, D. A., & Yannotta, L. (2013). Modeling a Library Website Redesign Process: Developing a UserCentered Website Through Usability Testing. Information Technology & Libraries, 32(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v32i1.2311

Breeding, M. (2018) ILS report by Carnegie Classification. https://librarytechnology.org/libraries/carnegie/ Chow Anthony S., Bridges Michelle, & Commander Patricia. (2014). The Website Design and Usability of US Academic and Public Libraries: Findings from a Nationwide Study. Reference and User Services Quarterly, 53(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.53n3.253 Cockrell, B. J., & Jayne, E. A. (2002). How Do I Find an Article? Insights from a Web Usability Study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(3), 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00279-3

Connell, R. S. (2013). Content Management Systems: Trends in Academic Libraries. Information Technology & Libraries, 32(2), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v32i2.4632 Conrad, S., & Stevens, C. (2019). “Am I on the library website?”: A LibGuides Usability Study. Information Technology & Libraries, 38(3), 49–81. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v38i3.10977 Desmarais, B. & Louderback, P. (2020). Planning and Assessing Patron Experience and Needs for an Academic Library Website. Journal of Library A dministration, 60(8), 966–977. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1820283 Hochman, David (2020). Carnegie Classifications/IPEDS. https://tbed.org/univlist/index.php? tablename=cc_vw&function=search&execute_search=1&search_from_filter=1 Jones, S. L., & Leonard, K. (2011). Library Homepage Design at Smaller Bachelor of Arts Institutions. Journal of Web Librarianship, 5(1), 24–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2011.546216 Overduin, T. (2019). “Like a Robot”: Designing Library Websites for New and Returning Users. Journal

44

of Web Librarianship, 13(2), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2019.1593912 Wilson, D. E. (2015). Web content and design trends of Alabama academic libraries. The Electronic Library, 1, 88. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-05-2013-0100

Appendix

Table 4

Table 1 Embedded or Dedicated Library Website Embedded

10

Dedicated

16

Table 2

Hours Displayed Yes

17

No

9

Table 5

CMS Usage

Chat Feature

Drupal

2

LibGuides CMS

5

Joomla

2

Wordpress

2

Sirsi ILS

1

Embedded Site

10

Table 6

Unknown

3

Social Media Integration

Atriuum

1

Yes

15

No

11

Yes

5

No

21

Table 3 Discovery Service EBSCO

15

Ex-libris

3

WorldCat

3

Sirsi

2

Polaris

1

Booksys

1

Atriuum

1

Table 7 Catalog Search on the Homepage Yes

21

No

5

45

Table 8 Chat in Embedded Sites With

6

Without

4

Table 9 Chat in Distinct Sites With

7

Without

9

Table 10 Carnegie Classification Breakdown of Alabama Colleges Level 22: Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields

5

Level 21: Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts and Sciences Focus

5

Level 20: Master's Colleges and Universities: Small Programs

2

Level 19: Master's Colleges and Universities: Medium Programs

4

Level 18: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs

5

Level 17: Doctoral/Professional Universities

1

Level 16: Doctoral Universities: High Research Activity

2

Level 15: Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity

2

46

Table 11

Table 14

Level 22: Baccalaureate Colleges: Diverse Fields

Level 19: Master's Colleges and Universities: Medium Programs

Product

Libraries

EBSCO Discovery Service

50

None

53

None / Unknown

74

Primo Central

38

Summon

27

WorldCat Discovery

1

WorldCat Discovery Service

35

WorldCat Local

3

Product

Libraries

EBSCO Discovery Service

54

None

26

None / Unknown

19

Primo

1

Primo Central

37

Summon

7

WorldCat Discovery Service

29

WorldCat Local

10

Table 12

Table 15

Level 21: Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts & Sciences

Level 18 / Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs

Product

Libraries

EBSCO Discovery Service

50

Product

Libraries

None

29

EBSCO Discovery Service

97

None / Unknown

12

None

36

Primo

1

None / Unknown

10

Primo Central

47

Primo Central

93

Summon

22

Summon

34

WorldCat Discovery Service WorldCat Local

54 9

WorldCat Discovery Service

2

WorldCat Local

7

Worldcat Discovery Service

1

Table 13

Table 16

Level 20: Master's Colleges and Universities: Small Programs

Level 17: Doctoral/Professional Universities

Product

Libraries

Product

Libraries

EBSCO Discovery Service

39

EBSCO Discovery Service

50

None

16

None

15

None / Unknown

16

None / Unknown

7

Primo Central

23

Primo Central

30

Summon

6

Summon

18

WorldCat Discovery Service

19

WorldCat Discovery Service

13

WorldCat Local

2

WorldCat Local

4

47

Table 17 Level 16: Doctoral Universities: High Research Activity Product

Libraries

Central Discovery Index (Ex Libris)

1

EBSCO Discovery Service

47

None

4

None / Unknown

2

Primo Central

47

Summon

20

WorldCat Discovery Service

5

WorldCat Local

2

Central Discovery Index (Ex Libris)

1

Table 18 Level 15: Doctoral Universities: Very High Research Activity Product

Libraries

Custom

1

EBSCO Discovery Service

24

None

2

None / Unknown

1

Primo Central

71

Summon

27

WorldCat Discovery Service

4

48

You Can't Read That!: Banned Books Week and Its Celebration at an Alabama University

Rachel Hooper

Head of Public Services Troy University, Troy, AL hooperr@troy.edu

Kelly Marie Wilson Independent Researcher kelly.m.wilson2011@gmail.com

49

Abstract

Banned Books Week is a celebration of the freedom to read whatever someone wishes to. It is a celebration of the freedom to access information and the condemnation of those who seek to censor books, films, and ideas. Far too often, books are challenged because of an individual’s personal viewpoints. This article will provide a brief introduction to Banned Books Week and a history of censorship in the United States, and will cover the evolution of Banned Books Week celebrations at an Alabama university.

Keywords: Banned Books Week, Censorship, Challenged Books, Freedom to Read, Banned

Introduction Since 1982, Banned Books Week has been celebrated in libraries across America (Banned Books Week, 2021). Although it may be celebrated in different ways throughout the country, the main purpose of this designated week is to celebrate the freedom to read. People around the world are limited in what they can read due to their country’s perception of what is acceptable, whether it be because of political, religious, or any other number of controversial reasons. At first glance, it may seem that America is immune to this, that it is a free country and people can read whatever they choose to read. Unfortunately, America also has problems with censorship and book banning (Foerstel, 2002). This paper will look at the attempt to define censorship, give a brief history of censorship in the U.S., provide an explanation of Banned Books Week according to the American Library Association (ALA), and explain how Troy University has celebrated Banned Books Week over the last five years.

Defining Censorship When thinking about banned books and censorship, most people probably think about countries other than the United States. Although America is considered a free country, “the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom records hundreds of attempts by individuals and groups to have books removed from libraries shelves and from classrooms” (American Library Association, 2021b). It is an ongoing problem that has not seen any relief (Foerstel, 2002; Paxton, 2008).

Although "banned" and "challenged" are sometimes used interchangeably, the wording actually means two different things. “A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a 50

person or group,” but “banning is the removal of those items” (American Library Association, 2021a). What

many “challengers” do not realize is that when they make a move to challenge and/or ban a book, this brings more attention to the title in question. Even if the challenge does lead to a banning of the book in that particular library or school, it does not stop people from acquiring the book through other means. When a big deal (or ordeal) is made about banning a book, it can make people even more interested in reading it, so, in a way, the challenge and banning can backfire and cause more people to read it than had been previously.

History of Censorship in the United States

Censorship and banning have been issues dating back to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century (Foerstel, 2002). Prior to the formation of the United States, censorship was such an issue that it was even included in the First Amendment of the US Constitution which clearly states the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (U.S. Const. amend.

I.).

How much does this Amendment truly protect the freedom to read and the freedom of speech and

press? Not only are books and news stories censored and/or banned, but this banning has spread to the theater, photography, art, music, and even to video games. Paxton (2008) stated that this could be caused by “fear of the unknown or discomfort” (pp. 92-93). Whatever the reason, censorship has been problematic throughout our country’s entire existence, and the issues do not seem to be slowing down (Paxton, 2008).

According to the American Library Association, the first court case to focus on the right to read freely took place in 1924. In the case of Evans v. Selma Union High School District of Fresno County, 222 P. 801, the Supreme Court of California found that “the King James version of the Bible was not a ‘publication of a sectarian, partisan, or denominational character’ that a State statute required a public high school library to exclude from it’s collections”. Furthermore, it was recorded that the court made the following statement: The mere act of purchasing a book to be added to the school library does not carry with it any implication of the adoption of the theory or dogma contained therein, or any approval of the book itself, except as a work of literature fit to be included in a reference library.

51

This last statement is one that is still held today by many librarians. When a book is ordered for the col-

lection, it should not be done so based on the personal preference of the librarian; instead, book orders are made based on the needs of the students, staff, faculty, and anyone else who patrons the library. The librarian may be the disseminator of information and the protector of intellectual freedom, but they are most definitely not the gatekeeper of knowledge (American Library Association, 2021c).

While the above case occurred almost one hundred years ago, courts around the United States are still hearing cases on the right to read freely. For example, in the 2009 case of Counts v. Cedarville School District, 295 F. Supp. 2d 996, U.S. District Court, Western District, Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, the school board of Cedarville, Arkansas, attempted to restrict access to the Harry Potter books by J. K. Rowling on the idea that “the books promoted disobedience and disrespect for authority and dealt with witchcraft and the occult”. The school board’s decision to restrict access was overturned by the district court, and the schools were ordered to provide unrestricted access to these books on the grounds that “the restrictions violated students’ First Amendment right to read and receive information”. It was also stated that the school board could not restrict access to a book “on the basis of an undifferentiated fear of disturbance or because the Board disagreed with the ideas contained in the book” (American Library Association, 2021c).

About Banned Books Week Before diving into the various aspects of Banned Books week, it is important to define what the celebration itself is all about. Kristin Pekoll (2020) created one of the best definitions in stating that it “is an event that highlights the harms of censorship for students and the community. It relays the truth that banning books - or any resource -- is a contradiction for the First Amendment” (p. 33).

From the experience of the authors, one of the most common questions surrounding Banned Books Week is “What is the difference between banned and challenged books?” The American Library Association has a very informative “About Banned & Challenged Books” (American Library Association, 2021a) page which answers this question and many more. To continue the definition previously given in the paper, Pekoll (2020) argues that “a challenge is defined by the intent of the request to deny or restrict access to others” (p.

29). A book banning takes place when a challenge is successful, and the book is removed from a library’s collection. For more information, ALA provides libraries with a plethora of useful graphics, informatics, social 52

media posts, and more on their website.

Another frequently asked question involves why a particular book has been challenged or banned.

To answer this question, ALA has provided numerous lists of most challenged books, many of which provide reasons for why they were challenged, restricted, or banned. For example, of the ten most frequently challenged books in 2019, eight of those books were challenged or banned due to political and religious viewpoints against LGBTQ+ content. This is quite depressing and shows just how long the road toward equality is for members of the LGBTQ+ community if books are still being challenged and banned because they contain content that conflicts with “traditional family structure” and are a “deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children” (American Library Association, 2021d). Additional reasons for challenging or banning books include being too realistic, as in Judy Blume's books; supernatural content, as in Daniel Cohen's and J. K. Rowling's books; and sad endings as seen in Katherine Paterson's books (Foerstel, 2002). Yes, these are actual reasons given as to why these books should be removed from school and public libraries, according to the ALA. In 2009, the most common reasons for challenging or banning books were as follows: “unsuited to age group” (9 out of 10); “offensive language” and “sexually explicit” (both 8 out of 10); “homosexuality” and “religious viewpoint” (both at 3 out of 10); “drugs” and “nudity” (both at 2 out of 10); and “anti-family,” “suicide,” “racism,” “sexism,” and “violence,” with each occurring once in the list of Top Ten Most Challenged Books for that particular year (American Library Association, 2021d).

In fact, the “unsuited to age group” reason played a rather large role in research conducted by Emily J. M. Knox (2019) who noted that it seemed to be used as a “catch-all” phrase used to silence “uncomfortable” topics such as racial inequality, LGBTQIA+, and stories of diverse peoples. The author came to a startling conclusion regarding censorship among challengers that the authors of this article feel needs to be included in this discussion: One of the most striking aspects of challengers’ arguments against diverse books is that, generally speaking, the topic of the book is fine, but -- according to the challenger -- the story should be presented in some other way that does not really engage the topic. This stipulation is less true of books that center on LGBTQ protagonists where challengers argue that the topic should simply not be addressed at all….what the challengers want is a sanitized view of diverse peoples’ stories--one that does not take into account what it

means to have a non-dominant identity in American society (p. 34).

53

The Evolution of Banned Books Week at Troy University

In 2016, the Troy University library received the Judith Krug Fund Banned Books Week Grant, which was provided by the Freedom to Read Foundation. This grant included $1,000 towards celebrating Banned Books Week, which kick-started Troy Library’s annual events. Initially, the library chose to participate in the celebration in small ways in order to gauge the patrons’ interest. Posters advertising Banned Books Week were hung in the library and faculty were invited to take part in a “Read-Out” Event. These faculty members chose excerpts from their favorite banned or challenged books to read to everyone in attendance. Over time, Troy’s celebration has grown. A Comic Con became the kick-off event, and the Read-Out Event closed the week of

events. “Banned” books were given away each day of the week, and several students came back each day to see which title would be released next. A true definition of a Comic Con was hard to define as it varies greatly; however, for the purposes of this paper, and from the viewpoint of many libraries, a Comic Con (short for comic convention) is essentially an event where a collection of fans of either comics, games, anime, etc, gather to celebrate and meet with creators and professionals in that field. A common theme among Comic Cons is "cosplay" or dressing up as ones favorite character from a game/book/comic/anime.

The participation and interest expressed were very encouraging, and the Comic Con evolved through the years. The first year was a small-scale event, but it turned out to be a huge success and a great learning experience. The event was held in a portion of the library that allowed the librarians to close it off and keep the noise level down, which avoided disturbing those students trying to study in other areas of the library. It was scheduled for a two-hour period on a Sunday afternoon. This was chosen because it would not interfere with any classes. Included in the event were a local comic book artist; coloring stations for both college students and children; a history professor who wanted to promote the new game design minor; the local comic book store; and a professional photo booth, which provided props geared towards Banned Books Week, censorship, and reading. Giveaways were provided to attendees, including a large number of items like pens, buttons, bags, and books that were collected from a variety of conferences the librarians had attended the previous year.

By the third year of running the event, it had grown significantly. What started out as having approximately 50 attendees tripled to upwards of 150 students, staff, faculty, and community members. In the second and third years, the convention gained two to three community artists, a costume designer, and a crafter (from plushies to stickers) as well as the local comic book store representative, a representative from the university’s 54

book store, the same game design professor, and snacks. A library treasure hunt was also added which turned

out to be a great success. By the third year, students were showing up to the Comic Con dressed as superheroes!

Common responses to the events during Banned Books Week were expressions of general interest in the topic. Numerous people asked about Banned Books Week, and many wanted to see a list of the top banned books. This brought about conversations on literature, reading, censorship, and books in general. The faculty members expressed great passion for the titles they chose to read and discuss for the Read-Out event. Based on what the authors witnessed, the passion of the faculty members led to the attendees’ increased interest in those specific titles discussed. Seeing students and faculty so interested in this topic indicated to the librarians at Troy that the Read Out event, in particular, is important to continue having each year.

In addition to these events, the library also worked with the art department to incorporate student artwork. One of the art professors assigned her students a project that dealt with banned books. Each year the project changed slightly, but the general idea was that the students created artwork based on their chosen banned book. The artwork was displayed prior to Banned Books Week and throughout the week itself. The librarians voted on their favorite piece, and the winner was given a prize at the Read Out event. Some of past prizes included Barnes & Noble gift cards, Troy University Library t-shirts, and art supplies. In 2019, it was decided that instead of requesting input solely from the librarians, it would be better to ask for input from other students. As such, the artwork was set out during the Comic Con along with voting sheets and jars. Many more nominations were received, and it was great to see the Comic Con attendees so interested in the artwork of their fellow students.

That same class of students also created the designs for advertising that was used for the comic con.

Unfortunately, the library had to cancel all in-person events for the 2020 Banned Books Week due to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, free copies of selected “banned” titles were still made available to students who visited the library. Once the pandemic is under control, the library plans to resume Banned Books Week celebrations.

Conclusion The way Banned Books Week is celebrated at Troy University has evolved during the last five years, but the 55

primary goals have remained the same: to educate students on the threat of censorship and to celebrate the

freedom to read. Librarians fight on the front lines daily to protect the freedom of access to information, whether for research, self-improvement, or entertainment. While public, school, and academic librarians work directly with the public, members of the American Library Association work with lawmakers and officials to keep the right to read freely available to all within the U.S. In conclusion, it is the hope of the authors of this paper, a hope that is possibly shared by many other librarians, to one day eradicate censorship, particularly for personal reasons, and provide information to all who search for it.

References American Library Association. (2021a). A bout banned & challenged books. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/aboutbannedbooks American Library Association. (2021b). Banned & challenged classics. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics American Library Association. (2021c). Notable first amendment court cases. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases American Library Association. (2021d). Top 10 most challenged books lists. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 Banned Books Week. (2021). A bout Banned Books W eek. https://bannedbooksweek.org/about/ Counts v. Cedarville Sch. Dist., 295 F. Supp. 2d 996, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9533, 31 Media L. Rep. 2590 (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division April 22, 2003, Filed). https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:48TF-4FP0-0038-Y1M0-00000 -00&context=1516831.

Evans v. Selma Union High School Dist., 193 Cal. 54, 222 P. 801, 1924 Cal. LEXIS 285, 31 A.L.R. 1121 (Supreme Court of California January 24, 1924).

56

https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRS-9YB0-003D-

W20D-00000-00&context=1516831.

Foerstel, H. N. (2002). Banned in the U.S.A .: A reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries. Greenwood Press.

Knox, E. J. M. (2019). Silencing stories: Challenges to diverse books. The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, 3(2): 24-39. Doi:10.33137/ijidi.v3i2.32592 Paxton, M. (2008). Censorship. Greenwood Press.

Pekoll, K. (2020). Managing censorship challenges beyond books. Knowledge Quest, 49(1): 28-33.

U.S. Const. amend. I.

Appendix Giveaways: Book Titles for Banned Books Weeks from 2017 to 2020 2017 13 Reasons Why – Jay Asher Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian – Sherman Alexie Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The – Mark Twain Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging – Louise Rennison Bluest Eye, The – Toni Morrison Catcher in the Rye, The – J. D. Salinger Gossip Girl – Cecile von Ziegesar Handmaid’s Tale, The – Margaret Atwood Holy Bible, The (New International Version) Hunger Games, The [box set] – Suzanne Collins Kite Runner, The – Khaled Hosseini Neverwhere – Neil Gaiman Perks of Being a Wallflower – Stephen Chbosky Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark – Alvin Schwartz To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee 2018 Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl – Anne Frank Child Called It, A – Dave Petzer Clockwork Orange, A – Anthony Burgess Disappearing Spoon, The – Sam Kean Gone with the Wind – Margaret Mitchell Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, The – Rebecca Skloot 57

Appendix

Giveaways: Book Titles for Banned Books Weeks from 2017 to 2020 2017 13 Reasons Why – Jay Asher Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian – Sherman Alexie Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The – Mark Twain Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging – Louise Rennison Bluest Eye, The – Toni Morrison Catcher in the Rye, The – J. D. Salinger Gossip Girl – Cecile von Ziegesar Handmaid’s Tale, The – Margaret Atwood Holy Bible, The (New International Version) Hunger Games, The [box set] – Suzanne Collins Kite Runner, The – Khaled Hosseini Neverwhere – Neil Gaiman Perks of Being a Wallflower – Stephen Chbosky Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark – Alvin Schwartz To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee 2018 Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl – Anne Frank Child Called It, A – Dave Petzer Clockwork Orange, A – Anthony Burgess Disappearing Spoon, The – Sam Kean Gone with the Wind – Margaret Mitchell Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, The – Rebecca Skloot In Cold Blood – Truman Capote Just One Day – Gayle Forman Lady Chatterley’s Lover – D. H. Lawrence Librarian of Basra – Jeanette Winter Like Water for Chocolate – Laura Esquivel Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood – Marjane Satrapi Slaughterhouse Five – Kurt Vonnegut Sun Also Rises, The – Ernest Hemingway Y: The Last Man, Book 1–Brian K. Vaughan & Pia Guerra 2019 Bless Me, Ultima – Rudolfo Anaya Color Purple, The – Alice Walker Dead Poets’ Society – N. H. Kleinbaum Fahrenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury Giver, The – Lois Lowry Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone – J. K. Rowling Hate U Give, The – Angie Thomas Looking for Alaska – John Green Lovely Bones – Alice Sebold Prayer for Owen Meany, A – John Irving Speak – Laurie Halse Anderson Summer of My German Soldier – Bette Greene 58

Things They Carried, The – Tim O’Brien What My Mother Doesn’t Know – Sonya Sones 2020 Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The – Mark Twain Beloved – Toni Morrison Bluest Eye, The – Toni Morrison Catcher in the Rye, The – J. D. Salinger Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Mark Haddon Glass Castle, The – Jeannette Walls Golden Compass, The – Philip Pullman I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings – Maya Angelou Lolita – Vladimir Nabokov Sun Also Rises, The – Ernest Hemingway To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee To Kill a Mockingbird (Graphic Novel) – Harper Lee Where the Sidewalk Ends – Shel Silverstein

59

Call for Articles The Alabama Librarian is seeking articles relevant to librarianship in Alabama. The Alabama Library Association’s peer-reviewed journal publishes scholarly articles biannually in an open access format.

All manuscripts must be submitted to thealabamalibrarian@gmail.com as attachment to an email, preferably in MS Word.

Manuscripts must be written in APA style and include an abstract and keywords.

Although longer or shorter works may be considered, 2,000- to 5,000-word manuscripts are preferred.

The name, position, and professional email address of the author should appear in the bottom left-hand corner of a separate title page. The author's name should not appear anywhere else in the document.

Submissions will undergo a double blind peer review process.

Photographs and other images relevant to the submission will be accepted for consideration but cannot be returned. Digital images are preferred.

No other publisher should be simultaneously considering a manuscript submitted to The Alabama Librarian.

If the manuscript includes analyses of survey results, please acknowledge approval by the appropriate Institutional Review Board either through direct reference in the manuscript or acknowledgement as part of the manuscript submission.

Upon receipt, manuscripts will be acknowledged by the Editor-in-Chief, who will then assign manuscripts to two reviewers. The reviewers who receive the manuscript will have no direct information on the author or the author's affiliation. Following the review, a decision will be communicated to the writer.

Upon acceptance, publication can be expected within six months. https://www.allanet.org/alabama-librarian 60

Your membership in the Alabama Library Association will entitle you to the following benefits:

  

Reduced registration for workshops and conferences Networking with library personnel statewide, vendors, and elected officials Notification of issues concerning libraries by receiving state and national news briefs, listserv discussions, and flyers promoting activities of interest  A designated contact person within the Association (regional Members-At-Large) so your voice is heard  Participation in the Association's Elections and events.  Discussions of issues of interest at meetings with nationally recognized speakers.  Access to newsletters, listservs and web pages for a wealth of information.  Opportunities to continuing education credits.  And more!

Membership Dues: Regular member

$30-$80 (depending on salary)

Paraprofessional

$28

Graduate Student

$15

ALA Joint Student Memberships

$35 (ALLA/ALA Memberships - Join through ALA)

Trustee/Friend

$30

Retired/Unemployed

$25

Exhibitor

$30

Visit www.allanet.org/membership for more information.

61

THE

ALABAMA LIBRARIAN

62