Reinventing Library Approaches to Providing Access Aline ... - IFLA

Date submitted: 02/07/2009

New E-sources, New Models: Reinventing Library Approaches to Providing Access

Aline Soules California State University Hayward, USA

Meeting:

179. Serials and Other Continuing Resources

WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 75TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy http://www.ifla.org/annual-conference/ifla75/index.htm

Abstract The lines may be blurring among e-books, e-journals, article databases, and other information sources; however, approaches to managing these sources are still filtered through traditional methods that treat these materials separately, and reflect traditional organizational library structures that divide technical and public services. As a professor who teaches Introduction to Information Literacy to first year university students, the presenter sees the results of student efforts to understand and master access to these various types of information sources. The presenter will offer examples of student understandings and misunderstandings of these sources and their access challenges. From these user perspectives, the presenter will suggest ways to improve the handling of these information sources, ways that challenge the organizational models and traditional division in libraries with the goal of improving user access and addressing the issues users face in identifying, accessing, and using these sources effectively. Continuing Resources In 2000, a Task Force reviewing the revision of AACR2 to accommodate seriality separated resources into finite and continuing, describing the latter as resources that continue over time with no predetermined conclusion and that can be successively issued or integrating.1 Since then, there has been discussion about the scope of continuing resources. Just about everything can be considered a continuing resource—journals, multiple editions of reference titles, even e-books, which Lugg described as serials because of the way that libraries handle them, both as packages and as individual titles requiring annual payments for platform rights.2 I believe, however, that publishing will move more in the opposite direction, that is, towards finite resources. Users already search for individual articles in databases, meaning a journal could easily 1

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models publish individual articles as they become ready, eschewing volume and issue numbers. In fact, the increasing presence of a digital object identifier (DOI) negates the need for such numbers. As for books, individual chapters could also be issued separately. Weinberger describes another example with iTunes, where purchasers select individual tunes rather than a CD and mix their own content.3 This brings us full circle to the concept of analytics, and with current technology, such individuation is feasible without the cost and labor that previously made analytics prohibitive. Users, of course, do not care whether an item is finite or continuing, part of a journal issue or a book, or linked to any other bibliographic information, unless they have to cite it. What they care about is finding material on their topic and accessing individual items to which they have been referred by a professor, in a bibliography, through a colleague, or on the web. User Expectations When I was working at the University of Michigan Business School in the late 1990’s, business was undergoing another iteration of the quality movement. The concept was not simply to understand customer needs, but also to “surprise and delight” the customer, as Kim Cameron, Professor of Management and Organizations at the school, explained in a number of in-house meetings at the time. In this decade, another concept has been explored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point (2000). He explained a new way of understanding why change happens so quickly and unexpectedly, and how things move along to a point where they tip over and take off. Both of these concepts can provide insight into what many users want. First, they must be “surprised and delighted” to notice a particular tool or service among the myriad options now available. Second, once their attention is caught, that offering must continue to surprise and delight, in order to tip over and take off. Google has caught the imagination and tipped over into a ubiquitous behemoth, although other search engines are available (Yahoo, ask.com, etc.). Google is quick, free, and almost always gives results no matter what you type into a search box. It has been suggested that many Google searches are simple and factual, not in-depth, which is one reason to favor the library’s more complex tools and resources, but users may continue to search Google regardless. This may be due to their lack of knowledge of the library’s resources or their level of comfort and familiarity with Google as an entry point. The immediacy of the Internet and the Web has driven expectations. According to Kuniavsky, the world of serials and ubiquitous computing intersect.4 He argues that rather than “viewing the whole world through the lens of a single magic window…the power …[and] potential of that technology should be brought into everyday life.”5 Library offerings must now be delivered on multiple devices—computer, phone, etc. With these multiple devices connecting people 24/7, the expectation of immediate satisfaction is even greater. In addition to educating users about resources and services, librarians must now be able to accomplish these tasks instantly whenever and wherever their users roam. What is clear, however, is that users want the same easy, free, fast experience they enjoy with Google. There are times, however, when they find that more complex needs, such as those generated by class assignments, do not garner the results they seek in Google, or, if they use Google Scholar, do not allow access to full text. At that point, some give up, but some come for help in person, by email, through chat, or by telephone, giving the library an opportunity to surprise and delight. How often do we do this? At the very least, it requires that everything work seamlessly from metadata creation through easy searching to quick access to full text. By the end of the transaction, however, while some users express

2

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models appreciation, others complain that the process is too complicated and wonder why it can’t be like Google. In considering these challenges, however, it is important to remember that there are still a minority of users who want the complexity we offer. Library users exhibit a wide spectrum in all types of libraries, but my observations are focused on faculty and students, as I work in an academic library setting. The bulk of our users are students, most of whom want the ease represented by Google. Some faculty and deep researchers, however, express dissatisfaction with the shrinking research materials available, meaning less full text, and the simplification of searching, which gives them a sense that they are missing valuable information. User Behavior Librarians have increased their efforts to find out what users are actually doing and what they say they want (not necessarily the same thing). Technology has simplified statistics gathering, which gives insight into use patterns. We have more data than ever about use, even at the article or chapter level. We can identify which elements of a MARC record are searched in a catalog. Questions, however, remain. Gathering the number of times a web site is hit or an article is downloaded is no indication of whether that piece of information is read or understood. Lack of use of certain fields in the MARC record does not necessarily mean that we stop creating them, although we are working to enhance the potential of those fields. It is also interesting to contemplate how third party vendors cope with the inherit conflict in providing statistics to libraries. If, for example, there is low use of a database, why would a vendor want to tell the library and risk losing a client? At California State University, East Bay, knowing that budget shortages will so critical in 2009-2010 that significant non-renewals will result, we have been examining use statistics intensely. In 2008-2009, we discussed our low-use databases, one of which is the Gale Literary Databases (Contemporary Authors, Contemporary Literary Criticism, and Dictionary of Literary Biography). On drawing this to the attention of the key department, faculty urged their students to use it more often; however, why was use low in the first place? Is it because assignments do not lead students to the resource? Is it because the library does not structure access in a way that draws the students’ attention to the existence of this resource? Should these databases be included in the library catalog rather than provided through a separate web list entitled “Databases A-Z,” as is currently the case? There are many possibilities, all of which suggest that a collaborative effort of the departmental and library faculty is required to understand the reasons behind this low use. Also needed is a greater understanding of why these databases are considered so critical by faculty if use is low. Is this simply a sense that we “should” have these databases? Does it fulfill a psychological need to hoard, a holdover from the days of owning print? How do we gain an understanding of these issues? Statistics alone are insufficient. Statistical analysis is often combined with surveys, focus groups, and controlled observations. In the United States, the LibQUAL+ Survey is in common use, particularly among research universities. It compares the desired, perceived, and minimal level of expectations for various library services. In examining the 2006 survey results at the University of Virginia, Self noted typical faculty comments on the lack of journals in specific researchers’ fields and the problems of cancellations due to budget shortages. Also noted, however, were such common comments as these: “Access to journals is confusing” and “Browsing facilities need improvement.”6 Self concluded that searching and access are 3

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models major problems and noted that “there are continuing efforts to improve the search interfaces.”7 If faculty are experiencing confusion and problems with browsing, what are our students experiencing? The Catalog One outcome of such surveys has been a growing awareness that the online public catalog no longer meets needs. Originally a tool that surprised and delighted users, it is now considered “closed,” “rigid,” and “intricate.”8 One solution is to enhance the catalog, which North Carolina State University did by contracting with Endeca in early 2006. The product provides “relevance-ranked results, new browse capabilities, improved subject access.”9 Of importance are the five assessment measures incorporated into implementation design: changes in circulation patterns, path analysis, use of refinements, sideways searching, and objective and subjective measurements of quality search results.10 Librarians also conducted usability testing with ten undergraduate students to compare the old and new catalogs. They measured task success, duration, and difficulty, but not satisfaction, which, according to research, does not correlate with success.11 Students took less time to complete tasks and found it easier to use the catalog. Also, the relevance of their results improved. Students, however, continued to confuse “keyword anywhere” and “keyword in subject” searching, a long-standing problem for students generally. Students also knew that dimensions could be used to narrow results, but only three actually used them, illustrating another common problem of not using the full capacity of a tool.12 In the end, while Antelman et al. noted improvement, they also noted that more work was needed. They also noted that the catalog represented only a small portion of the information world available to users, meaning that a great deal of effort is put into a tool that only represents a small portion of the available information. Another, more radical perspective addresses a different percentage, that of the number of users using the catalog at all. Eden claims that the catalog’s days are over because libraries cannot continue to fund something that today’s users are not accessing. Funding for higher education in the United States will continue to dwindle, at least in state-supported institutions, yet “a library spends roughly 60-70% of its budget on personnel salaries and benefits in technical services, OCLC fees, and vendor OPAC fees in order to maintain a standardized, cross-referenced database that only 10% of our customers are using.”13 He urges librarians to move away from “data perfection,” stating that “good enough is just fine for today’s users” and references the Library of Congress’ (LC) shift towards mass digitization and away from the type of bibliographic control it has provided in the past (LC stopped tracing series, for example). He concludes that the University of California, the publicly funded institution where he works, has an opportunity to transform technical services through their new catalog interface that uses WorldCat Local.14 The California State University system is also trying to leverage OCLC’s WorldCat for its union catalog that serves the twenty-three campuses in the system; however, there are new problems. At California State University, East Bay, again due to budget shortages, we plan not to renew our OCLC subscription for 2009-2010 and there is a possibility that another campus will also make this decision. As our collections budget has been slashed, the number of new books will be so few that the cataloging cost per item will be unacceptable. This will mean no updating of additions, deletions, changes, or holdings. At first, this may not be particularly noticeable, but if this continues past 2009-2010, the impact will grow and the union catalog will cease to be a fully union catalog. Yet another system is beginning to break down or, at least, to fragment, hastened by failing budgets.

4

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models Federated Searching Driven by the “one-stop shopping” aspect of search engines such as Google, federated searching is another library effort to compete. As with other developments, there are differing viewpoints. In one sense, many libraries experience a form of federated searching if they offer users a single platform for their databases. At California State University, East Bay, we use EBSCO for the majority of our databases and users can search across them through the platform’s capabilities. There are, however, still a couple of databases we can only offer through a different platform. Within the EBSCO cross-searching, however, it is still possible to know the database for each result and feel anchored to the source. True federated searching, however, crosses everything you embed in the system—the catalog, databases, web sites, etc. Libraries generally choose commercial platforms and the nature of competition in a business with tight margins of profit ensures that product improvements are timely. Federated searching, however, should be considered more broadly. Linoski and Walczyk consider Google Scholar to be a “federated search-like tool,” also WorldCat. Google Scholar simply offers a list of results, but WorldCat has “refine search,” “plug-ins for Facebook and Firefox, allowing users to connect to resources through a friend’s profile, or search for items directly from a web browser search bar.”15 WorldCat also provides multiple language capability, citation, export, email, bookmark and share, and offers the user an opportunity to contribute reviews and tags. Our catalogs are only beginning to move in this direction. Commercial products now offer limiters, simple and advanced search, clustering, visual search interface, faceted results, and RSS feeds/search alerts. The user experience with these products is therefore blending with their Web experience. As a result, they don’t always know what they are really searching or where the results list of the full text resides, but they can log on and know what to do. This lack of user awareness has caused concern among some librarians. Rethlefsen argues that there is no one-stop solution for quality research, stating that “research requires time, discipline, critical thinking, and analysis,” that “no single technique or tool is ever appropriate for conducting research,” and that “Google-like relevancy is the end goal of quick information searches but not necessarily the end goal of research. Research requires more than relevancy. There are also currency, authority, and serendipity to consider.”16 It is true that with federated search, the unique features of individual tools, such as the catalog or a particular database or its platform, are sacrificed for a common, across-theboard search. For the bulk of our users, however, “good enough” may meet the needs, which then makes Eden’s issue about the cost of cataloging applicable here: can we afford to continue? At the moment, California State University, East Bay tries to blend federated search with traditional tools, offering access to federated search, the catalog, and individual databases from the front page of our web site. Taking it one step further, Turner suggests that in ten years, “federated search—or search of any kind for that matter—won’t exist.”17 He argues that we only search because we don’t have the information we need readily available, but as digitally stored information continues to increase, we will outsource the mapping of our data to “data locator” companies, and every “federated” search will be behind the scenes. Searching will be part of other routine functions, initiated automatically based on what the user is doing, such as his keystrokes or his historical data. There will be an interactive dialog box where the system poses questions, the user answers, and the system searches.18 It is also conceivable that such an interactive process could be accomplished for a group of users, that alerts could be established to foster communication among the group, ensuring that they are regularly prompted about what others in the group are exploring. 5

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

Link Resolvers Link resolvers are another important cross-content tool. They offer links from one information source to another. Users can click on the screen button affiliated with a citation and be taken to a list of places where the full text is available or to a connection to interlibrary loan, if the full text is not available in the user’s particular library. Wakimoto et al. conducted a “three-fold study—online survey, focus group interviews, and sample testing analysis—to examine library end-user and librarian expectations and experiences using SFX,”19 the link resolver from Ex Libris which is deployed in the California State University system. The study was conducted at the Northridge and San Marcos campuses. The survey was designed to explore user expectations. The most common expectation was to find full text every time. Negative comments dealt with “complexity, technical problems, or confusion.” Positive comments “focused on the time saving and/or efficient nature of the service.”20 Focus groups were conducted with librarians, not users. Librarians were positive, but their biggest complaint was about accuracy. They also thought that students needed instruction on how to use the product, implying that it was not fully intuitive. Interestingly, both major problems—the desire for more full text and the issue of accuracy—are not product problems, but library problems, either with collections (usually budgetrelated) or with human input errors. The key to the end user experience, however, was that expectations were greater than reality when it came to accessing full text.21 Innovations Organizational Structures Users know what they want and we know what users want, at least in a general sense. The problem is that we get bogged down in our own processes and existing order. In all these endeavors, it has been interesting to look at the positions held by those who have worked on them. Our traditional lines of public and technical services are often still on the organization chart, but there is more effort to involve a wider spectrum of librarians. At North Carolina State University, an Information Technology Advisory Committee appointed a seven-member representative team to oversee the implementation of Endeca.22 It takes large projects, however, before this happens. There are some examples of new ways of thinking organizationally when it comes to daily work, but they are still sufficiently unique to be worthy of articles in the literature. In 2004, in South Carolina, there was a process to cross-train public services librarians to work in technical services, which the author noted was counter to the usual cross-training efforts oriented to bringing technical services staff into public services.23 That same year, there were two articles that addressed dual assignments in technical and public services. The first addressed technical services librarians in the public arena and the second addressed public services librarians in technical services.24 In 2006, Harper posited that collaboration among public service, collection development, and technical services was essential to the development of successful digital libraries, while noting that “there has been a long-standing belief in the field of librarianship that there are two distinct branches to the profession: technical services and public services.”25 What keeps us clinging to our traditional ways of working? A search of the business literature revealed an interesting article in the area of accounting and control systems. Markus and Pfeffer suggested that resistance and system failure are common and posed three hypotheses in explanation. For ease of 6

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models implementation, systems need to be consistent with “other sources of power in their implications for the distribution of power,” “the dominant organizational culture and paradigm in their implications for values and beliefs,” and “shared judgments about technical certainty and goal congruence.”26 They argue that process-based strategies are ineffective in dealing with these conditions, and power structures and organizational paradigms must be factored into implementation. As libraries are largely about process, perhaps recognizing the existence of the power structures and organizational paradigms in our operations will help us to overcome the tendency to fall back into our divisive organizational structures. Earlier, I suggested that to understand fully why the Gale Literary Databases were little used in my library, we needed a collaborative effort of departmental and library faculty. Not only do we need to cross-pollinate within the library, we need to cross-pollinate with those beyond the library walls. We have learned to do this with technology specialists over IT issues and with departmental faculty over collections, but we cling to our catalog and other tools, and we believe there is a “right” way to organize and manage information. New Ways of Thinking Eden is not the first person to suggest throwing out the catalog, but he may be getting closer to being the last. Blending is the key word today. Commercial databases now incorporate web sites into their content. Platform providers include RSS feeds, visual displays of results, tagging, citation, email, individual user storage options, and searching across databases within their platform. There is federated searching, there are link resolvers, users can tag and review (if we let them), and there are new ideas and developments every few months, just in time for the next major library conference. Digitization is proceeding at an ever-increasing rate, making more content available, either at no cost (the open access model) or for a fee, which libraries may or may not be able to afford. Libraries contract for these tools, but when it comes to their own creations, they are behind in many ways, still seeking a level of order that is unlikely to be sustainable. Weinberger speaks in praise of miscellany and disorder. In his investigation of Wikipedia, he used, as an example, an article about the elephant. He contacted Brion Vibber, the chief technical officer at Wikipedia, via “chat” and asked him where the text information for the article was stored. Here are the two consecutive chat responses he supplied: god only knows On the disk somewheres27 [sic] How appalled would you be at such a response from a librarian? Yet, Weinberger suggests that the “gap between how we access information and how the computer accesses it is at the heart of the revolution in knowledge.”28 He lists four important new strategic principles that are breaking the links between how we organize physical objects and ideas: • • •

Filter on the way out, not on the way in. The “peer review” process is now moved from before to after publication. This permits abundance, but requires each reader to filter and evaluate. Put each leaf on as many branches as possible. The more tags you give it, the greater the potential access. Everything is metadata and everything can be a label. This gives power to miscellany because everything is connected and, therefore, everything is metadata. 7

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models •

Give up control. The owners of information no longer control how it is organized. Users order it as they see fit.29

It’s this last principle that is so difficult for librarians, which is ironic as the organization of others’ information has been going on in libraries for centuries. When it comes to users, however, we are beginning, slowly, to let them in, but we will need to step up the pace or plan to be left behind. What Next? I expect we will carry on, modifying what we have, evolving slowly to a new order, but what I would most like us to do is let go of our desire for control and welcome users into our tools and processes. A faculty member on our campus recently told me that his order of searching was Google/Wikipedia, Google Books, then the library catalog, just to find out if we had the books he identified in the previous two sources. If all he wants from the catalog is to know if our library has what he already identified, he can just check WorldCat. If that’s what he’s doing, what are the rest of our users doing, particularly our students? Not using our expensive tools to the degree we’d like, but what would happen if we let users engage with our catalogs and our web sites in the same way they now engage with the Web? If they can go beyond tagging and reviewing to commenting, annotating, and basically creating records in their own customized version of the catalog they store for themselves, they will become more interested in using libraries and the tools and information we make available. This could be our great opportunity to surprise and delight. Let’s embrace it.

New E-sources, New Models Reinventing Library Approaches to Providing Access Aline Soules California State University, East Bay August 26, 2009

8

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

Continuing Resources y Scope y Extended? y Reduced?

y User view y Who cares?

User Expectations y Surprise and delight y The tipping point y User majority y Google y Scholar, Books, etc. y Web y Intersection of serials and ubiquitous computing y Free, easy, fast

y User minority y Shrinking availability of research materials y Concern about the simplification of searching

9

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

User Expectations and Behavior y What they do vs. what they say they want y Statistics and use patterns y Budget shortages and low use databases y Statistics and surveys, focus groups, controlled observations y University of Virginia example y Access issues y Browsing issues

Catalog y OPAC life cycle y Catalog enhancement y Endeca and North Carolina State University y New features y Assessment measures y Usability testing

y Catalog transformation y OCLC WorldCat Local y Implications of budget shortfalls

10

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

North Carolina State University Libraries Catalog

North Carolina State University Libraries Catalog

11

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

Federated Searching y One-stop shopping y Database platforms y True federated searching y Google Scholar y WorldCat y Integration of web features

y Opposing viewpoint y Federated search life cycle y Increase of digitally stored information y Data locator companies y “smart” system

OCLC Search Screen

12

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

OCLC Search Screen

OCLC Individual Record

13

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

OCLC Individual Record

OCLC Individual Record

14

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

OCLC Individual Record

OCLC Individual Record

15

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

Link resolvers y Cross-content tool y Three-fold study: online survey, focus group interviews,

sample testing analysis y User expectation y Librarian concern

Organizational Structures y Bogged down in processes and existing order y Broader teams y Cross-training y Reasons y Power y Organizational culture y Shared judgments

y Extending beyond the library

16

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

New Ways of Thinking y Blending of providers, platforms, the Web y Miscellany, disorder, and the four new strategic principles y Filter on the way out, not on the way in y Put each leaf on as many branches as possible y Everything is metadata and everything can be a label y Give up control

What Next? y Modification y Evolution y Can we let go? y Can we let users in? y Can we surprise and delight?

1

Association for Library Collections and Technical Services. Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access. Task Force on the Review of Revising AACR2 to Accommodate Seriality: Rule Revision Proposals. (2001, Jan 7). Discussion paper. http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/tf-serr3.html.

17

Soules, New E-Sources, New Models

2

Armstrong, K., Nardini, B., McCracken, P., and Lugg, R. (2009). When did (e)-books become serials? The Serials Librarian 56: 129-138. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 3 Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Henry Holt: 9. 4 Kuniavsky, M. (2009). Information shadows: how ubiquitous computer serializes everyday things. The Serials Librarian 56: 65-78. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 5 Kuniavsky: 66. 6 Self, J. (2008, April). Bound for disappointment: faculty and journals at research institutions. ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Research Libraries Issues & Actions 257: 11. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 7 Self: 11. 8 Fast, K. V., and Campbell, D. G. (2004). I still like Google: University student perceptions of searching OPACS and the Web.” Proceedings of the 67th ASIS&T annual meeting. Providence, R.I.: American Society for Information Science and Technology. 9 Antelman, K., Lynema, E., and Pace, A. K. (2006, Sept.). Toward a twenty-first century library catalog. Information Technology and Libraries 25(3): 128. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 10 Antelman et al.: 133. 11 Antelman et al.: 135. Their conclusion regarding the correlation of satisfaction and success was based on Nielsen, B., and Baker, B. (1987). Educating the online catalog user: A Model evaluation study. Library Trends 35(4). 12 Antelman et al.: 135-137. 13 Eden, B. (2008). Ending the status quo. American Libraries 39(3): 38. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 14 Eden: 38. 15 Linoski, A., and Walczyk, T. (2008, Summer). Federated search 101. Library Journal 1976: 3. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 16 Rethlefsen, M. L. (2008, Summer). Easy ≠ right. Library Journal 1976: 12-13. 17 Turner, R. (2009, April). The Future of federated search, or what will the world look like in 10 years. Computers in Libraries 29(4): 39. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 18 Turner: 41. 19 Wakimoto, J., Walker, D. S., and Dabbour, K. S. (2006). The Myths and realities of SFX in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 32(2): 127. Retrieved 3 June 2009. 20 Wakimoto et al.: 130. 21 Wakimoto et al.: 129-130, 133. 22 Antelman et al., 131. 23 Fain, M., Brown, M., & Faix, A. (2004). Cross-Training Reference Librarians to Catalog. Technical Services Quarterly 22(1), 41-53. 24 Chambers, M. B., Harner, R., & Gregory, G. (2004, Spring). “Out of the Back Room and Onto the Desk: Technical Services Librarian in the Public Arena. Colorado Libraries 30(1), 46-47. Also, Harner, R., Gregory, G., & Chambers, M. B. (2004, Summer). Sneaking into the Back Room: Public Services Librarians in Technical Services. Colorado Libraries 30(2), 42-43. 25 Harper, C. A. (2006, January). Collaboration in User Interface Design, or Bringing the Public Service Perspective to Building a Digital Library. Public Services Quarterly 2(1), 115-128. Retrieved May 13, 2009 from Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text database. 26 Markus, M. L., & Pfeffer, J. (1983). Power and the Design and Implementation of Accounting and Control Systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society 8(2/3), 205-218. 27 Weinberger: 99. 28 Weinberger: 99. 29 Weinberger: 102-106.

18