Welcome to Taking Issues, RUSQS new forum for debate. Taking Issues will provide a space for substantive argument and deliberation about topics of importance to the practice of reference and user Contributions to this column will consider topics that have generated professional controversies and debate them from two (or more) opposing viewpoints. We hope to use this column to create an opportunity for active discussion, a space in which librarians with different opinions and perspectives on our professional can engage with one another directly. We chose the name Taking Issues for two reasons. First, that's the intellectual charge we're asking our contributors to embrace: Take up an that matters to the practice of librarianship and enter a conversation about it. Second, the name evokes the spirit of lively, informed debate that we want to encourage. Contributors will use this column to take issue with their colleagues' ideas and arguments, to explain their differences of opinion, and to defend their positions. As an example of the sort of debate we envision in this column, we use this first installment to discuss reducing the size of libraries' print collections, weighing the physical space gained against the content lost. We seek contributors to co-author columns that debate both sides of an relevant to reference and user If you and a colleague have an ongoing disagreement on such a topic, please consider outlining your viewpoints and the reasons for your disagreement in Taking Issues. Email column proposals to the editors at kantell@ou.edu and mstrothmann@ou.edu. COLUMN GUIDELINES * The scope of this column is issues worth debating in reference and user services. We've intentionally made the range of suitable topics as broad as possible, and we encourage contributors to discuss that affect all aspects of our work in all sizes and types of libraries. * Topics should have some current relevance to the RUSQ readership. Relevance, however, needn't imply newness. You can use this space to weigh the pros and cons of the latest innovation in library services or technologies, certainly. But you can also use it to explore the abiding debates of our profession. We believe that many classic topics deserve ongoing reflection, and we hope to provide a space where they can be discussed with fresh perspectives. * We envision that most columns will be co-authored, with each author advancing one side of the discussion. Our preference will be for authentic debate between two colleagues who hold different views, rather than columns that merely delineate the available positions. In other words, it's not necessary to put aside your own opinions--in fact, please don't. (Incidentally, we genuinely do disagree with each other about the print retention that we debate below.) Each side should be signed. * If necessary, we will attempt to match contributors with appropriate writing partners. If you are committed to a position that you want to defend zealously and would enjoy the opportunity for an animated debate, but you haven't been able to identify any colleagues who hold the opposing viewpoint, contact us with your idea. We will try to find someone to gainsay you. * While Taking Issues will usually feature two contributors arguing opposing viewpoints, we will entertain contributions by single authors so long as they are in keeping with the column's spirit of debate. If you've argued--passionately--with yourself about an important topic, you may use this column to convey your thought process to your fellow librarians. It can be wonderfully instructive to listen to an informed colleague grapple with an idea she has pondered deeply, even if she hasn't yet reached a staunch conviction about it. * By the same token, not every has just two legitimate sides. Some have three. Some have fifty. If you have an idea for a column that is better suited to a conversation representing multiple opinions than to a simple point-counterpoint, tell us about it. …