Information Commons Redux: Concept,Evolution, and Transcending the Tragedyof the Commonsby Russell Bailey and Barbara Tierney

This article reviews“information commons”concepts and describes

administrative and functionalintegration in an academic

library information commons.The roles of inclusive planning

structures and carefulintegration through an

enhanced information desk aredelineated, emphasizing teambuilding that results from this

implementation. The articlediscusses potential problems

and suggests solutions.

Russell Bailey is Associate UniversityLibrarian for Information Commons, J.

Murrey Atkins Library, University ofNorth Carolina Charlotte, 9203

University City Boulevard, Charlotte,North Carolina 28223-0001

�rbailey@email.uncc.edu�; andBarbara Tierney is Associate Professor,

Library Public Services Group Chair,Information Desk Coordinator, J. Murrey

Atkins Library, University of North CarolinaCharlotte, 9203 University City Boulevard,

Charlotte, North Carolina 28223-0001.

The phrase and various conceptual-izations of information commons(Commons) have gained currency

in recent years. Much has been writtenand published on the topic of the Com-mons, both in print and on the Web, andmany versions of the Commons have atleast begun to be implemented. Most ofthis Commons activity includes an em-phasis on higher technologies and a focuson information access for various groups(e.g., students and citizens of a particulararea), and some of it is located in librar-ies. This article briefly reviews variousconceptualizations and the state of Com-mons implementations, then focuses spe-cifically on a particular library-based in-tegrated-services model. Furthermore, thearticle provides some examples and ra-tionales for integration in the functionaland strategic administrative/organiza-tional domains, describes the evolutionarydevelopment to date of one integratedmodel, and suggests directions for furtherdevelopments. The discussion of func-tional integration focuses on the pivotalrole of the Information Desk concept andits relationship to a well-known servicemodel. The ongoing role of evaluationand assessment in Commons develop-ment is described. The article finallybroaches the “tragedy of the commons”notion and suggests how some aspects oftragedy might be transcended.

COMMONS CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

Information Commons conceptualizationsare of three basic types:

1. The world of information, especiallydigital information on or via the Web,as the macro-Commons;1

2. Areas, modules, or components of aninstitution with a high concentration of

computer/digital technologies, periph-erals, software options, and networkinfrastructure, as a more localized ormicro-Commons;2 and

3. Integrated centers for research, teach-ing, and learning, with a strong digitalfocus and often housed in or at leastinclusive of a library, a more inte-grated Commons (“continuum ofservice”).3

The last type is of primary interest tothe discussion here.

In 1999, Donald Beagle,4 togetherwith commentators Martin Halbert5 andPhilip Tramdack,6 presented substantivetheoretical and applied roadmaps for anintegrated Information Commons in anacademic library environment. Their dis-cussion of concepts and implementationfocused on the need to provide:

● Research guidance and technical sup-port for patrons, who need access toinformation in all formats, with an ever-increasing quantity of digital resources;

● Access to appropriate hardware andproduction/presentation software toprocess the acquired information asneeded and support for these hardware/software resources;

● Appropriate physical spaces to allow,support, and enhance patrons’ researchand production;

● Clear intent on the part of the institu-tion, the library administration, and in-volved staff to create, support, andmaintain these structures and services;7

and● A cultural environment and mecha-

nisms that encourage, shepherd, andnurture evolutionary change, which isinevitable in academic libraries.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 28, Number 5, pages 277–286 September 2002 277

Numerous other writings, including arecent article by Allison Cowgill et al.8

contribute to the catalog of theoretical andpractical knowledge on Commons devel-opment. Most of this catalog is on theWeb, and examples of Commons imple-mentation are not primarily or exclusivelyin the library.9 Still, the body of knowl-edge in support of the integrated servicesmodel within an academic library is con-vincing enough to elicit clear intent andcommitment from many institutions, suchas the University of North Carolina atCharlotte (UNCC).

STRATEGIC FIT AND FUNCTIONAL

INTEGRATION

Beagle stressed strategic fit and func-tional integration.10 He cited, amongother illustrative examples, his work inthe Commons at UNCC. He has sincemoved to a library directorship, but muchof the understructure that he described inhis seminal article has continued toevolve at UNCC. He chaired a broadlyfocused UNCC Information CommonsTask Force in 1998 through 1999,charged by the Provost with investigatingthe literature and national models to de-termine how a Commons might be imple-mented in terms of physical space andservice framework and how a nascentFaculty Center for Teaching might be lo-cated in the Commons, whereby the Com-mons and the Faculty Center for Teachingmight be substantively interrelated. As inmany institutions, the Commons concepthad been under discussion for severalyears, and the Information CommonsTask Force focused and extended this dis-cussion toward recommendations, whichcould be implemented. The in-house re-port of this Information Commons TaskForce11 was informed by Beagle’s con-ceptual article, which the Task Force readand that was published in 1999.

STRATEGIC FIT

Figure 1 illustrates strategic fit (in termsof organizational/administrative integra-tion), as it has evolved in the UNCCCommons based on Beagle’s work. Theformal Commons structure has evolvedsomewhat since Beagle’s 1999 article, ashas the primary mechanism for theoreticaland applied Commons activity, the Infor-mation Commons Planning Group. Such aPlanning Group is an essential componentof Commons initiatives and usuallymoves the initiative from concept to im-plementation. The formal Commons con-

sists of five sections with heads/coordina-tors, who report directly to the head of theCommons (the solid-line bolded networkof Figure 1): (1) Reference Services (deskservices, research consultations, partici-pation in print and Web collection devel-opment, class Web page development,and library instruction and departmentaloutreach), (2) Research Data Services(consultation for large data-file searching,retrieval, and manipulation), (3) MediaServices (desk services for an extendedpublic-access computer lab, support formultimedia, graphics, and scanning re-sources and for general instructional tech-nology), (4) Instructional Services (class-assignment-based library instructionincluding some Web-based material), and(5) Information Desk (first-response loca-tion for information and informed refer-rals to service desks, specialists, and allareas of the Library).

This Commons Planning Group con-sisted originally of a few Library faculty

and staff, primarily the three formal Com-mons section heads. As is often true withfunctional teams, the Planning Group hasevolved in make-up, size, and function asa Commons integrating mechanism. Ac-tual Commons strategic fit is revealed bythe make-up of Planning Group member-ship. In Figure 1 this “enhanced Com-mons,” as represented by the PlanningGroup, consists of not only the formalCommons (heads of the Commons and itsfive formal constituent sections and addi-tional representatives from each of thesesections), but also representatives fromevery section of the Library and from therelated Faculty Center for Teaching: allsecond-level (Associate and Assistant)administrators except human resources(Systems, Access & Outreach Services,Collections & Technical Services andSpecial Collections), heads of the othertwo public service desks (Circulation andReserves), the director of the FacultyCenter for Teaching, and various repre-

Figure 1Information Commons Strategic Fit

Solid line � more direct or more formal relationship; dashed line � more indirect or more informal relationship.

278 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

sentatives from Commons service staff(the dotted network of Figure 1). ThePlanning Group is open as a “public meet-ing” to the entire Library staff.

The Planning Group meets regularlyand is responsible for developing allCommons resource and service plans andpolicies. Agenda items and issues comefrom patron input, individual Librarystaff, Library unit meetings, and weeklyor bi-weekly administrative meetingswith the head of the Library, or simplyarise during the discussion. Issues are dis-cussed and processed in the PlanningGroup and are often referred out for de-velopment or approval. The PlanningGroup serves to build strategic fitthrough: (1) its constituent nature (allunits of the Library and occasionallyother University units), (2) its broad for-mal and informal communications (withall units of the Library and other Univer-sity units), and (3) its activities and initi-atives, which emanate into all areas of theLibrary and beyond. The Planning Groupreceives and transmits communicationsand input in all formats (e.g., face-to-facemeetings, Commons listservs, paper-printcommuniques, and Commons Web site).Regular meeting minutes are distributedLibrary-wide. Memoranda and communi-ques move almost constantly between thePlanning Group and various related groups.From the Planning Group emanate infor-mation-gathering activities (simple ques-tions to fairly elaborate surveys), whichprovide input to fuel and enrich discus-sions and planning. The Planning Groupissues recommendations to Library com-mittees for policy decisions and decidesand implements action plans.

The administrative head of the Com-mons has a broad array of interactions.This administrative figure meets regularlywith the head of the Library, with allLibrary administrators, and with stafffrom throughout the Library, and partici-pates in regular meetings with University-wide agendas (including monthly meet-ings with the Provost). Participation bythe head of the Commons in this networkof intra-Commons information and ideas(as in Figure 1) interfacing with the Li-brary- and University-wide networks,constitutes the dynamic web of informa-tion and ideas that create the Commons’strategic fit in and beyond the Library.

One final initiative in creating strategicfit is strategic planning. As is common ininstitutions of higher education, UNCCplans strategically to merge concept withimplementation with funding. Five-year

academic (strategic) plans are updatedand regenerated every two years, from theinstitutional to the unit level. This activitywas also undertaken in the Commons.The strategic planning activity served notonly formally to complete this strategicplanning task for the Commons unit, butactually allowed and precipitated intense,focused, and broad-based design and cre-ation of the Commons. The vision-mis-sion-goals-and-objectives document wascreated as a work-in-progress. It is a dy-namic and purposefully “fat product,” aworking document created to be inclu-sive, to bring intense and broad-based en-ergy to focus on questions of:

● What is the Commons?● What are vision and mission of the

Commons?● What are Commons-wide and unit

goals and objectives for the next severalyears?

The vision documents set about an-swering these questions in a manner thatencourages and allows the dynamic Com-mons to be created and to evolve in anongoing way. The process extended overeight months, with the purpose of creatinga set of valid, working documents of in-tegrity, which enjoy broad support andserve as the basis for ongoing planningand implementation activities. The docu-ments are in the Appendix and are acces-sible together with goals, objectives, andother relevant materials, on the CommonsWeb site at http://libweb.uncc.edu/library/infocom/ (April 15, 2002). The documentwas presented as a working document, tobe reviewed and refined in the next plan-ning process; it now serves as the basisfor Commons planning and activities.Similar documents related to planning, vi-sion, mission, goals, objectives, floorplans, and other aspects of numerousCommons in higher education are avail-able at http://www.brookdale.cc.nj.us/library/infocommons/ic_home.html(April 15, 2002).

The process for developing strategic fithas several forces forming and driving it.Over the last decade, the heads of theLibrary had begun developing the ideasinherent in an integrated Commons. Thisprolonged gestation and developmentprocess is typical of Commons initiatives.A few years ago the head of the Libraryhired administrators to begin actually de-veloping a Commons. The UniversityProvost (representing top-echelon admin-istration) charged a task force with a

Commons-focused investigation and mak-ing recommendations. This administrativestructure, which supported developmentof a Commons, has remained relativelyfocused and well funded.

The present head of the Commons cre-ated a structure to support and refine theCommons focus and developed mecha-nisms to move the enterprise forward. Aset of regular formal and informal meet-ings within and beyond the Commonshelped nurture a functional Commonsnetwork. As indicated in Figure 1, thePlanning Group pulled together constitu-ents from throughout the Library and inso doing helped create a sort of grassroots, organically developed focus of stra-tegic fit.

FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION

Figure 2 illustrates functional integrationas it is being implemented in the UNCCCommons. Functional integration re-quires staff flexibility and adaptabilitysufficient to support the new patterns ofservice.

“Functional integrationrequires staff flexibility and

adaptability sufficient tosupport the new patterns of

service.”

Within academic library staff models,there is tremendous variation along thecontinuum of staff resources from thegeneralist collaborator (similar to Bea-gle’s “hybrid support staff”12) or flexible,well cross-trained professional at one end,to the pigeonholed staff or professionalspecialist (back-office consultants orstrict subject specialists or bibliographers)at the other. The integrated-servicesmodel requires cooperation among staffwho represent all the points along thecontinuum and emphasizes integrative ac-tivities: vertical integration and coopera-tion within units (including the Library asa whole), and horizontal integration andcooperation among units.

Adaptation of a model for researchconsultation known as the Brandeis Uni-versity model,13 if extrapolated from onlyreference services across the Commonsand the Library to all service desks, servesto facilitate integration of these variousstaff resources. The Brandeis Universitymodel reassigned paraprofessional staff

September 2002 279

(graduate assistants from special fields,but it could include other staff) to a deskto provide informed referrals, and to fieldand process basic, and sometimes mid-level, reference questions, freeing up theprofessional reference specialists formore in-depth work and extensive consul-tations with patrons. “In this model, grad-uate students staff the general referencedesk. They are trained by a professionallibrarian to answer low-level questionsand have an “Information Desk AssistantsManual” of approximately 100 pages toassist them. They refer all other questions,even in areas in which they may havesome subject expertise, to the professionallibrarians in the consultation. . . . Themodel allows 20 minutes per patron, ifneeded, for consultation.”14 Another

model described by Graves15 used para-professional staff with similarly success-ful results. The UNCC adaptation of theBrandeis model uses paraprofessionalstaff and student assistants (graduate andundergraduate), who are overseen by aprofessional librarian. The InformationDesk staff provide informed referrals andnegotiate appropriate levels of servicewith the specific desks (circulation, mediaservices, reference, and reserves).

Implementation of this adapted modelinforms Beagle’s Information Desk, whichis the “first point of contact and general helpcenter”16 and the primary locus for in-formed referrals emanating out into physi-cal and virtual library resources. Thisadapted model has been implemented in theCommons as it evolves at UNCC.

“The Information Desk servesas the first point of service thatlibrary patrons encounter upon

entering the building,providing basic information on

all services and resourceswithin the Library, as well asgeneral information about the

University.”

At the functional center of the Com-mons, is the Information Desk (what Bea-gle termed the “general information andreferral desk”). The Information Deskserves as the first point of service thatlibrary patrons encounter upon enteringthe building, providing basic informationon all services and resources within theLibrary, as well as general informationabout the University. When the patron’squery moves to a certain level of com-plexity, Information Desk staff membersare trained to provide informed referralsto other desks or specialized staff andlocations. With the Information Desk asthe functional central focus of the Com-mons, the other areas and desks providethe following services and resources:

● Research Data Services provide re-sources and direct support to the cam-pus community for its machine-read-able data needs. The technologyresources (computer hardware and soft-ware) are accessible in public areas andstaff-mediated areas. Research DataServices staff assist researchers byidentifying available data, obtainingdata through memberships or purchase,reformatting the data into a useable for-mat for the researcher, and assisting theresearcher in manipulating the data andpresenting them in a variety of formats.Research Data Services staff also pro-duce end products for instructional sup-port (datasets and maps). Staff are alsointegral participants in various Com-mons-wide initiatives.

● Instructional Services provide educa-tional support in library services andresources to the campus community.Twelve professional librarians providedlibrary instruction, being primarily as-signment specific and research processoriented for all levels of the universitycurriculum. Facilities for instruction in-clude two instruction rooms locatedwithin Atkins Library, with one room

Figure 2Information Commons Functional Integration

Solid line � more direct or more formal relationship; dashed line � more indirect or more informal relationship.

280 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

having 20 PCs available to students forhands-on instruction and the other roomhaving a demonstration terminal. A 20-unit mobile wireless laptop classroomprovides additional options. Staff arealso integral participants in variousCommons-wide initiatives.

● Media Services provide resources anddirect support for patrons’ production/presentation activities in various media(print, sound, and still and moving im-ages). The technology resources (e.g.,extensive computer hardware and a fullrange of applications software and pe-ripherals) are accessible in public areasand specialty and staff-mediated labs.Instruction in the use of the resources isprovided primarily on an as-needed ba-sis; plans for more instructional sessionsare in development. Media Services alsosupport instructional equipment in manyUNCC classrooms, offer some supportfor faculty online teaching (e.g., WebCT),and provide facilities and technical sup-port for distance learning, videoconfer-ences, and television production (theUniversity channel). Staff are also inte-gral participants in various Commons-wide initiatives.

● Reference Services provide traditionaland high-technology-enhanced ser-vices. The Reference Unit serves as aguide and intermediary to the growingprint collection and to an increasingnumber of complex online resourcesfrom commercial publishers, non-profitbodies, all levels of government, andintergovernmental agencies. Librariansand staff who comprise the ReferenceUnit serve scheduled hours at the Ref-erence Desk, which is the front line inteaching students and other patronsone-on-one how to best utilize thebooks, journals, newspapers, govern-ment documents, full-text resources,online bibliographic databases, andother sources necessary to undertake re-search for writing term papers, complet-ing homework assignments, and con-ducting university quality research.Members of the Reference Unit alsoteach large numbers of classes; createuseful and innovative Web sites; rec-ommend materials for the collections,including reference; and generate user’sguides for students. They are also inte-gral participants in the Liaison Programand various Commons-wide initiatives.

Functional integration is accomplishedprimarily through the Information Desk,which sits at the center of a broad array of

Commons constituent participants (Figure2). The Information Desk serves as thefirst point of contact for patrons, respondsto needs or uses information from patroncontact to make an appropriate informedreferral. The Information Desk is also thedynamic repository of Library informa-tion (from contact and service directoriesto schedules, specialty resources, andbookings for collaborative work areas),and its primary mission is to provide gen-eral library and campus information aswell as informed referrals to other publicservice desks and all areas within the Li-brary. In addition, the Information Deskat UNCC, among other things, books li-brary collaborative study areas, assistswith library security functions, monitorsvarious machine problems, and providesthe headquarters for nighttime “manager-on-duty” activities.

As Beagle pointed out, “the physicalspace of an Information Commons mayvary from campus to campus, but certainkey features tend to emerge. One featureis the new importance of a general infor-mation and referral desk which functionsas first point of contact and general helpcenter.” 17 He quoted a University of To-ronto planning document that stated: “Wepropose that the Information Commonshave a front help desk serving as a singlepoint of contact for information technol-ogy support, supported by specializedsupport desks . . . . The front help deskshould be accessible by telephone, e-mail,and the World Wide Web.”18 As has beenthe case with many Commons initiatives,the move from Information Desk conceptto reality has been slow and incremental.

The conceptual proposal for the Infor-mation Desk went through numerous iter-ations before it received administrativeapproval. Because the Information Deskwas considered by a majority of staff as anecessary component of the Commons,many typical and potential difficultieswere avoided or relatively easily resolved.More typical issues, which appeared andwere at least temporarily resolved, are:

● Specific expectations of the desk staffvis-a-vis the other service points in theCommons;19

● Ideal staffing options, job descriptions,and hiring procedures;

● Interim staffing options (voluntary re-assignment of existing staff), includingstudent assistants;

● Creation and nurturance of a broad, in-formal team committed to success ofthe Information Desk;

● Creation and updating of appropriateinformational documentation for Infor-mation Desk staff;

● Training of interim and full-time staff(primary and ongoing); and

● Formative and summative evaluationprocedures for ongoing refinement.

The two most important long-term issuesare training and evaluation.

Primary and ongoing training is essen-tial to functional success of the Informa-tion Desk and of primary importance increating a collaborative attitude amongstaff. Allison Cowgill, Joan Beam, andLindsey Wess placed great emphasis ontraining in their article as well.20 To traineffectively, it is important that a respon-sible person or group (coordinator or co-ordinating team) create and describe therequisite competencies and skills for In-formation Desk staff. These will probablyinclude purely informational competen-cies specific to the Information Desk, aswell as base-level knowledge of servicesprovided by all service desks. Training isprobably best provided by specialistsfrom each service area or desk and isusually most effective in small groups(5–10). Task descriptions based on perti-nent training materials and followed byhands-on practice ensure the most effec-tive training. The training can be updatedregularly via logs, listservs, and other me-dia, as well as in periodic formal sessions.This base-level knowledge of all servicesbrings greater substance to the informedreferral, which is probably the activity ofthe Information Desk and that enjoys thegreatest and most widespread impact.

The informal, incidental creation of anInformation Desk team is one of the mosteffective and influential results of this andsimilar Commons initiatives. The for-merly discrete units (Reference, ResearchData, Instructional, and Media Services)relinquish their segregation for the com-mon good. As Beagle predicted, “Whilecore services retain their respective iden-tities, the Information Commons createsan environment where old boundaries areblurred and many constituent activitiesflow across the old unit divisions.”21 No-where is the validity of Beagle’s state-ment more in evidence than in the staffingand provision of services at the Informa-tion Desk.

At times, the patron receives an ac-ceptable response immediately at the In-formation Desk. At other times, the pa-tron is referred (being either sent or led tothe point of referral), where the patron

September 2002 281

either receives an acceptable response oris referred on for further, and usuallymore substantive, consultation. This pro-cess may continue until the patron re-ceives an adequate response to his or herneed. The staff often maintains contactthroughout the process until the patron’sneed has been met. Thus, the Commonsstaff meets the patron’s need somewherealong the continuum from “first-re-sponse” to “extensive consultation.” De-pending on the model, the InformationDesk staff can either refer patrons earlier,at a lower level of complexity, or later,depending on the level of training, re-sponsibility, and authority vested in theInformation Desk staff. Some specialtydesks prefer extensive control of patronquestions at all or most levels, and somedesks decide on less control and higherlevels of complexity before the patron isreferred. The point of referral depends onagreement and comfort level decided bythe local Commons staffing team. In someservice areas (presentation, circulation,and some research questions) at UNCC,the level of complexity at which the pa-tron is referred out is slowly rising astraining and collaboration dictate.

One additional aspect of UNCC’sCommons, which is partially resolved andintegrated at the Information Desk, relatesto Beagle’s question: “Does the virtualenvironment work better with uniformityor differentiation?”22 At UNCC, as inmany institutions, multiple computer plat-forms, profiles, and so forth, co-exist andpersist, usually for reasons other than in-tentional design. For instance, the UNCCcampus network runs on Novell, but theLibrary moved from Novell to MicrosoftNT about four years ago (to break throughincompatibility and related issues). Thedual network structure persists, the Li-brary still runs almost all of its machineson Microsoft NT, and many Library staffare enamored of this platform out of ha-bituation. The reference/research ma-chines run on NT and use a particularreference profile. One area in the Com-mons runs Novell (this is the production/presentation area, which is almost identi-cal in resources, look, and so on, to otherstudent labs on campus). Although thesedifferences present few difficulties for theinitiated, they are problematic for manypatrons and some staff. Patrons are oftensimply unable to locate the resourceneeded (e.g., to find the appropriate data-base or move an informational file intoappropriate production/presentation soft-

ware) or to move information to produc-tion software.

When designing and implementing theInformation Desk, the CoordinatingTeam, the head of the Commons, and thehead of Systems saw an opportunity toovercome some of these difficulties andto move toward integration. Drawing onHalbert’s response to Beagle’s question,the group contemplated what Halbertcalls ubiquity: “Cars, telephones, andvending machines are ubiquitous featuresof everyday life precisely because theystrike this intuitive balance. The challengein designing Infocommons workstationsis the same—to . . . really make the con-cept work. There must be a critical massof fundamental commonalities; at Emorythese are identified as logon procedure,common GUI and menu approaches, andcore sets of software resources.”23 Al-though UNCC has not yet been successfulat achieving the solution that Emoryachieved, the Commons has moved incre-mentally toward it by having both net-works (Novell and NT) and all availablesoftware applications active on computersat the Information Desk: InformationDesk staff can locate, demonstrate, trou-ble-shoot, and so forth, virtually every-thing that a patron would encounter onpublic machines. The Commons maymove eventually to a single network plat-form with differentiation and movementoccurring digitally as the patron deter-mines her or his need; at present, thepatron must physically move to the de-sired network platform/software re-sources.

One final aspect of the Commons,which emanates from the InformationDesk, is the use of collaborative work/study areas. As Beagle suggested, “anoth-er key feature of the Information Com-mons is the coordinated and extended setof study and workspaces offering an arrayof options ranging from traditional indi-vidual study to collaborative conferenceareas.”24 Beagle quoted Charlene Hurt’sobservations, that “teaching and learningare becoming more collaborative . . . li-brary users need group study rooms andtables, individual and group carrels, and amix of seating comfortable for variousstyles of working together. They alsoneed access to media and technology inshared environments . . . .”25 Beagle fur-ther cited Hurt’s implications of this de-sign concept on delivery of reference andinstructional services: “[w]e have to ac-commodate a variety of learning styles,including classroom instruction, small

group coaching, individual appointments,and drop-in assistance. The library mustinclude a networked flexible instructionroom, workstation carrels for smallgroups, a reference and/or informationdesk for drop-ins, and nearby offices forsustained consultation.”26

With the opening of the new Com-mons, there is now a variety of collabo-rative work/study areas available to Li-brary patrons. These include a total of 18group study rooms (three of which offercomputer/DVD equipment and two ofwhich offer specialized AV equipment forADA patrons), four conference rooms,and five classrooms. Most of these col-laborative work/study areas are withineasy access to the Information, Reference,and Media Services Desks, and are avail-able to patrons all hours that the Library isopen to the public.

To summarize functional integration inthe Commons, the concept of the Infor-mation Desk, based on a refinement ofdescriptions from Beagle et al. and anadaptation of the Brandeis model, createda road map for functional integration inthe Commons. Typical constraints of bud-get unpredictability, extending and re-structuring staff assignments, and reori-enting staff and patrons to new servicepatterns, could have created intractableimpediments to implementation. In fact,the feasibility of the original (and refined)concept coupled with intra-Library intentand momentum resulted in a very work-able and functionally integrated pattern ofservices in the Commons as depicted inFigure 2. There is regular interactionamong all points of service activity.Whenever there is a question or concernneeding quick response or informed refer-ral, it is usually funneled through the In-formation Desk—the terms “information-al triage” or “informational switchboard”has been used in several conversations.The next section looks at determininghow well it functions.

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

“Clear and effective evaluationand assessment are requisitecomponents of any academicservice area and have direct

implications for funding.”

Clear and effective evaluation and assess-ment are requisite components of any ac-

282 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

ademic service area and have direct im-plications for funding. Thus, they havebeen emphasized as an integral compo-nent of the Commons. Three professionalstaff recently participated in the Associa-tion of Research Libraries online lyceum“Measuring Library Service Quality.”Lessons and expertise from this work andother evaluation/assessment expertisefrom within the Library have beenbrought to two evaluation/assessment in-itiatives: a Library Instruction Assess-ment Committee and a Public ServiceDesk Assessment Committee. Each com-mittee is designing an evaluation/assess-ment program using appropriate quantita-tive and qualitative data. The structurescorrespond to both formative and summa-tive evaluation of Library services. TheCommons staff are standardizing statisti-cal data collection and storing these datain spreadsheet (Excel) and database (Ac-cess) format for processing and analysisby the resident Commons SPSS statisticalsoftware expert. Several survey instru-ments are in development: (1) a survey ofstaff members, who have served at theInformation Desk, (2) at least one surveyof Library patrons vis-a-vis public servicedesk effectiveness, and (3) instrumentsfor students and for faculty (Library andclassroom) participating in Library in-struction. Carefully structured “focusgroups” will also be used wherever pos-sible. Anecdotal data and regular self-re-ports will provide additional informationto enrich evaluation/assessment activities.

The Commons staff is using these in-struments on a pilot basis now and in thefollowing semester. Reports from the var-ious committees and other evaluation/as-sessment groups will wend their waythrough administrative and faculty Li-brary councils for input, refinement, andapproval. These focused evaluation/as-sessment efforts, which have emanatedmost strongly from the Commons, willthen move throughout the other areas ofthe Library. In a sense these Commonsevaluation/assessment initiatives serve tointegrate services across the Library bothfunctionally and administratively.

THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

In reviewing concepts of the “commons,”some interested and concerned profes-sionals in various fields have raised in-triguing cautionary flags. They have pro-phetically described and explicated a“tragedy of the commons,”27 a character-istic human tendency (“the remorselessworking of things”28), which is inherent

in “commons” systems: the tendency tofreely consume “commons” resourceswithout responsible maintenance and re-plenishment of these same resources. Al-though this particular tragedy has beendocumented primarily in the natural envi-ronment (farmers sharing grazing terri-tory and fishermen sharing common wa-ters), these same tendencies are at work inthe information commons environment aswell. Lessig discusses this tragedy of theinformation commons and describes it asa tragedy pertaining to depletable re-sources, resources that he describes as“rivalrous.”29

Left unmonitored some patrons wouldabuse resources to the point that theywere depleted or somehow despoiled andmade insufficient for patron needs. Onecan take certain steps to monitor and ap-ply resources in an appropriate and effi-cient enough manner to transcend thetragedy. One implements “pay-for-print”to stem the flood of patron printing. Onecan lock down access to computer pro-files and segments of the drives and net-work and can implement self-re-ghosting(re-creating the computer’s image) or useself-cleansing software (e.g., Fortress’Clean Slate) to prevent downloading ofsoftware (resource pollution), purge un-wanted files, and so forth, as a means ofensuring the most efficient and equitableuse of resources. Only certain patrons (in-stitution’s students, faculty, and staff) areauthenticated to use proprietary data-bases. These are common steps to tran-scend this particular tragedy in the Com-mons’ information environment.

“Probably the most effective,long-term resolution to the

threat of resource depletion isthe sort of careful, consistenttraining and education of staffand patrons, which is at the

heart of the Information Deskconcept.”

Probably the most effective, long-termresolution to the threat of resource deple-tion is the sort of careful, consistent train-ing and education of staff and patrons,which is at the heart of the InformationDesk concept. Just as staff are trained andeducated to consider patron needs care-fully, and to respond and refer appropri-

ately, staff are urged to train and educatepatrons to select and use resources in themost efficient and effective manner. Re-sources are then more often used to sup-port patrons’ academic needs, diminish-ing use for less relevant chat, personale-mail, consumer shopping, and other lessappropriate activities. This approachsaves time and access for more pertinentwork. Staff members encourage patronsto use the most appropriate form for sav-ing and moving work (floppy disk, zipdisk, readable CD, or e-mail attachmentinstead of printing). This approach savespaper, toner, and other printing resources.

At least two other tragedies imperilinformation environments such as librar-ies, especially in the context of the Com-mons concept, and they are more intrac-table to change. One is the resistanceculture of limited responsibility; the otheris the chauvinist culture of expertise.

It is problematic for the Commonswhen individuals or groups stake territo-rial claim to a particular area or a partic-ular service or level of service. An exam-ple of this tragedy of chauvinism is whenthe high-end graphic specialist or thechemistry librarian wants all queries re-lated to graphics or chemistry sent to her/him to avoid wrong answers. As with thetragedy of depleted resources, probablythe most effective, long-term resolution tothe tragedy of chauvinism is the collabo-rative efforts based on careful, consistenttraining and education of staff and pa-trons, which is at the heart of the Infor-mation Desk concept. When professionaland paraprofessional staff can negotiateagreement on the authority of the variousstaff (including Information Desk staff) tobe allowed to handle basic informationquestions and less complex computer ap-plication, research, or circulation ques-tions, then the claim of specialized staff tothe territory of more complex questionsremains intact and is less likely to havedetrimental effect on the use of availableresources to provide patron-requested ser-vices. This collaborative approach to re-sponding to patron needs decreases thelikelihood of the tragedy of chauvinism.

The idea that only an expert should beallowed to respond to any query in her/hisarea has been questioned and, at times,countered in practice and studies of com-puter labs, libraries, and schools (peer tu-toring and counseling) for some years.The “correct” answer is elusive and, attimes, overemphasized. Concepts such ascross-training to provide first-responseand to clarify the valuable role of in-

September 2002 283

formed referrals to areas or staff withexpertise (be it for chemistry databases,PhotoShop capabilities, or accurate ren-dering of diacritics from another lan-guage) can be very helpful in transcend-ing this tragedy of chauvinism, whenthese concepts are integrated into theCommons culture.

It is similarly problematic when indi-viduals or groups proscribe their partici-pation in the provision of service. Anexample of this tragedy of resistance iswhen presentation software support staffrespond to a patron seeking guidancefinding periodical information saying“that’s a Library question,” instead of tak-ing time to “interview” the patron to de-termine need for an appropriate referral. Itundermines the Commons concept whenareas, spaces, or services are segregatedin terms of responsibility or authority.

Informal and incidental lures into otherareas of responsibility often pull resistantstaff outside their areas of official respon-sibility into new and sometimes refresh-ing areas of activity. The movement ofstaff into new spaces and areas of respon-sibility to staff the Information Deskserved to transcend the tragedy of resis-tance in the Commons at UNCC. Staffresponded directly to patrons as theycame in the door, even if their normalofficial responsibilities kept them totallyout of contact with the public. Staff an-swered questions (sometimes by referringdirectly to the informational binder on theshelf beside them), when they had onlylearned about a service in a cross-trainingsession the day before. Staff referred apatron to an area or staff person withpertinent expertise (sometimes by simplychecking for subject-area experts on theWeb site), even when they had neverheard of this area or person before (oronly in a recent cross-training session). Atleast some of these staff forgot their re-sistance and moved outside their areas ofassigned responsibility simply becausethe goal (in this case the staffing of theInformation Desk) was so clear andmeaningful that they were allowed tomake the choice. Once there, many ofthese staff decided they would like tocontinue their participation (according tocompleted staff surveys).

Tragedies such as these will continueto haunt the Commons. It is incumbentupon Commons administrators and partic-ipants to remain aware of these tendenciesand learn to create, adopt, and adaptmechanisms for transcending them or atleast minimizing their effect.

CONCLUSION

Of the several iterations of InformationCommons that exist or are being devel-oped, the integrated Commons in an aca-demic library environment is one that at-tempts to provide a seamless continuumof patron service from planning and re-search through presentation into finalproduct. Guidance on concept and imple-mentation of this integrated InformationCommons model, taken from Beagle et al.has been adapted and implemented in theUNC Charlotte Library.

The most important and powerful re-sult of this integrative theory-into-praxisis the professional and paraprofessionalteam, which can be built in an informal,incidental manner. The conceptual andfunctional integration is an effective andefficient model for provision of informa-tional services. However, the synergisticmomentum of an integrated team is hu-man resource capital, which can bringgreater efficiency and effectiveness toother initiatives within the Library andbeyond.

The Information Commons, as with all“commons” entities and systems, sufferscertain tendencies, which are counterpro-ductive and enervating, so-called “trage-dies,” and it is sensible to bear them inmind. Awareness and careful monitoringof these tendencies will allow greater con-trol over them. Like any other system, the“commons” must be nurtured and pro-tected against abuse and misuse, whichotherwise move toward depletion of re-sources or systemic dysfunction.

Ongoing work and reports from thefield are clarifying the role that an Infor-mation Commons model can play in theprovision of informational services. Twosuch substantive efforts are David Mur-ray’s “Information Commons—a Direc-tory of Innovative Services and Resourcesin Academic Libraries” (at http://www.brookdale.cc.nj.us/library/infocommons/ic_home.html [April 16, 2002]) and Law-rence Lessig’s recent (2001) monograph,The Future of Ideas. The Fate of the Com-mons in a Connected World. Murray’sdirectory provides access to rich materialsfrom academic libraries with functionalCommons. This directory also documentsthe extensive interest in and variety ofCommons initiatives. Lessig’s volume ismore broadly conceptual in its focus onthe larger macro-commons. He empha-sizes the creative and innovative energiesthat symbiotically thrive and nurture eachother in the Commons environment.30

The model that he describes provides bothan environment and patterns of interac-tion, which integrate the resources (hu-man, facilities, technology, informationalcontent, and software) in a synergisticmanner to enhance provision of patronservices in innovative and creative ways.

APPENDIX

Information Commons Vision

The central purpose of the Library’sInformation Commons is to provide infor-mational services that facilitate and en-hance the teaching-learning-research en-terprise at UNC Charlotte both as it existsand as it develops a more substantive re-search character. The Information Com-mons, in close collaboration with Accessand Outreach Services, Library Systems,and other Library units, aspires to providedynamic, integrative access to: (1) appro-priate spaces, (2) informational and tech-nological resources, and (3) informationaland production support services for UNCCharlotte’s current and changing studentand non-student patrons—undergraduateand graduate students, faculty, staff, andcommunity users, whether these patronsare on campus or remote.

The Information Commons, consistingof Instructional, Media, Reference, andResearch Data Services, seeks to meet theinformational needs of its primary pa-trons, who are, at once, undergraduates(80�%; 15,000), graduates, and the fac-ulty who teach them. With an ever-in-creasing number of graduate students asthe University evolves from Doctoral In-tensive to Doctoral Extensive in the nextdecade and grows to a student body ofapproximately 25,000, the Library and In-formation Commons must serve tradi-tional undergraduate students, whereasdeveloping new ways to provide for theneeds of growing and evolving graduateand professional research programs. TheInformation Commons’ substantive rela-tionship with the Faculty Center forTeaching, which is located in the Infor-mation Commons, will help the IC andother library units develop resources andsupport structures as well as expand, up-date, and evolve these to meet the chang-ing needs of our patrons, especially asthey effect the teaching-learning-researchenterprise.

Information Commons Mission

The mission of the Library’s Informa-tion Commons is to integrate in designand function the Library’s: (1) spaces, (2)

284 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

informational resources, (3) technologicalresources, (4) production resources, and(5) support services in such a fashion thatpatrons experience a seamless environ-ment for contemplating, planning, re-searching, and bringing to finished prod-uct their academic, intellectual and, attimes, personal work. The InformationCommons intends to accomplish its mis-sion in close collaboration with Accessand Outreach Services, Library Systems,other Library units, and the Faculty Cen-ter for Teaching.

For patrons in general, the InformationCommons serves to develop and refineintegration of various Library spaces, re-sources, and services, thereby providingpatrons with one-stop access to them. Aspatrons’ needs for these vary extensivelyin type and complexity, the InformationCommons aspires to provide patrons withvaried and dynamic support in all stagesof their academic and, at times, personalendeavors: (1) planning, (2) research, (3)formative evaluation, (4) production/pre-sentation, and (5) assessment. The Infor-mation Commons seeks to meet the fullrange of informational needs for patrons,from novice freshmen to advanced re-search scholars, and to accomplish thiswhereas allowing and encouraging the pa-tron to move among the various aspects ofthe Information Commons in a seamlesslyintegrated environment.

For faculty patrons in particular, theInformation Commons seeks through col-laboration with the Faculty Center forTeaching to provide special research andinstructional support and informationalservices that help them:

● Create, refine, and enhance curricularactivities;

● Work on solutions to instructional prob-lems;

● Integrate library and teaching-class-room instruction (syllabus collabora-tion); and

● Further their research programs.

The Information Commons aspires tointegrate the use of space in open servicedesk areas, offices for one-on-one work,group study rooms, conference rooms,variable-use classrooms (lecture, demon-stration, hands-on, and collaborativework), back-shop production labs, multi-media labs and studios, interactive videoclassrooms, and purposefully esthetic andopen public spaces.

The informational resources shall in-clude all available formats, paper-print

through high-technology, access to exten-sive and appropriate in-house collectionsand dynamic, 24/7 access to electronicperiodical and monographic collections,large-data files and graphical galleries,distant collections via interlibrary bor-rowing, and other resources, as needed.All of these resources are intended to sup-port the academic and intellectual needsof patrons, from novice freshmen throughadvanced scholars, whether the patron ison campus or remote.

The technological resources are in-tended to provide patrons with tools facil-itating appropriate access to informationaland production resources. These tools in-clude computer systems and extensivesoftware packages and systems, madeavailable in attractive and comfortableworkspaces of various types and sizes—public and open, individual and small-group rooms, teaching labs and demon-stration rooms, all supported bydependable, in-house Library technicalstaff.

The production resources are intendedto provide patrons with tools and supportto bring ideas and information into prod-uct form, regardless of medium or format:text and multi-media, paper and elec-tronic, still or motion, black–white orcolor, and so forth These resources in-clude television and video operations fa-cilities and support (e.g., for distancelearning and the University’s informa-tional cable channel), as well as technicaland design expertise in support of theteaching-learning-research enterprise.

The informational support servicesseek to integrate experts from various ar-eas (e.g., Reference, Media Services, Re-search Data Services, Access and Out-reach Services, Library Systems, andFacilities) in the joint enterprise of meet-ing patron needs through direct response,team efforts, informed referrals, and pro-vision of resources for self-help.

The central mission of the InformationCommons is to provide these integratedspaces, resources, and services, to furtherintegrate these appropriately, to evolveand refine these resources and services tomeet patrons’ needs better, and to con-tinue to do so as the type, mix, and num-ber of patrons change over time.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Howard Bessers, “Information CommonsLinks” [Online]. Available: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/�howard/Copyright/com-mons.html (accessed March 27, 2002);David Bollier, “Reclaiming the American

Commons” [Online]. Available: http://www.bollier.org/rc_keynote.htm (accessed March27, 2002); William J. Andrews “Nurturingthe Global Information Commons: PublicAccess, Public Infrastructure” [Online].Available: http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/present/ipc95t.html (accessed March 27,2002).

2. Discrete computer labs and other high-tech labs or centers (e.g., Ferris State Uni-versity’s Commons) [Online]. Available:http://www.ferris.edu/library/Services/information.html (accessed March 27,2002).

3. Web sites of University of Arizona [On-line]. Available: http://www.library.arizona.edu/library/teams/pic/pic.htm(accessed March 28, 2002), Universityof Iowa [Online]. Available: http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/commons/ (accessedMarch 28, 2002); University of Toronto[Online]. Available: http://www.utoronto.ca/�ic/ (accessed March 28, 2002); Uni-versity of Southern California [Online].Available:http://www.usc.edu/isd/locations/undergrad/leavey/IC.html (accessed March28, 2002); Emory University [Online].Available: http://infocommons.emory.edu/(accessed March 28, 2002); University ofCalgary [Online]. http://www.ucalgary.ca/IR/infocommons/ (accessed March 28,2002); University of New Mexico [Online].Available: http://www.unm.edu/�libadmin/Projectoverview.htm (accessed March 28,2002); University of Missouri Kansas City[Online]. Available: http://www.umkc.edu/lib/MNL/About/info-commons.htm (ac-cessed March 28, 2002); Australian Na-tional University [Online]. Available: http://information.anu.edu.au/info_commons.html (accessed March 28, 2002); Universityof Puget Sound [Online]. Available: http://library.ups.edu/icommons/i-commons.htm(accessed March 28, 2002); Kansas StateUniversity [Online]. Available: http://www.lib.ksu.edu/infocommons/ (accessedMarch 28, 2002); University of Washing-ton Bothell/Cascadia Community College[Online]. Available: http://www.bothell.washington.edu/library/tour/slide_2.html(accessed March 28, 2002); University ofNevada LV [Online]. Available: http://www.library.unlv.edu/infocommons/ (ac-cessed March 28, 2002), Evergreen StateCollege [Online]. Available: http://www.evergreen.edu/library/tbg/berlin.htm(accessed March 28, 2002); St. PetersburgCollege [Online]. Available: http://seminole.spjc.cc.fl.us/cyberlib/infocom.html (accessed March 28, 2002); OregonState University [Online]. Available: http://osulibrary.orst.edu/computing/ (accessedMarch 28, 2002); Penn State University[Online]. Available: http://www.bk.psu.edu/academic/library/thun/ (accessedMarch 28, 2002); University of Michigan[Online]. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/ummu/ (accessed March 28, 2002);

September 2002 285

University of Miami [Online]. Available:http://www.library.miami.edu/services/computing.html (accessed March 28,2002); Montana State University [Online].Available: http://www.msubillings.edu/library/infocommons.htm (accessedMarch 28, 2002); and Brookdale Com-munity College [Online]. Available:http://www.brookdale.cc.nj.us/library/infocommons/icsites/sitesalpha.htm (ac-cessed April 5, 2002).

4. Donald Beagle, “Conceptualizing an In-formation Commons,” Journal of Aca-demic Librarianship 25 (March 1999):82–89.

5. Martin Halbert, “Lessons from the Infor-mation Commons Frontier,” Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 25 (March1999): 90–91.

6. Philip J. Tramdack, “Reaction to Beagle,”Journal of Academic Librarianship 25(March 1999): 92–93.

7. Formal and informal/incidental team-building have proved of highest impor-tance for these last two bulleted items.

8. Allison Cowgill, Joan Beam, & LindseyWess, “Implementing an InformationCommons in a University Library,” Jour-nal of Academic Librarianship 27 (No-vember 2001): 432–439.

9. Ibid., notes 12 and 13.10. Beagle, “Conceptualizing an Information

Commons,” p. 82.11. Donald Beagle, Jon Gretes, Sallie Ives,

Ann Newman, Michael Pearson, & SamWatson, “Information Commons TaskForce Report” (1999 (Charlotte: Univer-sity of North Carolina Charlotte, 1999).

12. Beagle, “Conceptualizing an InformationCommons,” p. 87.

13. Virginia Massey-Burzio, “Rethinking theReference Desk,” in Rethinking Referencein Academic Libraries, edited by AnneGrodzins Lipow (Berkeley, CA: LibrarySolutions Press, 1993), pp. 43–48; JohnC. Stalker & Marjorie E. Murfin, “QualityReference Service: A Preliminary CaseStudy,” Journal of Academic Librarian-ship 22 (November 1996): 423–429;Karen J. Graves, “Implementation andEvaluation of Information Desk ServicesProvided by Library Technical Assis-tants,” Bulletin of the Medical Library As-sociation 86 (October 1998): 475–485.

14. Stalker & Murfin, “Quality ReferenceService,” p. 424.

15. Graves, “Implementation and Evaluationof Information Desk Services Provided byLibrary Technical Assistants,” pp. 475–485.

16. Beagle, “Conceptualizing an InformationCommons,” p. 85.

17. Ibid.18. Ibid.19. The clear relationship of the Information

Desk structure to the Brandeis model isthe use of desk staff trained to handleinformation questions and basic level

queries, and to refer more complex que-ries or aspects of queries to staff and/orareas of greater and more pertinent ex-pertise.

20. Cowgill, Beam, & Wess, “Implementingan Information Commons in a UniversityLibrary,” notes 12 and 13.

21. Beagle, “Conceptualizing an InformationCommons,” p. 84.

22. Ibid, p. 87.23. Halbert, “Lessons from the Information

Commons Frontier,” p. 91.24. Beagle, “Conceptualizing an Information

Commons,” p. 85.25. Ibid.26. Ibid.27. Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the

Commons,” Science 161 (December1968): 1243–1248; Amy Brunvand,“The Information Commons: Librariansvs. Libertarians,” American Libraries(April 2001): 42– 43; Lawrence Lessig,The Future of Ideas. The Fate of theCommons in a Connected World (NewYork: Random House, 2001); and theWeb collection [Online]. Available:http://www.members.aol.com/trajcom/private/trajcom.htm (accessed April 15,2002).

28. Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,”p. 1244.

29. Lessig, The Future of Ideas, p. 21.30. Ibid, p. 23.

286 The Journal of Academic Librarianship