[Prodev] Academic library scenario # 14
Felice K. Lowell
felice.lowell@law.csuohio.edu
Thu, 16 May 2002 14:43:36 -0400
--------------713B1B00BEC666E1E4858EE4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The future of the "real" library is limited and compromised by the
"virtual" library. The "vision" in the scenario #14 for shared
resources, funding, policy, etc. is very exciting. But the reality is
that whatever librarians are willing to do, their funding agencies and
external partners may not go along with them. Sandra Gold mentioned
that law firms in the Chicago area stopped supporting the consortial
arrangement developed there when costs rose and expanding accessibility
reduced the perceived need to pay.
While I appreciate the desire of librarians to be on the leading edge
and not get run-over by more aggressive types, perhaps the nature of
what, why, and how we do our work does not lend itself so readily to a
cutting-edge position/status. At least not all of us. I think Jan
Novak's statement "the jobs of web master, knowledge managers and
information aggregators are in essence old jobs with new titles; our
problem is that lots of non-librarians also see themselves in those
roles..." is pretty much to the point.
Academic libraries have a "Catch-22" to deal with in that they must be
concerned both with being on the cutting edge and preserving the past.
This mixed mission is wreaking havoc with budgets and forcing the
sacrifice of personnel to machines. This does not mean that fewer
personnel are needed but that librarians in traditional roles are forced
to learn new technology and practices like those of web master and
information aggregators (a good thing) and to abandon old technology and
practices such as book selection/deselection and collection maintenance
(a bad thing). After all, who needs to worry about what we acquire when
we can have everything!
The split of philosophy and mission of the information broker vs. the
information conservator is a far more serious one than the old public
services-technical services dichotomy. The jobs are becoming so highly
differentiated and specialized that it may soon be difficult to see them
as more than tangentially related, but rather two aspects of service
connected only by the shared product - that of providing the best access
to the maximum information to the greatest patron base, and that of
assuring the preservation of that information.
It is almost imperative, given the nature of the non-librarian's
understanding of the role of libraries and the budding issues in public
access, the aspect of preservation and other more traditional library
concerns - developing repositories for professional access (resource
sharing, ILL, etc.) as developed in Scenario #14 - will require some new
ideas and funding if they are to succeed, nay, survive.
For academic, research, and scientific libraries, at least, the
recommendation to " Rethink local library collections to serve primary
clientele." is the way to go, instead of trying to be all things to all
people as someone suggested. If we know that some of the compromises we
make at the beginning of each new budget year diminish our ability to
provide quality service to our primary population, then we need to step
back off the edge for awhile. It's no different from watching one's own
wallet and appetite - there are some things you have to have now, and
others which can or have to be postponed until the situation gets
better.
Felice K. Lowell
Assistant Library Director for Technical Services
Cleveland State University
Cleveland-Marshall Law Library
1801 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
fon = 216-523-7388 fax = 216-687-5284
--------------713B1B00BEC666E1E4858EE4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
The future of the "real" library is limited and compromised by the "virtual"
library. The "vision" in the scenario #14 for shared resources,
funding, policy, etc. is very exciting. But the reality is that whatever
librarians are willing to do, their funding agencies and external partners
may not go along with them. Sandra Gold mentioned that law firms
in the Chicago area stopped supporting the consortial arrangement developed
there when costs rose and expanding accessibility reduced the perceived
need to pay.
<br>While I appreciate the desire of librarians to be on the leading edge
and not get run-over by more aggressive types, perhaps the nature of what,
why, and how we do our work does not lend itself so readily to a cutting-edge
position/status. At least not all of us. I think Jan Novak's statement
"the jobs of web master, knowledge managers and information aggregators
are in essence old jobs with new titles; our problem is that lots of non-librarians
also see themselves in those roles..." is pretty much to the point.
<br>Academic libraries have a "Catch-22" to deal with in that they must
be concerned both with being on the cutting edge and preserving the past.
This mixed mission is wreaking havoc with budgets and forcing the sacrifice
of personnel to machines. This does not mean that fewer personnel
are needed but that librarians in traditional roles are forced to learn
new technology and practices like those of web master and information aggregators
(a good thing) and to abandon old technology and practices such as book
selection/deselection and collection maintenance (a bad thing). After all,
who needs to worry about what we acquire when we can have everything!
<br>The split of philosophy and mission of the information broker vs. the
information conservator is a far more serious one than the old public services-technical
services dichotomy. The jobs are becoming so highly differentiated
and specialized that it may soon be difficult to see them as more than
tangentially related, but rather two aspects of service connected only
by the shared product - that of providing the best access to the maximum
information to the greatest patron base, and that of assuring the preservation
of that information.
<br>It is almost imperative, given the nature of the non-librarian's understanding
of the role of libraries and the budding issues in public access, the aspect
of preservation and other more traditional library concerns - developing
repositories for professional access (resource sharing, ILL, etc.) as developed
in Scenario #14 - will require some new ideas and funding if they are to
succeed, nay, survive.
<br>For academic, research, and scientific libraries, at least, the recommendation
to " Rethink local library collections to serve primary clientele." is
the way to go, instead of trying to be all things to all people as
someone suggested. If we <u>know</u> that some of the compromises
we make at the beginning of each new budget year diminish our ability to
provide quality service to our primary population, then we need to step
back off the edge for awhile. It's no different from watching one's
own wallet and appetite - there are some things you have to have now, and
others which can or have to be postponed until the situation gets better.
<br>
<p>Felice K. Lowell
<br>Assistant Library Director for Technical Services
<br>Cleveland State University
<br>Cleveland-Marshall Law Library
<br>1801 Euclid Ave.
<br>Cleveland, OH 44115
<br>fon = 216-523-7388 fax = 216-687-5284
<br> </html>
--------------713B1B00BEC666E1E4858EE4--