AARL

Australian professional library and information education: structural changes in the 1990s

Patricia Willard, Concepción S Wilson and Christine Pawley

ABSTRACT: Impacts of the substantial changes in Australian higher education during the 1990s on LIS professional education are discussed. The study draws on documentary and statistical data from the annual returns of LIS schools to the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) to review trends in graduation rates, staffing levels, institutional placement and course offerings.

Change in Library and Information Studies (LIS) professional education in Australia over the past decade or so has been of two kinds: in course content and in the placement of courses within the structure of universities. The research reported here focuses on the latter, addressing course content only where relevant to pursuing the experience and direction of LIS schools. The project has sought to track the changes that schools offering professional level LIS courses experienced in the 1990s, a period of substantial change in Australian higher education.

For the purposes of this study, the definition of a professional LIS course is based on a sole criterion: the recognition of that course by the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) as offering an entry/first professional LIS education, even though the course may have other components, for example archives and records management, information technology management, or primary or high school education as in teacher librarianship programs which form part of education degrees. The data source around which the major part of the research was focused is the annual returns by library schools to ALIA, which forms part of the requirement for continuation of a recognised status, hence the centrality of ALIA acceptability in this definition.

For simplicity the term school is used to describe a LIS teaching unit although in some cases the unit might be a called a department or indeed have some other name. As individual schools are not named, this shorthand should not confuse or misinform. If a distinction between terms needs to be made, for example in discussion of the upgrading or downgrading of a teaching unit, the distinctions will be specified and explained.

Background

The first Australian university-based LIS program began in 1960 at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney. In Victoria the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) started to offer programs soon after. The UNSW postgraduate diploma course required one academic year full-time study or part-time equivalence. Before that, in line with the British model, the professional association had been responsible for an examination system which provided, at satisfactory completion, eligibility for professional membership of the Association. (For a fuller account of the development of Australian LIS education up to the early 1990s see Maxine Rochester's account, the value of which in preparing this paper is acknowledged[1]).

From the mid 1960s there was a steady growth in the number of LIS schools in universities, institutes and colleges, and professional undergraduate LIS degree programs began to appear in addition to postgraduate diploma courses. Undergraduate programs were usually of three years' full-time or part-time equivalence duration and required a major in another discipline in addition to LIS. One factor in the proliferation of schools is the vastness of our country. Another factor was almost certainly the federal government's commitment to the establishment of the college of advanced education (CAE) sector. While some of the CAEs grew out of existing institutions, many new colleges were established, the first being Canberra CAE in 1965. Many of the new LIS programs were in CAEs, a number of which were teacher librarianship programs housed in teachers colleges that had been renamed as CAEs.

The second university library school opened at Monash University in Melbourne in 1975. It looked to the North American model of a two-year master degree as a first professional qualification. As education for LIS became a part of the offerings of tertiary institutions, teacher librarianship was in some cases offered by education schools and in others by schools offering generalist LIS programs. In both cases ALIA course recognition would be sought.

The mix of programs has expanded from the 1960s and 1970s with most schools now offering first professional undergraduate and graduate programs as well as doctoral programs. The models now most often followed are a three-year bachelor degree, a one-year postgraduate diploma degree and a three-semester master degree that is comprised of the postgraduate diploma content and an additional semester. Some schools are also involved in information management programs for which ALIA recognition is not sought and in related areas such as archives and records management. Staff may also teach in non-LIS programs within their institution.

Most schools offer a mix of delivery methods, both full-time and part-time, and allow students to move between the two during their studies. During the nineties a number of schools freed up their rules about candidature; for example, one school which accepted only full-time students opened its programs to part-timers, and schools which allowed part-time have been less prescriptive about expected course load per session. External studies are also available for some programs, more widely in teacher librarianship than in generalist programs. One school offers only external programs. There have been international students, mainly from the Asia-Pacific region, since the opening of the first school and in more recent years their tuition fees have been quite keenly sought by the parent institution and the schools.

In 1988 the Federal Minister for Education, John Dawkins, instigated substantial changes in the tertiary education system. A major component was the abolition of the division between universities, institutes and colleges and the establishment of a system comprised only of universities and referred to as the unified national system. By the time of the Dawkins initiative there were over 70 tertiary education institutions receiving federal funding. The majority were colleges, located in both urban and rural centres and varying substantially in size with some too small (about a third had less than 2000 full-time equivalent students) to be economically or academically viable. A major intention of the reforms was to redress this situation and have fewer and larger institutions.[2] The subsequent amalgamations sometimes involved more than two institutions: in some cases two or more CAEs were amalgamated and in others a university or institute and a CAE or CAEs. The changes went smoothly for some institutions whereas for others the blending of different cultures was more difficult.

The amalgamations flowing from the 1988 initiative began within a year or so and continued well into the 1990s as did the internal structural change processes initiated by the institutions. It was inevitable that the amalgamations would have impacts on many schools offering professional LIS education as nine of the 16 schools with professional LIS programs in 1988 were located in colleges.[3]

In addition to structural change, the university sector has experienced financial cutbacks in real terms in government allocations, which began about a decade before 1988. The Federal Government is the major funder of tertiary education though the proportion of its contribution to the total cost of universities has declined. By the time of the 'Dawkins reforms' many academic institutions had already begun to introduce structural and other changes to effect financial savings. The introduction by the government of a relatively modest higher education charge in 1987 was followed over a number of years by more substantial student tuition fees.[4] Fees impacted on both undergraduate and graduate students, though undergraduate students are able to defer payment until they enter employment which remunerates at or above a certain government specified amount. The impact has been greater on students undertaking postgraduate coursework degrees as institutions moved, in accord with the Federal Government position, toward cost recovery for postgraduate courses. Only a small number of postgraduate students who fit certain government criteria are eligible to defer fees. Institutions have discretion in the fees they charge for postgraduate courses and there have been different rates of implementation of this government policy.

In response to the 'Dawkins reforms' and financial cutbacks, universities restructured - precipitated in some instances by amalgamation, in others to effect financial savings, in others by academic considerations and in others again by a mixture of these. It can be conjectured that LIS schools being in the main small schools by university standards (ie in number of students and staff) may have felt particular pressures and been more frequently involved in amalgamations and mergers than schools of some other disciplines. Structural changes have provided opportunities and challenges. In some cases there has been the relocation of staff and equipment to another institution. In others, schools have been relocated within their university through amalgamation or merger with another teaching unit.

Changes in the university sector are not the only factors influencing the state of LIS education. A pervasive one is the change in information technology and the impact this has on information accessibility, information work and the information workforce. A major related factor is the nature and attractiveness of the type of work and career prospects available to prospective students choosing to enter LIS programs. Investigation of these areas was outside the scope of the research though their importance for understanding the evolution of the LIS field in Australia is acknowledged.

Research data sources

The building up of a picture of what occurred in LIS schools over a decade or so could have been approached in a number of ways. The researchers decided to focus the investigation around documentation supplemented with limited interviews. There were several reasons for this. While interviews provide a richness of data it can be quite difficult to ensure that the best and necessary people are interviewed: staff change and memories fade, so the reliance on interviews can present problems particularly when the subject matter may be sensitive. Since ALIA requires LIS schools to make an annual return it was to the possibility of using these returns as a major data source that the researchers looked. The returns offered a brief account of each school on a number of dimensions prepared each year so did not rely on memory or hindsight. Another major source of concise information about schools was the annual ALIA publication Courses in Library and Information Studies, which lists all recognised programs.[5]

The annual returns cover recognised first-professional LIS courses only, so do not provide information on all programs relevant to the LIS field offered by a school, such as information management programs for which accreditation has not been sought or other higher degree programs. However, staff would still be servicing these programs and figures returned by the schools usually represent total numbers of LIS-dedicated staff, not the number or part thereof dedicated to the first-professional programs. But as the bulk of students are in first professional level LIS courses it was believed that this would not result in substantial distortion of the staff resource allocation picture. The figures would be adequate for showing trends in LIS academic staffing and so, adequate for the purpose of this investigation.

As the annual course returns are confidential to the provider and ALIA, the latter was approached in April 2000. ALIA indicated support and agreed to contact schools asking if they would allow access to their completed returns. Schools were told that the returns would be treated in confidence and that the results would not name individual schools. Eleven of the 12 schools currently offering programs were contacted. (Staff from the twelfth school were involved in the project). It had initially been planned to consider the ALIA course returns data from 1988 onwards but ALIA indicated the data were available only from 1991. As post-Dawkins changes had to feed through into action it was known that many changes had not occurred for a year or two and that much happened in the 1990s.

Eleven schools gave permission and one declined, though some information about this school available through published sources has been used. Data analysis involved summarising information in the ALIA returns to provide an account of the following areas:

• the academic unit from which the school was administered, tracking any change over time - for example school mergers
• whether there were changes in school name and the nature of them
• the first level programs offered including changes in their number and specialisations
• student profile information including course completion rates; and
• staffing levels.

Limitations of the study

The researchers were aware that there would be limitations in the data. A major gap occurred because schools are not required to make a return in the year of a course recognition visit. Another known limitation stemmed from the fact that whilst there is quite a high level of consistency over the years in the data required by ALIA, the questions are not identical from year to year, so detail sought in some years was not sought in others. From this study's perspective one positive outcome from this was the introduction in 1998 of a question about the impact of a change in the federal government's student fees policy which included the introduction of up-front fees for some students.

Another source of variability arose from the respondents' interpretations of the data requested. In some case interpretations were rather idiosyncratic and the researchers had to make sense where they could of what was supplied. Idiosyncrasies present one year were not necessarily repeated the next as the staff member completing the return varied over time.

Over the nine years for which ALIA returns were available (1991-1999 inclusive) several schools closed or were amalgamated with other schools. ALIA has not been able to obtain permission to use the returns of these schools prior to their closure or amalgamation though some information was available from published sources. While data collection was structured in a way which draws a picture over time of a school, the results have been considered in a manner which sought trends over the sector. The intention has been to report schools' experiences and throw some light on strategies pursued to survive, to adapt to change and to develop.

Results

The following discussion uses the identifiers S1-S11 to represent the schools. Background information considered necessary about a particular school is included with the associated discussion.

On 31 December 1990 there were 16 LIS schools and in 1999 there were 12. In line with the government's policy to produce a university sector with fewer small institutions, two LIS schools in a less populous state were part of an institutional amalgamation from 1 January 1991. These schools merged over the next couple of years and the two strands of generalist and teacher librarianship previously located in the separate institutions have been maintained in the course offerings of the amalgamated school.

Two small schools closed in the mid-1990s. One of these was serving a state with a small population and the other a rural city in a more populous state in which there were five schools prior to the closure. At about the same time two other schools in that state closed, and their staff, students and programs transferred to other schools, resulting in a total of two schools to serve the state. Both closed schools had been involved in institutional amalgamations some years before. Going against this trend was the establishment of a very small school in a remote area. As student numbers would be small, the intention was to use the external program from another school to provide LIS course input for its bachelor program - a course that has been followed.

With a total Australian population of about 18.7 million the decline in the number of schools would seem to be a desirable change. The following will throw some light on how invigorating it has been.

Student numbers

A number of indicators are necessary to assess the health of a school - student numbers, quality of research, publication output and so on. A major part of government funding is tied to student numbers (referred to as EFTSUs: equivalent full-time student units) hence it is unlikely that a school could survive for any length of time with unacceptably low numbers as staff (and other resources) would be continually cut, or diverted, to reflect staff/student ratios acceptable to the university. In addition to the financial dimension there are also fairly widely held ideas within academia of the need to have a 'critical mass', that is, that schools with few staff and a small number of students are not viable. Hence it is likely that there would be ongoing internal university pressure if not to close a small school, to merge it with another school.

Following school closures, it is to be expected that the number of students graduating from the remaining schools would have increased, thus strengthening their positions either as independent schools or, as it has worked out in most cases, their positions within the school with which they have amalgamated or merged. Table 1 notes the number of graduating students from the eleven universities over the period 1991-1999.

There are some gaps in the data. As mentioned, schools are not required to lodge returns in the year of an ALIA recognition visit, an event which occurs at no more than seven-year intervals though can occur more frequently (for example, if there are substantial program changes). In several cases the schools failed to provide the data and this is indicated on the table. Despite the gaps in the data the increase between 1990 and 1998 in the number of students completing courses can be clearly seen (1990 data refer to students who completed their studies in 1990 and graduated in 1991 and 1998 data for students who competed that year and graduated in 1999). However account has to be taken of school closures; if the demand for LIS places in Australia has remained steady (an assumption for the purpose of this exercise) then graduating student numbers should have increased.

Table 1
Graduates by year of graduation

U= undergraduate degree G = graduate degree

Blank spaces are for years in which there was no ALIA return.

* indicates a return but data not supplied.

- indicates no programs at that level: some schools had recently introduced courses for which there had not yet been graduates.

Whilst returns were not available for closed schools, some published information was available for them. Sixty-three of the 1995 completing graduate students recorded by S4 had come to the university as a consequence of a closure. Another school in the same city, S8, was also the recipient of students from a closure and this can be seen in the 43 undergraduate degree students who competed in 1996. In addition, 28 of the 55 graduate students who completed that year had come from the same closed school. While S4 has held and slightly increased numbers since 1995, the picture for S8 may be less promising, although there is insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions, particularly taking account of the fact that S8 was relocated in its organisational structure at the end of 1998 and merged with another school. In addition it introduced in 1999 a new suite of programs at bachelor, postgraduate diploma and master levels. In considering the number of potential students for S4 and S8, it should be pointed out that there was another school closure in that state in the mid-nineties though no data are available about its graduation rate prior to closure.

S3, the only school in its state, was formed through an amalgamation from 1 January 1991 so the completing graduates have been summed from the beginning of the research period. Graduating student numbers have increased from 84 students completing in 1990 to 100 in 1998. On the other hand, S6, in a state with a population about 20 percent greater, has fared less well. Two schools serve the state. The other, S11, offered teacher librarianship programs at bachelor (discontinued 1998) and postgraduate level. In 1998 it introduced a generalist postgraduate diploma available in both internal and external mode.

S1 and S2 have not been subject to amalgamation, merger, major university restructuring or of anything beyond minor change to the names of their programs or schools. Both schools offer postgraduate diplomas - one in teacher librarianship and the other a generalist program. S1 introduced an undergraduate program in 1998. They are part of the same large university though located in different faculties on different campuses. The situation this represents is one which has been changed in other institutions following the 'Dawkins reforms', that is the existence of teacher librarianship programs separate from generalist programs. While S9 has experienced some change in placement within its university S10, which offers all its programs in external mode and displays increasing completion rates, has experienced no structural change.

The number of completing students in 1990 and 1998 has not varied much for S7 (58 and 61). This school was relocated in another faculty in 1997 and merged with another school in that faculty in 1999. There were program revisions in 1998 to accommodate to models in the new faculty. These changes have had little time to feed through and influence student numbers in either direction. Unfortunately data for the other school in this city was not made available.

A number of schools accepted the ALIA invitation to comment on the impact of tuition fees for local students on student numbers. These more substantial fees had begun for some institutions in 1998 though, as mentioned earlier, not all universities were charging full tuition fees for their postgraduate diploma and master students undertaking LIS. Comment reflected this, with the schools in institutions charging more substantial fees expressing the opinion that this was depressing their student applications.

Academic staff numbers

Universities monitor staff-to-student ratios and have their own guidelines about these; hence, staffing levels should throw some light on the condition of a school within its institution. As mentioned, in some cases there was difficulty in interpreting staffing information. In addition it is necessary to keep in mind that LIS staff may teach in other programs (or teach non-LIS students in their LIS courses) and that staff from other parts of the university may teach LIS students. In the case of the undergraduate programs a substantial part of teaching (most if not all of non-LIS courses) is done by non-LIS staff. Similarly in the postgraduate diploma/master courses, staff from other schools or sections of the same school may conduct courses for the LIS students. Management and computing are two areas in which non-LIS staff (or non-LIS courses) may be used. (They are two of the disciplines into which amalgamated and merged LIS schools have migrated.) In addition to non-LIS staff servicing LIS programs, more LIS students probably find themselves in courses with students from other disciplines, as universities seek to enrich learning experiences and effect economies. The ALIA return seeks information about staffing of the LIS teaching unit and its programs. Nine years of data is probably sufficient to convey a picture of the LIS staffing situation post-Dawkins, though the change process is still occurring (as much of the previous discussion has indicated). Table 2 summarises the data gathered.

Table 2
Number of LIS academic staff in school by year

- indicates no data available. Data not available for S5.

Numbers rounded to one decimal place.

Some of the small fluctuation from year to year for individual schools can be explained by different approaches to counting part-time staff and relatively temporary absences or a temporary change of duties, for example, secondment to an administrative position. The amount of part-time teaching assistance and how it was counted from year-to-year by a school also accounted for some of the variability.

To ensure comparability, ALIA specifies a date early in the academic year for staffing information. Looking at data for the individual schools in Table 2, the increase in staff to nine for S1 in 1997 precedes the introduction of a new bachelor program. The very large fall in staff numbers for S3 can be partially explained by the amalgamation which took place on 1 January 1991 and which was implemented over several years. However, the later fall from what seemed to have been a new stable staff number of eight to six may be a cause of concern. S4 staff numbers have been fairly consistent. There was an increase in 1995 due to the relocation of staff from a school that closed but the number then settled back to a level a little below that before the event. Data were not available for S5, which has LIS teaching serviced by another school.

While S6 and S7 have had some decline in staff numbers a more marked change is recorded for S8. Its 1991 staffing return specifies that two staff were involved in their archives and records program and that staff were involved in other teaching within the institution. Later returns are less clear about these other deployments. However, even if numbers for 1991-94 are inflated by two there is still a decline in staff numbers over the period. The boost to 8.6 staff in 1997 was due to a closure and the movement of staff from that school to S8. However the number of staff was not maintained. S10 and S11 experienced fluctuations over the period but no marked decline. As part of the organisational restructuring which took place over the nineties, universities earmarked funds to pay for staff redundancies and a number of staff from various schools took advantage of this. A number of people retired and were not replaced. The ALIA returns document these changes within individual institutions.

Consideration of figures in the Total column in Table 2 has to take account of gaps in the data. If an assumption is made that S10 had 14 staff in 1991 (its 1992 and 1993 numbers) then the composite (total number of staff) for 1991 would be 97.7 which is about 20 percent more than the 1999 figure of 77. Some decline in staffing was probably to be expected as universities sought savings by increasing staff-student ratios, but for small LIS schools the shrinkage can lead to the 'critical mass' problem referred to earlier. A very small and specialised teaching unit for a professional stream faces the problem of whether it has sufficient staff to teach over the various areas relevant to professional practice. This raises the very central and important question of how much specialised LIS content is required in a program and how much the profession has evolved and should evolve in ways that are more interdisciplinary or convergent.

Institutional placement and name

Two areas that have not been pursued in depth require some comment. One is the extent of change in institutional placement which LIS schools have experienced over the past decade. Another related area is the changes in school names that have occurred. The name changes have in most cases been as a consequence of the changes in institutional placement: in Australia, LIS has joined with disciplines such as business, computing, information technology and communications. In these situations the intention has been to express in a new name component parts of the school. In situations where this has occurred the word Information has often been used to express the LIS component of the school.

Even prior to the 'Dawkins reforms' names such as School of Librarianship had been giving way to ones that included the word Information, for example, School of Library and Information Studies. Tracking the current 12 schools over the duration of the study revealed that Library or Librarianship disappeared from the names of most of the schools which carried either of these terms at the beginning of the period investigated. This change has been in line with the quite widely-held view that graduates from LIS programs are information managers and should not be defined by the institution in which some of the graduates would find employment. However, this change may have had an impact on the visibility of LIS programs within institutions. For example, when a previously autonomous school with a name which very clearly flagged its teaching area is amalgamated or merged with a much larger school or schools it seems likely that the LIS programs could become 'lost' for some potential students.

Concluding comments

Most schools experienced some growth in graduating student numbers over the duration of the study, which is to be expected in light of the closure of a number of schools. Two schools that experienced a decline in student numbers are in cities that house two schools. The data raise questions about the number and location of LIS schools needed to serve Australian demand. The United States and Canada certainly have fewer schools per head of population: Canada with seven ALA-accredited schools serves a population of 31 million and the United States has 49 accredited schools serving a population of 275 million.[6] Australia, with its 12 ALIA-accredited schools for 18.7 million seems very well served with a level of provision in excess of one school for every two million inhabitants. Up to a point it can be argued that the vastness of Australia should lead to more schools in all sorts of fields not only LIS. However, the concentration of nine schools in the south-east raises questions even after taking account of the fact that this part of Australia has close to 90 percent of the population.

The proliferation of schools had been the subject of discussion within the profession from time to time, often in informal situations and often raised within the context of the supply, or more usually perceived oversupply of new graduates. The Library Association of Australia's (now ALIA) response to the 'Dawkins reforms' had been to advocate that there should be eight library schools but on the whole this was not welcomed by the schools which maintained that their different emphases were valuable.[7] Comfort was probably found by some in a 1991 government report claiming that demand for librarians was set to grow in the period 1991-2001.[8] Yet even at that time those involved in education for the profession were of the view that many of the new information management jobs were probably going to be taken up by people from other educational programs. Indeed, this was indicated by LIS labour market studies at the time (for example, the work of Nick Moore[9]) and by those who have undertaken similar studies since.[10] If LIS programs are increasingly located in schools which prepare graduates for a number of other work areas, then this may provide a catalyst for those attracted to LIS-based information management programs to look toward the wide spectrum of non-traditional work which now exists.

Conclusions must be viewed cautiously as some of the structural changes which offer the potential for schools to grow are recent. As already remarked, LIS education, as part of a bigger pond than a single discipline teaching unit, has much to offer. However, in tough economic times a fall in student numbers in LIS courses and programs can put the LIS component of a school under enormous pressure. Offering courses which utilise LIS knowledge and are tailored to existing and emerging information gaps beyond what is commonly accepted as LIS professional practice is a way to demonstrate relevance and value for resources expended. However, the issue of 'critical mass' has not disappeared with all but two schools in 1999 having fewer than ten LIS academic staff (see Table 2). Maxine Rochester, on reporting interviews she had conducted with the heads of LIS schools in 1992, noted that one respondent had said: 'The real problem is we have too many library schools, each of which is too small'.[11] In a recent article with the worrying title 'Losing the quality battle in Australian education for librarianship', Ross Harvey again raises the issue of size. He suggests several strategies based on 'share to survive' models involving cross-schools within a university as well as cross-university cooperation along lines of specialisation expertise.[12]

An earlier version of this paper, entitled 'Trends and Transformations: The Changing Face of Library and Information Studies in Australia', reported preliminary results from eight schools, and appeared in the Journal for Education in Library and Information Science vol 42 no 4 Fall 2001.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge with gratitude the assistance given by ALIA and the cooperation of the Schools in making their data available for this research.

Notes

1. M Rochester Education for Librarianship in Australia London Mansell 1997

2.Australia Department of Employment Education and Training Higher Education: A Policy Statement Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service 1988

3. Courses in Library and Information Studies (Australian Library and Information Association) 1987/88-2000

4. M Rochester op cit p110

5. Courses in Library and Information Studies op cit

6. A Curry 'Trends in Canadian Library and Information Science Education' ALISE Conference San Antonio Texas January 12 2000. Paper forthcoming in Education for Information 2001

7. M Rochester op cit p109

8. Australia Department of Employment Education and Training Economic Policy Analysis Division Australia's Workforce in the Year 2001 Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service 1991

9.N Moore The Emerging Markets for Librarians and Information Workers London British Library 1987

10.P Willard and J Mychalyn 'New Information Management Work in a Changing World: An Australian Survey' International Journal of Information Management vol 18 no5 1998 pp315-327

11. M Rochester 'Taking the Pulse of Library Education in Australia' Education for Library and Information Services: Australia vol 9 no3 1992 pp5-15

12. R Harvey 'Losing the Quality Battle in Australian Education for Librarianship' Australian Library Journal vol 50 no1 pp15-22

Patricia Willard, formerly senior lecturer, School of Information Library and Archive Studies (now School of Information Systems, Technology and Management), University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052. E-mail: p.willard@unsw.edu.au.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).

Conceptión Wilson, senior lecturer, School of Information Systems, Technology and Management), University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052. E-mail: c.wilson@unsw.edu.au.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).

Christine Pawley, assistant professor, School of Library and Information Science, University of Iowa, 3074 Mail Library, Iowa City, IS, 52242-1420. E-mail: christine-pawley@uiowa.edu.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).