Newsgroups: bit.listserv.libres
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:37:09 EDT
              <LIBRES@KENTVM.BITNET>
From:         EDITORS@KENTVM.BITNET
Subject:      LIBRES 2.12 Feature Article

LIBRES 2.12 Feature Article

LIBRES:  Library and Information Science Research
(ISSN: 1058-6768 published monthly)
December 15, 1992

Table of Contents

1. Resource Sharing by Sci-Tech and Business Libraries:
   Informal Networking and the Role of Professional Associations.
   (1372 lines)  by Sharyn J. Ladner

**********************************************************************
COPYRIGHT to this article is the property of Sharyn J. Ladner

      RESOURCE SHARING BY SCI-TECH AND BUSINESS LIBRARIES:
               INFORMAL NETWORKING AND THE ROLE OF
                    PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

                               by

                        Sharyn J. Ladner



                            ABSTRACT

     This research, the third of a three-part investigation
of resource sharing in special libraries, examines informal
networking practices as a function of membership in
professional associations, membership in formal resource-
sharing networks and background variables such as library
size and affluence.  Data were gathered through a mail
survey of 938 business and sci-tech special librarians and
sci-tech academic librarians in the United States in 1990/91.
Findings show (1) a synergistic effect between membership in
resource-sharing networks, membership in professional
associations and the degree to which informal networking takes
place which is independent of library type; (2) that informal
networking is also a function of library size -- infrequent
networkers tend to be in small, poorly funded libraries; and
(3) that SLA is the primary professional association used for
informal networking contacts, regardless of library type.  The
paper concludes with a discussion of the impact of the
Internet/NREN on networking relationships among special
librarians, their colleagues and their clientele.

                --------------------------------


      RESOURCE SHARING BY SCI-TECH AND BUSINESS LIBRARIES:
               INFORMAL NETWORKING AND THE ROLE OF
                    PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS



     This study of informal networking and the role of
professional associations is the third of a three-part
investigation of resource sharing in special libraries.  The
analysis is based on data gathered through a comprehensive mail
survey of 938 business and sci-tech librarians in the United
States in 1990/91.  This research was undertaken because
there is a lack of systematic, statistically reliable studies of
resource sharing by special librarians.  The purpose of the
overall study is to provide descriptive information on the
resource sharing and networking practices of special librarians:
specifically, to describe similarities and differences in
networking behavior by librarians in two diverse types of special
libraries, to identify factors which can explain these
differences, and to compare networking by special librarians with
those of academic librarians in the same subject specialties.
     The first phase of the research examined formal networking
practices of sci-tech and business librarians in corporations or
other for-profit firms, in not-for-profit organizations, and in
government or public agencies.{1}  The second analyzed formal
networking practices by sci-tech libraries in for-profit firms,
not-for-profit organizations, government or public agencies, and
academic institutions in terms of organizational structure.{2}
     This third study examines informal networking practices
engaged in by sci-tech special, sci-tech academic, and business
special librarians as a function of their membership in
professional associations, membership in formal resource-sharing
networks and background variables such as library size and
affluence.  These findings are then discussed in terms of two
major phenomena affecting special librarians today:  the impact
of the Internet/NREN on information exchange, and the role of the
special librarian in the post-industrial organization.
     In this research the term, _special library_, refers to
libraries in profit-making companies, not-for-profit
organizations, or public agencies.  A _sci-tech special library_
is considered to be a science or technical library that is
located in a for-profit company, not-for-profit organization, or
governmental or public agency.  A _business special library_ is a
library in a for-profit company, not-for-profit organization, or
governmental or public agency whose subject emphasis is on
business, management, finance, marketing, economics or other
business-related disciplines.  Although academic sci-tech
libraries are also technically special libraries because of their
subject specialization,{3} for ease of comparison in this
research they are referred to as sci-tech academic libraries and
are not included under the category of special library.  Academic
sci-tech libraries serve as a comparison group to the two special
library samples in this study, since more is known about the
networking practices of academic librarians than of special
librarians.

NETWORKING AND SPECIAL LIBRARIANS

     Special librarians are active participants in formal
resource-sharing networks.  In 1980 the National Committee on
Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) and the Special
Libraries Association (SLA) cosponsored a task force to study the
role of the special library in nationwide resource-sharing
networks and cooperative programs.  The NCLIS/SLA Task Force
found that 50% of the special libraries they surveyed
participated in resource-sharing networks or cooperatives.  The
task force also found that network membership varied by type of
library, with libraries in business and financial institutions
being the least likely to be network members, which they
attributed to the competitive nature of their parent
organizations.{4}
     Special librarians have a history of participation in
informal library cooperation to obtain information for their
clientele.{5}  The Special Libraries Association (SLA), in
fact, was formed in 1909 to facilitate the accessibility and
sharing of information among colleagues with similar interests
and needs,{6} and today the association continues to promote
itself as "a very special network of people."{7}  SLA chapters
provide the structure for informal networking and cooperative
activities such as preparation of resource directories, union
lists and duplicates exchange lists.{8}{9}
     Informal networks are basically people networks.  According
to Atkinson, they consist of unplanned interactions among
individuals with particular things to contribute to one
another.{10}  Informal networking can take place within the
context of a more formally organized group, such as a
professional society or library resource-sharing network, or take
place within a more social context -- lunches, receptions, etc.
St. Clair conceptualizes informal networks as interpersonal
networks which add value through personal relationships developed
through connections made at professional association meetings,
continuing education courses, and mentoring.{11}  Naisbitt
provides an even simpler definition:  "networks are people
talking to each other, sharing ideas, information, and
resources."{12}
     During the 1980s informal cooperative arrangements among
librarians for sharing information received less attention in the
literature than membership in formal resource-sharing networks
for sharing information.  There were several reasons for this.
First, systems-oriented, computer-based networks were seen as an
evolutionary next step in library cooperation,{13} and
libraries shifted from their participation in less formal
cooperative arrangements to membership in formal resource-sharing
networks.{14}  Also, the development of regional networks and
bibliographic utilities in the 1970s shifted the emphasis in
library cooperation from that of sharing bibliographic
information to sharing technology for bibliographic control.
The success of these large systems in accomplishing technical
processing tasks (such as shared cataloging) which benefit from
economies of scale tended to minimize the benefits of
interpersonal networking.{15}
     In some articles published during this period, special
librarians' preference for informal networking over formal
network membership is treated negatively, and considered a
barrier to network participation, rather than an alternative
information resource.{16}  Special librarians who preferred
their informal networking arrangements were viewed as being
complacent, satisfied with the status quo, and resistant to
change.{17}  Some early observers of the special library
scene, however, saw that formal networks were supplementing,
rather than replacing, earlier informal cooperative
arrangements.{18}  Strable, for example, observed back in 1977
that in Chicago formal networking had "not really changed
traditional informal cooperation" within the special library
community, that in fact formal networks supplemented the earlier
informal relationships.{19}  More recently, Paskoff discusses
the continued importance of informal networking for special
librarians in addition to membership in formal resource-sharing
networks.{20}
     There is substantial research evidence that special
librarians do use multiple sources to obtain information not
available within their own libraries.  Wiggins demonstrated that
sci-tech librarians in industry are more likely to use commercial
sources for document delivery than are their academic
counterparts because they have more time-sensitive document
delivery needs, are lean on staff, and tend not to use more
labor-intensive document delivery systems such as ILL.{21}
Building on Wiggins' research, Ladner found that there is a
network effect as well among corporate sci-tech librarians:
corporate library members of resource-sharing networks are more
active users of multiple sources of documents -- whether they be
through informal contacts, formal network arrangements, or
commercial services -- compared to non-members.{22}

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND
INFORMAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE

     Professional societies provide a support system for their
members, including such services as employment counseling and
placement, continuing education, and opportunities for
information exchange, not only in the library field but other
areas as well.  Articles on interpersonal networking as a benefit
of professional association membership have proliferated,
especially in trade journals, since Naisbitt included networking
as one of the ten megatrends which would transform our work lives
in the 1980s, as we shifted from an industrial to an information
society.{23}
     Ten years earlier, Toffler had predicted the transformation
of the hierarchical, bureaucratic organization into a less rigid
corporate structure which he termed "ad-hocracy."  Toffler's ad-
hocracy would be staffed by "professional specialists" whose
loyalties would be not to the corporation but to their respective
professions and their professional societies.{24}  The past 25
years has witnessed the continued proliferation of professional
associations,{25} lending support to Toffler's predictions
about the professionalization of industry.
     Studies of informal information exchange among scientists
and researchers also underscore the importance of professional
societies in facilitating this exchange.  Menzel, for example,
points out the crucial role of informal and unplanned
communication which takes place at scientific meetings, colloquia
and conferences.{26}  Griffith mentions the importance of
voluntary organizations in the dissemination of research results
within scientific specialties.{27}  Cronin, in a comprehensive
review of invisible colleges and information transfer, alludes to
the importance of professional organizations in informal
information exchange in some disciplines, but not in
others.{28}

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RATIONALE

     Although mechanisms for information exchange among
scientists and scholars have been extensively studied, there is a
lack of published research on the role of professional
associations and informal information exchange among librarians
and other information intermediaries.  There is only limited
research on special libraries and resource sharing, and none on
the resource-sharing practices of business librarians.  This
research was designed to fill these gaps.
     The research is limited to two types of special libraries
to minimize problems inherent in analyzing data gathered from a
diverse population.  Because sci-tech and business libraries
represent two very different types of special libraries and
because they comprise the two largest subject categories of
special libraries, findings common to both are likely to be
characteristic of special libraries in general.  A comparison
group of sci-tech academic libraries is also included in the
study since more is known about the networking activities of
academic librarians than special librarians.

Review of findings to date

     Phase one of the research examined the formal networking
practices of sci-tech and business librarians and corroborated
many of the findings reported by the NCLIS/SLA Task Force.  It
demonstrated that more sci-tech special librarians (65%) than
business special librarians (52%) participate in resource-sharing
networks; that sci-tech special librarians accessed their
networks more frequently than business librarians; that the main
reason special librarians join resource-sharing networks is for
interlibrary loan; and that the main reason they do not join is
lack of demand or need.  This analysis also demonstrated that
business and sci-tech special libraries which belong to formal
resource-sharing networks are larger, more affluent and more
often managed by professionals than those which are not
members.{29}
     Phase two looked more closely at the relationship between
organizational structure and formal networking patterns among
sci-tech libraries.  This analysis demonstrated that, as
expected, more academic sci-tech libraries (89%) are members of
resource-sharing networks than sci-tech special libraries (65%),
as well as an organizational effect among the different types of
special libraries, with governmental libraries showing resource-
sharing patterns that are closer to those observed for academic
sci-tech libraries, and special libraries in not-for-profit
organizations being least likely to join.  This analysis also
compared the use of formal networks to commercial document
services and informal networking for document delivery and showed
that sci-tech academic librarians are more dependent on their
resource-sharing networks than corporate librarians, who are the
heaviest users of both commercial services and informal
connections for document delivery.{30}

Current focus

     Phase three of this research examines informal networking
practices engaged in by sci-tech special, sci-tech academic, and
business special librarians.  The following research questions
are considered in this paper:

     1.    More sci-tech librarians participate in formal
           resource-sharing activities than business librarians --
           will this same pattern be observed for informal
           networking?

     2.    What is the relationship between formal and informal
           networking among sci-tech and business special
           librarians?  Do special librarians who are active
           participants in formal networks also actively
           participate in informal networking, or have they
           replaced their informal arrangements with formal
           network membership?

     3.    Do special librarians and academic library subject
           specialists use professional associations for informal
           networking?  Do they differ in their use of these
           associations?  Which associations will they consider
           most useful?

     4.    Business and sci-tech special libraries which are
           members of formal resource-sharing networks are larger,
           more affluent and more often managed by professionals
           than those which are not members -- can this model be
           extended to patterns of informal networking?

     To answer these questions, the following _null hypotheses_
are tested: (1) sci-tech and business special librarians and sci-
tech academic librarians will not differ in their informal
networking practices; (2) there will be no relationship between
the degree of formal networking and informal networking among (a)
sci-tech special librarians and (b) business special librarians;
(3) sci-tech and business special librarians and sci-tech
academic librarians will not differ in their use of professional
associations for informal networking; and (5) size of library and
staffing pattern will have no effect on the degree of informal
networking in (a) sci-tech special libraries and (b) business
special libraries.
     _Hypothesis one_ is tested by comparing (a) use and (b)
frequency of use of informal contacts across all three types of
specialized libraries.  _Hypothesis two_ is tested by comparing
(a) use and (b) frequency of use of informal contacts by (a)
network membership status and (b) degree of network use for (a)
sci-tech special librarians and (b) business special librarians.
_Hypothesis three_ is tested by comparing (a) use and (b)
frequency of use of professional associations and (c)
professional association used most across all three types of
specialized libraries.  _Hypothesis four_ is tested by comparing
(a) library budget, (b) number of employees, and (c) number of
professionals by degree of informal networking for (a) sci-tech
special librarians and (b) business special librarians.
     The definition of a resource-sharing network used in this
research is the one also used by the NCLIS/SLA Task Force:  "A
_resource-sharing network_ is a formal arrangement whereby
several libraries or other organizations participate in exchange
of information, materials, services or all three for some
functional purpose."  _Informal networking_, by contrast, is
defined as interaction with colleagues who are members of the
same professional organization, social contacts, or other
interactions with friends and colleagues for the purpose of
resource sharing and information exchange.

METHODOLOGY

     This research is a comparative mail survey of sci-tech and
business special libraries sampled from the 1990 edition of the
_Directory of Special Libraries and Information Centers_,
published by Gale Research.  The survey instrument was a self-
administered, eight-page questionnaire.  Respondents were
promised a summary of the results and given a postage-paid return
mail envelope as an incentive to complete the questionnaire.  The
survey instrument included questions on formal membership in
networks and consortia, informal resource sharing, services
offered by resource-sharing networks, problems encountered in
networks, and reasons for non-membership, as well as measures of
library organization and size.
     The questionnaire was pretested by 25 members of the Special
Libraries Association at the SLA Annual Conference in June, 1990.
Surveys were mailed in the Fall of 1990 to business and sci-tech
special libraries; a supplementary survey of academic sci-tech
libraries was completed in the Spring of 1991.
     Data were analyzed using SPSS on the University of Miami VAX
computer.{31}  The following statistical tests were used in
the analysis:  (1) chi-square was used to test for differences in
nominal variables with more than two categories; (2) because the
chi-square statistic is affected by large sample sizes,
difference of proportions in dichotomies were evaluated with z-
scores;{32} (3) gamma was used to evaluate strength of
association in ordinal variables;{33} and (4) t-tests or the F
statistic were used to test for differences in interval level
variables.  The difference of proportions test was also used to
test for differences between sample and population data.

Population and sample

     The special library population from which the sci-tech and
business library samples were drawn consists of libraries in
profit-making companies, not-for-profit organizations, and
government or public agencies listed in the Gale _Directory_.
The academic library population from which the sci-tech academic
library sample was drawn consists of libraries in colleges and
universities listed in the Gale _Directory_.  These libraries
tend to be branch libraries in departmentalized university
library systems; they are generally smaller and more specialized
in a scientific discipline than more centralized academic science
libraries.  Academic business libraries were excluded from the
study because of the relatively small number of academic business
libraries in the _Directory_.  Sampling methodology is described
in more detail in the appendix.
     A total of 419 sci-tech special library, 235 sci-tech
academic library, and 281 business special librarians completed
returned the questionnaire.  Sample sizes are accurate to within
+/_4.8% for sci-tech special libraries, +/_6.4% for sci-tech
academic libraries, and +/_5.8% for business libraries at the 95%
confidence level.  The response rate for the special library
mailing was 33%, the academic library mailing was 35%, and the
business library mailing, 39%; these response rates are
comparable to other surveys of special libraries.

RESULTS

Organizational differences

     Table 1 shows the background characteristics of sci-tech and
business special libraries and sci-tech academic libraries.
There are, in general, fewer differences between the sci-tech and
business special library samples than there are between the sci-
tech academic and the two special library samples.  Sci-tech
academic libraries are larger than sci-tech special libraries,
both in terms of professional and total staff, budget and size of
periodical collection.{34}  Business libraries are also larger
than sci-tech special libraries, measured by both annual budget
and number of employees.  Organizationally, there are more
governmental and public agency libraries in the sci-tech special
library sample, whereas the business library sample shows higher
proportions of libraries in profit-making companies and non-for-
profit organizations (X2 = 10.07, df 2, p < .01).

                    -------------------------

                             Table 1

           BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS BY LIBRARY TYPE

                           Sci-Tech    Sci-Tech    Business
Item                       Academic     Special     Special
-----------------------------------------------------------
(respondents)                 (235)       (419)       (281)

Kind of Library

  Corporate/for-profit          --          54%         59%
  Not-for-profit                --          19          24
  Governmental/agency           --          27          17
  Academic                     100%         --          --

Library Budget[a]

  Under $50,000                 22%         32%         30%
  $50,000 - $99,999             11          20          12
  $100,000 - $249,999           25          21          29
  $250,000 and above            41          26          29

Periodical subscriptions
(mean)[b]                      976         261         290

Percent in top 20 MSAs[c]       29%         42%         61%

FTE Employees[d]

  One or less                   18%         38%         29%
  1.1 - 2.0                     16          23          20
  2.1 - 5.0                     32          26          28
  More than five                33          14          22

  Number of employees
  (mean)[e]                    8.5         3.3         5.1

FTE Professionals[f]

  Less than one                 17%         16%         14%
  One                           45          52          42
  More than one                 38          32          44

  Number of professionals
  (mean)[g]                    3.0         1.7         2.5
------------------------------------------------------------
[a]X2 = 32.26, df 6, p < .001.
[b]F = 30.31, df 2, p < .001.
[c]X2 = 54.42,df 2, p < .001.
[d]X2 = 51.01, df 6, p < .001.
[e]F = 15.40, df 2, p < .001.
[f]X2 = 11.73, df 4, p < .05.
[g]F = 7.19, df 2, p < .001.

                    -------------------------

Informal networking

     Table 2 shows the use of informal contacts by business and
sci-tech special and sci-tech academic librarians to obtain
information not available in the library.  Virtually all
librarians use informal contacts, regardless of library type.
Both business and sci-tech special librarians, however, use
informal contacts more frequently than sci-tech academic
librarians:  52% of the business and 47% of the sci-tech special
librarians use their informal contacts twice a week or more,
compared to only 39% of the academic librarians.  Conversely,
sci-tech academic librarians are the heaviest users of formal
networks for information exchange:  78% use their resource-
sharing networks twice a week or more.  Business librarians are
least likely to be members of formal resource-sharing networks
and those whose libraries are members use them less frequently
than their sci-tech colleagues, regardless of library type.

                    -------------------------

                             Table 2

           FREQUENCY OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL NETWORKING
                         BY LIBRARY TYPE

                             Sci-Tech   Sci-Tech   Business
Item                         Academic    Special    Special
-----------------------------------------------------------
(respondents)                   (235)      (419)      (281)

Use informal contacts to
obtain information not
in library:[a]                    98%        98%        99%

 Daily                            18%        21%        26%
 Several times a week             21         26         26
 Several times a month            33         29         26
 Once a month                     14         11         15
 Less than once a month           14         13          7

Use formal resource-
sharing network:[b]               89%        65%        52%

 Daily                            56%        44%        31%
 Several times a week             22         22         20
 Several times a month            12         20         27
 Once a month                      6          4          8
 Less than once a month            4         10         14

 Number of networks (mean)       3.7        2.4        1.9

-----------------------------------------------------------
[a]X2 = 16.86, df 8, p < .05.
[b]Use formal network: X2 = 77.88, df 2, p < .001; frequency:
X2 = 32.08, df 8, p < .001; mean: F = 36.01, df 2, p < .001.
Frequencies and means are based on the number of respondents
who use formal resource-sharing networks to obtain information
(209 sci-tech academic librarians, 271 sci-tech special
librarians, 143 business librarians).

                    -------------------------

     Even though there is no difference in the use of informal
contacts for information exchange by library type, differences in
_frequency_ of informal networking between the special libraries
and the sci-tech academic libraries are sufficient to reject null
hypothesis one.

Relationship between formal and informal networking

     Table 3 shows the frequency of using informal contacts to
obtain information by network membership status for business and
sci-tech special librarians.{35}  These data indicate that
formal network membership does not have an effect on the
frequency of informal networking by either business or sci-tech
special librarians.

                    -------------------------

                             Table 3

                FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL NETWORKING
                  BY NETWORK MEMBERSHIP STATUS
                      FOR SPECIAL LIBRARIES


                              Sci-Tech          Business

                                    Non-              Non-
Item                        Memb.   Memb.      Memb.  Memb.
-----------------------------------------------------------
(respondents)               (271)   (147)      (146)  (133)

Use informal contacts:[a]     98%     98%       100%    98%

 Daily                        24%     17%        29%    23%
 Several times a week         25      27         28     23
 Several times a month        29      28         26     25
 Once a month                 11      10         10     21
 Less than once a month       10      19          6      8

-----------------------------------------------------------
[a]Sci-tech libraries:  X2 = 7.46, df 4, n.s.; business
libraries:  X2 = 7.20, df 4, n.s.

                   --------------------------

     Table 4 displays the relationship between the frequency of
using informal contacts and the frequency of using a formal
resource-sharing network to obtain information not available in
the library for business and sci-tech special and sci-tech
academic librarians in resource-sharing networks.  There is a
strong positive association between the frequency of informal and
formal networking among business special librarians.  This
association is also found among sci-tech special librarians but
is not so strong as that seen with the business librarians.  Sci-
tech academic librarians, on the other hand, show a much weaker
association between informal and formal networking which is
probably due to their heavy use of formal resource-sharing
networks for obtaining information not in their libraries.  The
data displayed in Table 4 not only show that special librarians
who are frequent users of formal networks are also frequent users
of informal networks but that there are a lot of them as well.
Fully 39% of the business and 38% of the sci-tech special
librarians use both their formal networks and informal contacts
twice a week or more to obtain information not in their
libraries.

                   --------------------------

                             Table 4

            RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORMAL AND INFORMAL
                   NETWORKING BY LIBRARY TYPE


                               Informal Networking

Formal Networking        >=2x/wk      >=2x/mo      <=1x/mo
----------------------------------------------------------
                          n   %        n   %        n   %

Business Special

 >=2x/wk                 57  69%      13  34%       3  14%
 >=2x/mo                 14  17       12  33       12  49
 <=1x/mo                 12  14       13  33        9  37
                        --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         83 100%      38 100%      24 100%

             X2 = 29.07, df 4, p < .001; gamma = .56


Sci-Tech Special

 >=2x/wk                102  79%      45  59%      26  43%
 >=2x/mo                 16  13       19  26       17  28
 <=1x/mo                 10   8       11  15       17  29
                        --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                        128 100%      75 100%      60 100%

             X2 = 27.49, df 4, p < .001; gamma = .47


Sci-Tech Academic

 >=2x/wk                 64  82%      47  76%      33  64%
 >=2x/mo                  8  10        5   8        9  18
 <=1x/mo                 10   8       11  15       17  18
                        --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         82 100%      63  99%      59 100%

               X2 = 6.90, df 4, n.s.; gamma = .29

                    -------------------------

     Although there is no difference in degree of informal
networking between members and non-members of formal resource-
sharing networks, the strong positive relationship between degree
of formal networking and degree of informal networking among
members of resource-sharing networks is sufficient to reject null
hypothesis two.

Association membership patterns

     Membership in professional associations was studied to
determine if association membership enhances or otherwise
influences informal networking behavior.  Table 5 shows
professional association membership patterns and the use of these
associations for informal information exchange.  Fully 89% of the
sci-tech academic and 85% of the sci-tech and business special
librarians belong to at least one professional organization.  A
diversity of memberships is represented in this study:  survey
respondents listed over 200 different associations in which they
are members.

                    -------------------------

                             Table 5

         INFORMAL NETWORKING AND ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP
                         BY LIBRARY TYPE

                             Sci-Tech   Sci-Tech   Business
Item                         Academic    Special    Special
-----------------------------------------------------------
(respondents)                   (235)      (419)      (281)

Percent holding membership
in professional
association(s):[a]                89%        85%        85%

 Local library association         7%        16%        12%
 State library association        29%        15%        12%
 Regional library association      8%         4%         1%
 ALA                              54%        22%        26%
 ASIS                             13%        12%        11%
 MLA                              10%         3%         5%
 SLA                              49%        70%        75%
 Other library association        18%         8%         8%
 Subject-based association        35%        23%        18%

 Number of associations
 (mean)[b]                       2.2        1.3        1.3

Use professional associations to
identify contacts for informal
information exchange:[c]          84%        84%        84%

 Daily                             4%         5%        10%
 Several times a week             11         10         18
 Several times a month            28         24         26
 Once a month                     16         22         20
 Less than once a month           41         39         26

Professional association
used most:[d]

 Local library association         4%         4%         8%
 State/regional library assn.     14          8          2
 ALA                              11          1          1
 SLA                              27         49         64
 Other library association        10          6          3
 Subject-based association        13         10          7
 Other, unknown                    2          2          3
 None, no specific one            19         20         12

-----------------------------------------------------------
[a]Multiple responses possible for association membership;
percents may total more than 100%.
[b]]F = 7.20, df 2, p < .001.
[c]X2 = 26.07, df 8, p = .001.  Frequencies are based on the
number of respondents who use professional associations to
identify contacts for informal information exchange (194 sci-
tech academic librarians, 346 sci-tech special librarians, 234
business librarians).
[d]X2 = 116.70, df 14, p < .001.  Frequencies are based on the
number of respondents who use professional associations to
identify contacts for informal information exchange.

                    -------------------------

     Although the proportion of librarians who are members of
professional associations does not differ by library type, there
are differences in the types of associations to which they
belong.  Significantly more sci-tech academic librarians are
members of ALA, non-library subject-based associations, and
statewide library associations than sci-tech and business special
librarians.  SLA, on the other hand, is the primary association
for special librarians:  75% of the business and 70% of the sci-
tech special librarians are members.  SLA membership among sci-
tech academic librarians, however, is not insubstantial:  fully
half of these librarians are members.  Academic sci-tech
librarians, on the average, are members of more professional
associations than their colleagues in special libraries.  Whereas
sci-tech academic librarians are likely to be members of both ALA
(54%) and SLA (49%), special librarians are more likely to be
members of SLA alone.

Use of professional associations for networking

     The data in Table 5 show that 84% of the librarians in the
study, regardless of library type, use their professional
associations to identify contacts for informal information
exchange.  SLA is seen as the "most useful" association for
informal networking, regardless of library type, mentioned by 64%
of the business librarians, 49% of the sci-tech special
librarians, and 27% of the sci-tech librarians.  Academic sci-
tech librarians in general found it more difficult to express a
preference for one particular association for informal
networking:  one out of five could not make a choice.  By
comparison, only one out of eight business librarians fell into
this category:  these librarians very clearly preferred SLA for
this function.  Even though more of the sci-tech academic
librarians are members of ALA than SLA, only 11% considered ALA
to the most useful association for informal networking.
     Table 6 shows that across all three groups, librarians who
are members of professional associations engage in informal
networking more frequently than those who are not members.
Business librarians who belong to professional associations are
the most active networkers:  55% contact their colleagues twice a
week or more for information not available in their libraries.
Table 6 also shows that special librarians who belong to
professional associations are much more likely to be in libraries
which are members of formal resource-sharing networks.

                    -------------------------

                             Table 6

         FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL NETWORKING BY ASSOCIATION
               MEMBERSHIP STATUS BY LIBRARY TYPE


                     Sci-Tech      Sci-Tech      Business
                     Academic       Special       Special

                           Non-          Non-          Non-
Item                Memb.  Memb.   Memb. Memb.   Memb. Memb.
------------------------------------------------------------
(respondents)       (208)   (27)   (356)  (62)   (240)  (42)

Use informal
contacts:[a]          99%    93%     99%   90%    100%   95%

 Twice a week or
  more                40%    26%     48%   33%     55%   35%
 Several times a
  month               34     20      28    27      28    11
 Once a month or
  less                26     54      23    40      18    54

Library in formal
resource-sharing
network:[b]           93%    54%     68%   43%     58%   22%

------------------------------------------------------------
[a]Sci-tech academic libraries: X2 = 8.57, df 2, p < .05;
sci-tech special libraries: X2 = 8.71, df 2, p < .05; business
libraries: X2 = 27.23, df 2, p < .001.
[b]Sci-tech academic libraries: z = 4.08, p < .001; sci-tech
special libraries: z = 3.78, p < .001; business libraries:
z = 5.09, p < .001.

                    -------------------------

     Although the use of professional associations for informal
networking contacts does not differ by type of library, the fact
that business librarians use their professional associations for
this purpose more frequently than their sci-tech colleagues
coupled with their clear preference for SLA as their association
of choice is sufficient to reject null hypothesis three.

Networking and library size

     Table 7 shows the relationship between degree of informal
networking and measures of library size for sci-tech special
libraries.  Table 8 does the same for business libraries.  For
all three measures -- budget, total employees, and number of
professionals -- there is a stronger relationship between library
size and informal networking in business libraries than in sci-
tech special libraries.

                   --------------------------

                             Table 7

       RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBRARY SIZE AND FREQUENCY OF
        INFORMAL NETWORKING IN SCI-TECH SPECIAL LIBRARIES


                                Informal Networking

Library Size              >=2x/wk      >=2x/mo      <=1x/mo
-----------------------------------------------------------
                           n   %        n   %        n   %

Library Budget

 Under $50,000            47  25%      40  36%      43  42%
 $50,000-$99,999          33  18       27  25       21  20
 $100,000-$249,999        45  24       19  17       19  18
 $250,000 and above       62  33       23  21       20  20
                         --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         187 100%     109  99%      24 100%

             X2 = 15.94, df 6, p < .05; gamma = -.23


FTE Employees

 1 or less                60  32%      45  38%      50  49%
 1.1-2.0                  38  20       34  29       20  20
 2.1-5.0                  56  30       29  25       21  20
 More than 5              34  18        9   8       12  11
                         --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         189 100%     116 100%     103 100%

             X2 = 17.05, df 6, p < .01; gamma = -.21


FTE Professionals

 Less than one            21  11%      17  15%      25  25%
 one                      95  53       66  57       45  45
 More than one            65  36       32  28       30  30
                         --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         180 100%     115 100%     101 100%

             X2 = 11.07, df 4, P < .05; gamma = -.17

                    -------------------------

                             Table 8

       RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBRARY SIZE AND FREQUENCY OF
        INFORMAL NETWORKING IN BUSINESS SPECIAL LIBRARIES


                                Informal Networking

Library Size              >=2x/wk      >=2x/mo      <=1x/mo
-----------------------------------------------------------
                           n   %        n   %        n   %

Library Budget

 Under $50,000            30  22%      16  24%      35  57%
 $50,000-$99,999          12   8       11  16        8  13
 $100,000-$249,999        42  30       26  36       12  19
 $250,000 and above       56  40       17  24        7  12
                         --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         140 100%      70 100%      61 100%

            X2 = 37.99, df 6, p < .001; gamma = -.42


FTE Employees

 1 or less                29  20%      16  38%      34  54%
 1.1-2.0                  29  20       17  29        9  14
 2.1-5.0                  41  29       25  25       13  20
 More than 5              44  31       11   8        8  12
                         --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         144 100%      69 100%      64 100%

            X2 = 31.42, df 6, p < .001; gamma = -.34


FTE Professionals

 Less than one            12   8%       6   8%      19  34%
 one                      52  37       33  49       24  44
 More than one            77  55       29  43       12  22
                         --- ---      --- ---      --- ---
                         141 100%      68 100%      56 100%

            X2 = 32.43, df 4, P < .001; gamma = -.42

                    -------------------------

     Among business librarians who are infrequent networkers --
those who engage in informal networking once a month or less --
over half are in libraries staffed by a single person or with an
annual budget under $50,000.  Seventy percent of the business
librarians who are frequent informal networkers -- those who
engage in informal networking at least twice a week -- work in
libraries with annual budgets of at least $100,000, and 60% have
two or more employees, one of whom is a professional
     Although these same relationships are evident among sci-tech
special librarians, they are not as strong as those observed for
business librarians.  Of the sci-tech librarians who are
infrequent informal networkers, 42% work in libraries with annual
budgets under $50,000 and 49% are the only employee in the
library.  Among the frequent informal networkers, 57% work in
libraries with annual budgets of $100,000 or more and 48% have
two or more employees.
     The positive relationship between these three measures of
library size and the degree of informal networking observed in
both business and sci-tech special libraries are sufficient
reasons to reject null hypothesis four.

DISCUSSION

     There are three major findings from this study of informal
networking by business and sci-tech librarians:

     1.    there is a synergistic effect between membership in
           resource-sharing networks, membership in professional
           associations and the degree to which informal
           networking takes place which is independent of library
           type.

     2.    Informal networking is also a function of library size:
           infrequent networkers tend to be in small, poorly
           funded special libraries.

     3.    Both special and sci-tech academic librarians use
           professional associations for informal information
           exchange; SLA is the primary professional association
           used for informal networking contacts, regardless of
           library type.

Synergy of networking modes

     Special librarians obtain outside information through a
synergistic combination of formal and informal networking
mechanisms:  frequent users of formal networks also engage in
more frequent informal networking.  This relationship is stronger
for business and sci-tech special librarians than for sci-tech
academic librarians.  The findings from this study indicate that
formal network membership has not replaced the earlier informal
cooperative arrangements so popular among special librarians;
rather, formal network membership supplements informal networking
by providing another vehicle for information exchange.  In
addition, librarians who are members of professional associations
also engage in informal networking more frequently than non-
members and work in libraries which are members of resource-
sharing networks.
     These findings add another dimension to existing research on
special librarians and information retrieval:  special librarians
will use a variety of sources, both commercial and cooperative,
to obtain information for their clientele.  Corporate library
members of resource-sharing networks are more active users of
multiple sources for document delivery -- informal contacts,
formal network arrangements, or commercial services -- compared
to non-members.  This research supports the assumption that
special librarians tend to use the most expedient or efficient
means possible to obtain information:  if it works, it will be
used.

Effect of library size on networking

     This analysis of factors affecting informal networking among
special librarians demonstrates there is a positive association
between the degree of informal networking and library size, as
measured by annual budget and staffing, and that this association
is stronger among business librarians than sci-tech librarians.
Analysis of formal networking patterns and library size, by
comparison, shows a stronger relationship among sci-tech special
librarians than business librarians.  These findings indicate
that business librarians in general rely more on their informal
relationships than do sci-tech special librarians.  Support for
this conclusion also comes from the finding that more sci-tech
special libraries are members of resource-sharing networks.  But
these differences in degrees of informal and formal networking by
business and sci-tech librarian do not alter the overall
relationship between library size and networking:  special
librarians who use formal networks as well as those who are
active users of informal contacts for the sharing of resources
and information come from libraries which are larger and more
affluent than those who do not.
     In addition, an annual budget of $50,000 appears to be the
discriminating factor between special librarians who exchange in
informal networking activities and those who don't.  The findings
from this research not only suggest that special libraries with
budgets under $50,000 are just too small to afford membership in
formal resource-sharing networks, this research also indicates
that these same special libraries do not network informally for
information gathering either.  This research does not support the
assumption that small, poorly funded special libraries obtain
information through informal connections in lieu of formal
network mechanisms:  these librarians don't appear to participate
in much of any type of networking for information exchange.

Networking and SLA

     Sci-tech and business librarians are active users of their
professional associations for informal information exchange.
Although the sci-tech academic librarians tend to be members of
both ALA and SLA, they prefer SLA over ALA for informal
networking contacts.  The academic librarians are more eclectic
in their choice of a most useful association for networking,
however:  although SLA was the modal choice, it was still only
mentioned by one out of four academic librarians.  Special
librarians, on the other hand, are more likely to be members of
only one professional society -- SLA -- and half of the sci-tech
special librarians and almost two-thirds of the business
librarians consider SLA the most useful association for informal
networking.
     These findings support the assumption that special
librarians -- whether in academe or in other organizations --
join SLA for networking opportunities.  SLA was founded more than
70 years ago to foster information exchange among special
librarians, and special librarians today are using their primary
association for this purpose.  However, developments in
interactive communications technology which have taken place over
the past ten years -- in particular, the phenomenal growth and
use of the Internet/NREN for collegial communication -- may have
a significant impact on the role of professional associations in
informal information exchange in the future.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Changing concept of "network"

     In the early 1970s librarianship was evolving from a period
of informal cooperation and resource sharing to a period of
formalized networking.{36}  In a 1969 review of special
library cooperation, William Budington considered the new library
networks as simply a more sophisticated form of library
cooperation, based on computerization and systems analysis.
Budington observed that library networks at this time were
developing into mechanistic, highly formalized, hierarchical
systems, with local systems being part of larger state-wide,
regional and national networks.{37}
     Today, of course, the concept of network has shifted to the
point where _network_ is now equated with _connectedness_.
Computer networks are distributed rather than centralized systems
and are based on linkages with peers, not top-down control.  The
meaning of the word, network, has changed so much in the last 20
years that conceptually the terms _network_ and _hierarchy_ are
today considered to be on opposite ends of the organizational
continuum.
     The Canadian futurist Robert Russel, in a foresighted speech
at the 1985 SLA Annual Conference, identified "network
organization" as one of three triggers of the
"informationization" of our industrial-age organizations.{38}
Russel's remarks illustrate the shift in the concept of "network"
discussed above.  A network is no longer a hard-wired system,
hierarchical in structure, distance sensitive and geographically
rigid; it's an organic system where connections change with need,
and network nodes are people-, rather than machine-based --
"super-people, supported by smart technology."{39}  Information-
age networking is pragmatic and fluid, unbound by the rules
and regulations, governing bodies and geographic restrictions
inherent in rigid hierarchical network systems like OCLC and
its web of geographically distinct, regional access networks.
And the Internet -- that assortment of intersecting electronic
networks that has grown like topsy during the last five years --
is tailor-made for information-age networking.

Impact of the Internet/NREN

     The Internet and its successor, the National Research and
Education Network (NREN), will very likely affect special
libraries in three ways:  it will enhance communication with
colleagues and clients; it will provide access to information not
available anywhere else; and it will decrease the time to obtain
information.{40}  In a 1991 survey of special librarians
Ladner and Tillman found that special librarians use the Internet
primarily for communicating with colleagues and clients, and only
secondarily for accessing remote databases.  Over 90% of the
survey participants considered electronic communication to be the
Internet's "major advantage or opportunity" for special
librarians.{41}  These librarians are already using the
Internet for informal networking, and are enthusiastic about it:
as one science librarian remarked, "Hardly a day passes that I
don't contact a colleague with a reference query or be contacted
by one.  The ability to give my patrons almost instant answers to
obscure questions is terrific."{42}
     Marsha Ra predicts that the Internet/NREN "will probably
make interlibrary loan obsolete within a generation," since
computer-based information resources will be accessed directly by
end-users rather than through an intermediary.{43}  Special
librarians need to be aware that the Internet/NREN is primarily
directed at researchers and educators, i.e., end-users, rather
than information intermediaries like librarians, and that it will
enhance and facilitate their informal communication as well.  The
fact that scientists, researchers and other information end-users
do not use libraries as their first (or even second or third)
choice for information,{44} coupled with the ease of informal
information exchange made possible through Internet/NREN
technologies has real implications for the special library.  Will
the informal networking made possible by the Internet/NREN make
the special librarian obsolete or enhance her role in the
networked organization?  This is a question that must be
addressed by future research as well as by policymakers.

Professional societies and the Internet/NREN

     Will professional associations like SLA and ALA lose their
premier place in informal information exchange, a casualty of the
enhanced communications capability provided by the Internet/NREN?
Or, like with resource-sharing in the 1980s, where the formal
resource-sharing networks did not replace informal cooperative
arrangements among special librarians, will the NREN simply
provide another way to "network?"
     Special librarians, moreso than their academic counterparts,
use the most expedient means possible to obtain information for
their clientele.  Today, as in the past, special librarians use
their memberships in their professional associations to identify
contacts for informal information exchange.  The Internet/NREN
provides access to people -- librarians as well as other
experts -- in a more timely and efficient manner than that which
is available through traditional professional association
networking mechanisms.  If a professional society does not
provide efficient communication mechanisms for its members, it
runs the risk of being bypassed for organizations which do
provide these means of communication.  Special librarians may
then shift their loyalties, for example, to more fluid and
dynamic Internet-based discussion groups or to alternative, more
technologically responsive, associations as their needs change.
     Toffler observed that professionalization of the workplace
leads to the proliferation and blurring of disciplines, where
subject areas splinter and are reshuffled, and new professional
societies are formed to fill the gap.{45}  This proliferation
in fact was observed among survey respondents, as evidenced by
the diversity of their association memberships, and there is no
reason to assume that his diversification will not continue as
professional needs change.

Future research

     In one sense, it could be argued that this study on resource
sharing in special libraries, begun in 1990, is already obsolete.
The research was planned when there were still very real
distinctions between informal networking and participation in
resource-sharing networks to obtain information from outside the
organization.  The Internet was a distant dot on the
technological horizon, not part of resource-sharing vocabulary,
and questions about its use as a resource-sharing mechanism were
not included in the survey.  On the other hand, and more
importantly, this study provides valuable baseline data on the
use of informal networking and formal resource-sharing networks
by special librarians at a point in time just before the entry of
the Internet/NREN on the special library scene.  It sets the
stage for new studies which can investigate the impact of
interactive communications technologies like Internet/NREN on the
special library and its changing role in the post-industrial
organization.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The research reported here is part of a comprehensive study
of resource sharing in special libraries, supported through a
grant awarded to the author by the Division of Sponsored
Research, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, in 1990.


NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.   Ladner, Sharyn J. "Resource Sharing in Sci-Tech and Business
     Libraries: Formal Networking Practices," Special Libraries
     83 (no. 2): 96-112 (Spring 1992).

2.   Ladner, Sharyn J. "Effect of Organizational Structure on
     Resource Sharing in Sci-Tech Libraries," Science &
     Technology Libraries 12 (no. 2): 59-83 (1991).

3.   Mount, Ellis. Special Libraries and Information Centers: An
     Introductory Text. Washington, D.C., Special Libraries
     Association, 1991. p. 2.

4.   National Committee on Libraries and Information
     Science/Special Libraries Association Task Force. Final
     Report: The Role of the Special Library in Networks and
     Cooperatives. 1984. ERIC Doc. No. ED60711. The "Executive
     Summary and Recommendations" section of the NCLIS/SLA Task
     Force Report was published as a monograph by SLA in 1984.

5.   SLA Networking Committee, Guidelines Subcommittee. Getting
     into Networking: Guidelines for Special Librarians. New
     York, Special Libraries Association, p. 1.  Also quoted by
     Strable, Edward G. "The Way It Was," The Special Library
     Role in Networks, ed., Robert W. Gibson. New York, Special
     Libraries Association, 1980, p.1.

6.   Budington, William S. "Interrelations among Special
     Librarians." Library Quarterly 39 (no. 1): 64-77 (January
     1969).

7.   Special Libraries Association. Who's Who in Special
     Libraries, 1991-92. Washington, D.C: Special Libraries
     Association, 1991. p. 7.  See also Paskoff, Beth. "Networks
     and Networking: How and Why Should Special Libraries be
     Involved," Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 94-100 (Spring
     1989).

8.   Ferguson, Elizabeth and Emily R. Mobley. Special Libraries
     at Work. Hamden, CT, Shoe String Press, 1984, pp. 146-149.

9.   Budington, op. cit., p. 67.

10.  Atkinson, Hugh C. "The Importance of People Networking: July
     7, 1985." Resource Sharing and Information Networks 4 (no.
     1): 83-90 (1987).

11.  St. Clair, Guy. "Interpersonal Networking: It is Who You
     Know." Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 107-112 (Spring, 1989).

12.  Naisbitt, John. Megatrends. New York, Warner Books, 1982, p.
     192.

13.  Budington, op. cit., p. 64.

14.  Dougherty, Richard M. and Hughes, Carol. "Library
     Cooperation: A Historical Perspective and a Vision for the
     Future." Advances in Library Resource Sharing, Volume 1.
     Westport, CT, Meckler, 1990, pp. 1-21.

15.  St. Clair, op. cit., p. 109.

16.  See Segal, JoAnn S. "Special Libraries and Multitype
     Networks." Special Libraries 80 (no. 2): 85-93 (Spring
     1989), for an overview.

17.  NCLIS/SLA Task Force, Executive Summary, op. cit., p. 18.

18.  Echelman, Shirley. "Conference Wrap-Up." The Special Library
     Role in Networks, ed., Robert W. Gibson. New York, Special
     Libraries Association, 1980, p. 288.

19.  Strable, Edward G. "The Illinois Experience: Special
     Libraries." Multitype Library Cooperation, ed., Beth A.
     Hamilton and William B. Ernst, Jr. New York, R.R. Bowker,
     pp. 138-144.

20.  Paskoff, Beth M. "Networks and Networking: How and Why
     Should Special Librarians be Involved." Special Libraries 80
     (no. 2): 94-100 (Spring 1989).

21.  Wiggins, Gary D. Factors Which Influence the Choice of
     Document Delivery Mechanisms for Serials by Selected
     Scientific and Technical Special Librarians.  Bloomington,
     IN, Indiana University, 1985. Ph.D. Dissertation.

22.  Ladner, Science & Technology Libraries, op.cit., pp. 76-78,
     80.

23.  Naisbitt, op. cit., pp. 1-2 and 189-205 (Chapter 8).

24.  Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock.  New York, Bantam Books, 1971,
     pp. 124-151 (Chapter 7).

25.  The number of non-profit membership organizations of
     national scope located in the United States has grown from
     over 12,500 in 1964 to over 23,000 in 1992, according to
     figures reported in the 1964 and 1993 editions of the
     Encyclopedia of Associations (Detroit, Gale Research Inc.).

26.  Menzel, Herbert. "Scientific Communication: Five Themes from
     Social Science Research." American Psychologist 21 (no. 11):
     999-1004 (November 1966).

27.  Griffith, Belver C. "Understanding Science: Studies of
     Communication and Information." Communication Research 16
     (no. 5): 600-614 (October 1989).

28.  Cronin, Blaise. "Invisible Colleges and Information
     Transfer: A Review and Commentary with Particular Reference
     to the Social Sciences," Journal of Documentation 38 (no.
     3): 212-236 (September 1982).

29.  Ladner, Special Libraries, 1992, op. cit.

30.  Ladner, Science & Technology Libraries, op. cit.

31.  Norusis, Marija J. SPSS Base System User's Guide. Chicago,
     SPSS Inc., 1990. 520p.

32.  Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York:
     McGraw-Hill; 1972. 583p.

33.  Lutz, Gene M. Understanding Social Statistics. New York,
     Macmillan, 1983. 530p.

34.  The distinction between professional and other categories of
     library employee was left up to the respondent.

35.  Data on academic sci-tech librarians are not included in
     Table 3 because there are too few academic sci-tech
     librarians who do not participate in resource-sharing
     networks for statistical comparison with sci-tech and
     business special librarians.

36.  Strable, Edward G. "The Way It Was," The Special Library
     Role in Networks, ed., Robert W. Gibson. New York, Special
     Libraries Association, 1980, p. 7.

37.  Budington, op. cit., p. 64-77.

38.  Russel, Robert A. "The High Tech Revolution." Special
     Libraries 77 (no. 1): 1-8 (Winter, 1986).

39.  Ibid, p. 5.

40.  Tillman, Hope N. and Ladner, Sharyn J. "Special Libraries
     and the NREN," Electronic Networking:  Research,
     Applications and Policy (in press).

41.  Ladner, Sharyn J. and Tillman, Hope N. "How Special
     Librarians Really Use the Internet: Summary of Findings and
     Implications for the Library of the Future."  Available via
     anonymous ftp from hydra.uwo.edu:/LibSoft/spec_libs.txt and
     ERIC Doc. No. ED345751.

42.  Tillman and Ladner, ENRAP, op. cit.

43.  Ra, Marsha, "Technology and Resource Sharing: Recent
     Developments and Future Scenarios." Advances in Library
     Resource Sharing, Volume 1. Westport, CT: Meckler, 1990,
     p. 149.

44.  Poland, Jean. "Informal Communication Among Scientists and
     Engineers: A Review of the Literature, Science & Technology
     Libraries, 11 (no. 3): 61-73 (Spring 1991).

45.  Toffler, op. cit. pp. 147-148.

************************************************************************
*Copyright Declaration*

Messages posted on LIBRES are the intellectual property of the person who
originally posted the message.  Permission from the author prior to
re-publication in any other medium is required.  Notification of the
LIBRES editors before publishing or speaking about LIBRES would be appreciated.

The Editorial Group:
=====================================================================
Diane K. Kovacs - Chief     dkovacs@kentvm  dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu
Julie Gedeon                jgedeon@kentvm  jgedeon@kentvm.kent.edu
Leslie Haas                 lhaas@kentvm    lhaas@kentvm.kent.edu
Tona Henderson              tah6@psuvm      tah6@psuvm.psu.edu
Don Kraft                                   kraft@bit.csc.lsu.edu
Elizabeth Lane                              elane3@ua1vm.ua.edu
Laure M. Mackay                             lmmackay@mailbox.syr.edu
Amey Park                   apark@kentvm    apark@kentvm.kent.edu
Kara Robinson               krobinso@kentvm krobinso@kentvm.kent.edu
Barbara Schloman            bschloma@kentvm bschloma@kentvm.kent.edu
====================================================================
The Advisory Board:
====================================================================
Barbara Berger
Tom Froehlich               tfroehli@kentvm   tfroehli@kentvm.kent.edu
Ellen Detlefsen             ellen@pittvms     ellen@idis.lis.pitt.edu
Rosemary Dumont             rdumont@kentvm    rdumont@kentvm.kent.edu
Stevan Harnad                                 harnad@princeton.edu
Ann Okerson                                   ann@cni.org
=====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU