- Email: [email protected]
Access vs. ownership: Myth or reality
Library Acquisitions: &act&e & Theory, Vol. 17, pp. 191-195, 1993 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0364~64OW93 $6.00 + .oO Copyright 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
ACCESS VS. OWNERSHIP: MYTH OR REALITY IRENE B. HOADLEY Director Evans Library Capital Campaign Texas A & M University College Station, TX 77843-l 125
A concern sometimes expressed about librarians and the profession is that we take ourselves too seriously and as a result there is seldom the opportunity to dream about what should be and what might be. Our noses are to the grindstone dealing with the realities of today. Our goals are simple and directed. Librarians try as hard as possible to provide users with their expressed needs. On the other hand, librarians tend not to tell users what they may really need to accomplish their goals, usually because it would be presumptuous to tell users a librarian knows better than they do. To provide a context for approaching the issues of access and ownership, there are two scenarios that provide some background: Library X determines it wants to buy a book. It checks OCLC to determine its existence; it is ordered using electronic transfer of the order. When the book arrives, the cataloging record is automatically transferred to the library’s local system and the book goes to the shelf. An even more basic arrangement would be to have an electronic profile that would assure that all relevant materials would be sent automatically-the automated version of approval plans along with an automatic transfer of the cataloging data to the libraries’ local system. If what is wanted is an article, the situation is much the same except it will most often be a user who is doing the “ordering.” Using a workstation, the user will identify the items that seem pertinent. But rather than going to the stacks, the user will advance to an electronic file where the articles reside and retrieve the designated one on the screen. If it is what is needed, it can be printed out or read from a screen-if not, the user goes on to another item until finding what is really wanted. These visions of the future are familiar to librarians because most segments of these visions already exist. The technology exists. But the desired “one-stop” shopping does not exist to allow it to happen in quite this way. The issue of access versus ownership has been primarily in the context of collection development, but this is not really the main issue. Libraries are valued and judged by their size, the supposition being the bigger the better. Just because one library is three times the size of another, does that really make it three times better? The answer provided by each library would be different. Our society promotes the concept that bigger is better-a bigger house, fancier cars, more material possessions-so why not more and bigger in terms of libraries? Size is relevant, but just as important is what makes up that size. If one library grew larger by buying and adding whole collections with little regard to their usefulness, that does not con191
192
I. B. HOADLEY
tribute to quality or to satisfying user needs. Quality and fulfilling needs is what libraries should be about and what this paper is about -putting the desired or required information in the hands of the person who needs it when it is needed. How that goal is ac~omp~sh~ is what should be at issue. Librarians should not be talking about access versus ownership because both are relevant and both will continue to be necessary. What is needed is a way to balance the two and make access a viable partner to complement ownership. This is not a new issue. In 1975 there were two articles, one by Richard DeGennaro and the other by C. James Schmidt, that dealt with what was then termed resource sharing and resource allocation that really identified the issues of access and ownership. DeGemnuo said: “The traditional emphasis on developing large local research collections must be shifted toward developing excellent local working collections and truly effective means of gaining access to needed research materials wherever they may be [l]. Schmidt stated: “That a change in priorities from ownership (holdings) to access has to some extent begun and will continue . . .” [2]. That was 16 years ago and a lot has changed since then, but more has stayed the same. Libraries do much more in providing tools to identify a much broader array of information than was ever available before the advent of new technologies like online access and CD-ROM databases. Libraries still buy as many books as there are dollars to purchase them because more is still better. On the other hand, libraries do not as yet provide access to large quantities of data in electronic format so that a user can call up Brain Research on a terminal and review all the articles of the past six months. There are really three problems in relation to such a service. First, very little is available in terms of full-text files to access; second, libraries are still hesitant to substitute access for ownership; and third, publishers are still concerned over how they will make money if there is basically one file that anyone can access. There may even be a fourth problem, which also relates to money. Libraries have a difficult time justifying money when they do not get a physical “something” for those dollars and something to count and report. One aspect of this question relates to CD-ROM databases. Libraries have become believers and have moved to acquire as many CD-ROM databases as they can afford. The key word here is acquire. The library owns or maybe leases this information. It does not belong to someone else, the library contracts for it; the library does not depend on some other entity to provide a service, there is a physical thing in our possession. Once more it is the old bugaboo of self-sufficiency, although libraries have begun to acknowledge that no library can be entirely self-sufficient, Does all of this bring to mind cooperative collection development and resource sharing? These are topics of immense interest to librarians. They are topics of endless discussions, but there is not a like amount of effort to really turn the concepts into reality. The same is likely to be true of access and ownership. There is another aspect of access and ownership that is not questioned by libraries, and that is interlibrary loan. Interlibrary loan provides access to materials the local library does not own. Requesting it is done electronically, although actually receiving the item is still usually done manually. Libraries do not question its value, but neither is it called access. Interlibrary loan is not perceived to have any effect on the quality of the collection. It supplements what is owned locally. And that is what electronic access will do. It will not replace our collections; it will supplement and enhance local collections. It brings the totality of information that is available in electronic format to the fingertips of users regardless of location. What will be the effect on libraries of emphasizing both access and ownership? If this idea
Access vs. Ownership
193
is taken seriously, there will have to be changes. Libraries should not then be judged on the basis of size alone, but the services provided must be a part of the evaluation measures. There will need to be a new set of standards or measures by which libraries will be evaluated and compared. Without question, this takes a long time to evolve. And what happens to the role of libraries in an environment where access is as important as ownership? DeGennaro said it 16 years ago: “Staffs could begin to . . . shift their emphasis from processing materials to serving readers” [3]. Not a novel idea by any stretch of the imagination. But what needs some thought is what serving readers means. What it has traditionally meant is that librarians provide the answers to questions and help users find information that will assist them in whatever they are doing. Service has been, and for the most part continues to be, reactive. Librarians wait for users to come to us and ask for what they want. How often do librarians go out and tell the community of users what the library can do for them, how library resources can help them do their job better and thereby more successfully? Instructional services has provided a beginning proactive stance, but still most of those efforts are directed at individuals who have come to learn more about the library. The library does not usually go out and solicit their participation. Consideration needs to be given to remaining a reactive organization. Some of the results the commercial information providers, the faculty and students who bypass the library to do their own database searching-are only beginning to be evident. In the long run this is a stance that libraries can ill afford since it erodes their position in the community. There is another aspect of the access issue that is highly debated, and that is the question of fee versus free. First of all, everyone must realize there is no free service; someone pays. What is usually meant by free is without charge to the end user, which is different and which is more defensible. In my mind this is a simple issue. If the function of the library is to provide information to its users on an equitable basis, then it either charges for everything or charges for nothing. Unfortunately, over time libraries have developed a web of rules about paying for services. It started with interlibrary loan. Because libraries did not own an item, users were charged to get it for their use. The logic is not really clear to me. Libraries charge for not having something, which is an inconvenience to the user, rather than charging for using what is available locally. Libraries charge for photocopies, which a user makes often because he/she wants to have a personal copy of items as a matter of convenience. When database searching came along, libraries charged for that because it was an “extra” service. Database searching may not be “extra” now because the paper tools may no longer be available except when the publisher requires buying the paper copy to get the electronic service or because the library has cancelled the paper tool because it cannot afford to have two copies/formats of the same information. When CD-ROMs came along, most libraries did not charge for those services. The library owned them so the user did not have to pay. Another way of looking at what to charge for and what not to charge for is that libraries have not charged for fixed-cost items (books, CD-ROMs, local databases, etc.), but have charged for those services based on variable costs (ILL, online database searching, etc.). However, on that basis maybe it does make more sense. The current situation is still one of charging for what libraries do not own and not charging for what is owned. This seems the opposite of what is logical. Libraries need to consider the past as prologue. What should libraries do today in terms of costs for access services? What are our choices? Charge Do not charge Charge for some and not for others
194
I. B. HOADLEY
My personal philosophy has been not to charge. If the library’s function is to provide information, it should be done regardless of the source of the information (local or national) so that all users are treated equally. There is a perception that having bibliographic access to and then borrowing or being able to print out the item is less expensive than owning it. It is time to determine whether the perception can be verified with some cost studies. In 1968 in a study done at the Center for Research Libraries, Gordon Williams determined that: “. . . unless the title is used more than about six times per year, it is less expensive for the library to acquire a photocopy of articles from it when needed than to maintain its own subscription and file” [4]. There is a real need to determine if this study is still valid. Another aspect of the question of access and ownership that is rarely considered is the cost to the user [5] caused by the delay when access means waiting for an item to arrive. In the online environment this would not be a factor, but it is for any immediate, physical kind of access because the user must locate it in the library or wait for it to arrive through interlibrary loan. Another consideration is the level of use of collections in research libraries. It has been estimated that in many cases no more than half the titles in a library are used more often than once a year [6]. The general rule has been that 20% of the titles owned constitute 80% of the use of the collections. When you consider that several studies have shown that when an owned item is needed by a user, “only slightly better than half the time is it on the shelf and available for use” [7], this would mean that about only one-fourth of a library’s collections are used in a year, and it is probably even less than this. Is this really valid? If it is, libraries are really overstocked. Think about businesses that tried to stock everything attempting to meet the needs of all comers. Most have gone the way of the dinosaur. Another side of the issue is what Richard Dougherty has termed the “user oriented research library.” He stated that, “Researchers will attach more importance to looking and obtaining information and less importance to where the information was obtained [8]. He goes on to say that I‘. . . Library users will be less concerned about the size of the local library collection and more concerned about the timeliness of document delivery” [9]. Perhaps the key in this statement is that “library users” are not concerned. Unfortunately, too many librarians are still concerned with size. The Dougherty scenario is very desirable, but being desirable will not make it happen. Waiting for library users to make it so will take a lot of time, and it will probably still not happen. Which puts us back to being a reactive organization. On the other hand, librarians can go out and tell our clientele what they need to know. Librarians can demonstrate that user needs can be met, even if the local library does not own the item. Librarians will have to convince our user populations that this will work, and then show them how it works. Access in the context of this paper is tied to technology and electronic access. More often it deals with commercially produced products rather than resource-sharing among libraries. Access also implies the ability to bypass libraries and go directly to the source. What is needed is the ability to go online and pay only for what is used [IO]. Where does all of this leave us? There are those who surely still want to debate access versus ownership. There are many who embrace access plus ownership, a partnership that strengthens the role of the library. There are probably some who see access through technology as the most viable future. There are those who will never accept access in place of ownership. What must be realized is that there is not one future, one model that will fit all libraries, even all large academic libraries. There will be several, maybe many models. There will be more divergence in the service provided by individual libraries. The basic role and function will remain unchanged, but that role will provide many more variations. Libraries with
Access vs. Ownership
195
very large collections may be less likely to emphasize access because they can fulfill more of their users’ needs with local resources. For the libraries with more limited local collections, access provides its users with an option for meeting their needs. In my opinion many libraries still see access in terms of identifying items and then using a manual means of obtaining the item. Access needs to be more. ft should mean availability as quickly as if the item were owned locally. That might mean a matter of minutes or even hours. It should not be weeks or even several days. It is time to put aside access versus ownership and concentrate on access and ownership. It is time for librarians, publishers, and utilities to begin to work together to provide a future that serves our users rather than ourselves. It is time to determine our future rather than having someone else do it for us. It is time to overcome and move forward to a future that meets the needs of our users.
NOTES 1. no, Richard. “Austerity, Technology, and Resource Sharing: ResearchLibrariesFace the Future,” Libmy Journal, 100 (May 15, 1975), 950. 2. Schmidt, C. James. “Resource Allocation in University Libraries in the 1970s and Beyond,” Library Trends, 23 (April 1975), 644. 3. DeGennaro, 950. 4. William, Gordon et al. Library Cost h&de&: Owning Versus Borrowing &rid ~bii~~ri~ns. Washington, DC: Office of Science Information Service, National Science Foundation, 1%8, p. iv. 5. Ibid, v. 6. Ibid, 2. 7. Ibid, 3-4. 8. Dougherty, Richard M. “Needed: User-Responsive Research Libraries,” Library Journal, 116 (January 1991), 59. 9. Ibid. 10. Ho&y, Edward G. “GCLC, Libraries, and Scholarship: #at Lies Ahead?” Colwnbus, Ohio: GCLC, 1989. (Keynote speech for the Annual Meeting of the Directors of Research Libraries in GCLC).
0364~64OW93 $6.00 + .oO Copyright 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
ACCESS VS. OWNERSHIP: MYTH OR REALITY IRENE B. HOADLEY Director Evans Library Capital Campaign Texas A & M University College Station, TX 77843-l 125
A concern sometimes expressed about librarians and the profession is that we take ourselves too seriously and as a result there is seldom the opportunity to dream about what should be and what might be. Our noses are to the grindstone dealing with the realities of today. Our goals are simple and directed. Librarians try as hard as possible to provide users with their expressed needs. On the other hand, librarians tend not to tell users what they may really need to accomplish their goals, usually because it would be presumptuous to tell users a librarian knows better than they do. To provide a context for approaching the issues of access and ownership, there are two scenarios that provide some background: Library X determines it wants to buy a book. It checks OCLC to determine its existence; it is ordered using electronic transfer of the order. When the book arrives, the cataloging record is automatically transferred to the library’s local system and the book goes to the shelf. An even more basic arrangement would be to have an electronic profile that would assure that all relevant materials would be sent automatically-the automated version of approval plans along with an automatic transfer of the cataloging data to the libraries’ local system. If what is wanted is an article, the situation is much the same except it will most often be a user who is doing the “ordering.” Using a workstation, the user will identify the items that seem pertinent. But rather than going to the stacks, the user will advance to an electronic file where the articles reside and retrieve the designated one on the screen. If it is what is needed, it can be printed out or read from a screen-if not, the user goes on to another item until finding what is really wanted. These visions of the future are familiar to librarians because most segments of these visions already exist. The technology exists. But the desired “one-stop” shopping does not exist to allow it to happen in quite this way. The issue of access versus ownership has been primarily in the context of collection development, but this is not really the main issue. Libraries are valued and judged by their size, the supposition being the bigger the better. Just because one library is three times the size of another, does that really make it three times better? The answer provided by each library would be different. Our society promotes the concept that bigger is better-a bigger house, fancier cars, more material possessions-so why not more and bigger in terms of libraries? Size is relevant, but just as important is what makes up that size. If one library grew larger by buying and adding whole collections with little regard to their usefulness, that does not con191
192
I. B. HOADLEY
tribute to quality or to satisfying user needs. Quality and fulfilling needs is what libraries should be about and what this paper is about -putting the desired or required information in the hands of the person who needs it when it is needed. How that goal is ac~omp~sh~ is what should be at issue. Librarians should not be talking about access versus ownership because both are relevant and both will continue to be necessary. What is needed is a way to balance the two and make access a viable partner to complement ownership. This is not a new issue. In 1975 there were two articles, one by Richard DeGennaro and the other by C. James Schmidt, that dealt with what was then termed resource sharing and resource allocation that really identified the issues of access and ownership. DeGemnuo said: “The traditional emphasis on developing large local research collections must be shifted toward developing excellent local working collections and truly effective means of gaining access to needed research materials wherever they may be [l]. Schmidt stated: “That a change in priorities from ownership (holdings) to access has to some extent begun and will continue . . .” [2]. That was 16 years ago and a lot has changed since then, but more has stayed the same. Libraries do much more in providing tools to identify a much broader array of information than was ever available before the advent of new technologies like online access and CD-ROM databases. Libraries still buy as many books as there are dollars to purchase them because more is still better. On the other hand, libraries do not as yet provide access to large quantities of data in electronic format so that a user can call up Brain Research on a terminal and review all the articles of the past six months. There are really three problems in relation to such a service. First, very little is available in terms of full-text files to access; second, libraries are still hesitant to substitute access for ownership; and third, publishers are still concerned over how they will make money if there is basically one file that anyone can access. There may even be a fourth problem, which also relates to money. Libraries have a difficult time justifying money when they do not get a physical “something” for those dollars and something to count and report. One aspect of this question relates to CD-ROM databases. Libraries have become believers and have moved to acquire as many CD-ROM databases as they can afford. The key word here is acquire. The library owns or maybe leases this information. It does not belong to someone else, the library contracts for it; the library does not depend on some other entity to provide a service, there is a physical thing in our possession. Once more it is the old bugaboo of self-sufficiency, although libraries have begun to acknowledge that no library can be entirely self-sufficient, Does all of this bring to mind cooperative collection development and resource sharing? These are topics of immense interest to librarians. They are topics of endless discussions, but there is not a like amount of effort to really turn the concepts into reality. The same is likely to be true of access and ownership. There is another aspect of access and ownership that is not questioned by libraries, and that is interlibrary loan. Interlibrary loan provides access to materials the local library does not own. Requesting it is done electronically, although actually receiving the item is still usually done manually. Libraries do not question its value, but neither is it called access. Interlibrary loan is not perceived to have any effect on the quality of the collection. It supplements what is owned locally. And that is what electronic access will do. It will not replace our collections; it will supplement and enhance local collections. It brings the totality of information that is available in electronic format to the fingertips of users regardless of location. What will be the effect on libraries of emphasizing both access and ownership? If this idea
Access vs. Ownership
193
is taken seriously, there will have to be changes. Libraries should not then be judged on the basis of size alone, but the services provided must be a part of the evaluation measures. There will need to be a new set of standards or measures by which libraries will be evaluated and compared. Without question, this takes a long time to evolve. And what happens to the role of libraries in an environment where access is as important as ownership? DeGennaro said it 16 years ago: “Staffs could begin to . . . shift their emphasis from processing materials to serving readers” [3]. Not a novel idea by any stretch of the imagination. But what needs some thought is what serving readers means. What it has traditionally meant is that librarians provide the answers to questions and help users find information that will assist them in whatever they are doing. Service has been, and for the most part continues to be, reactive. Librarians wait for users to come to us and ask for what they want. How often do librarians go out and tell the community of users what the library can do for them, how library resources can help them do their job better and thereby more successfully? Instructional services has provided a beginning proactive stance, but still most of those efforts are directed at individuals who have come to learn more about the library. The library does not usually go out and solicit their participation. Consideration needs to be given to remaining a reactive organization. Some of the results the commercial information providers, the faculty and students who bypass the library to do their own database searching-are only beginning to be evident. In the long run this is a stance that libraries can ill afford since it erodes their position in the community. There is another aspect of the access issue that is highly debated, and that is the question of fee versus free. First of all, everyone must realize there is no free service; someone pays. What is usually meant by free is without charge to the end user, which is different and which is more defensible. In my mind this is a simple issue. If the function of the library is to provide information to its users on an equitable basis, then it either charges for everything or charges for nothing. Unfortunately, over time libraries have developed a web of rules about paying for services. It started with interlibrary loan. Because libraries did not own an item, users were charged to get it for their use. The logic is not really clear to me. Libraries charge for not having something, which is an inconvenience to the user, rather than charging for using what is available locally. Libraries charge for photocopies, which a user makes often because he/she wants to have a personal copy of items as a matter of convenience. When database searching came along, libraries charged for that because it was an “extra” service. Database searching may not be “extra” now because the paper tools may no longer be available except when the publisher requires buying the paper copy to get the electronic service or because the library has cancelled the paper tool because it cannot afford to have two copies/formats of the same information. When CD-ROMs came along, most libraries did not charge for those services. The library owned them so the user did not have to pay. Another way of looking at what to charge for and what not to charge for is that libraries have not charged for fixed-cost items (books, CD-ROMs, local databases, etc.), but have charged for those services based on variable costs (ILL, online database searching, etc.). However, on that basis maybe it does make more sense. The current situation is still one of charging for what libraries do not own and not charging for what is owned. This seems the opposite of what is logical. Libraries need to consider the past as prologue. What should libraries do today in terms of costs for access services? What are our choices? Charge Do not charge Charge for some and not for others
194
I. B. HOADLEY
My personal philosophy has been not to charge. If the library’s function is to provide information, it should be done regardless of the source of the information (local or national) so that all users are treated equally. There is a perception that having bibliographic access to and then borrowing or being able to print out the item is less expensive than owning it. It is time to determine whether the perception can be verified with some cost studies. In 1968 in a study done at the Center for Research Libraries, Gordon Williams determined that: “. . . unless the title is used more than about six times per year, it is less expensive for the library to acquire a photocopy of articles from it when needed than to maintain its own subscription and file” [4]. There is a real need to determine if this study is still valid. Another aspect of the question of access and ownership that is rarely considered is the cost to the user [5] caused by the delay when access means waiting for an item to arrive. In the online environment this would not be a factor, but it is for any immediate, physical kind of access because the user must locate it in the library or wait for it to arrive through interlibrary loan. Another consideration is the level of use of collections in research libraries. It has been estimated that in many cases no more than half the titles in a library are used more often than once a year [6]. The general rule has been that 20% of the titles owned constitute 80% of the use of the collections. When you consider that several studies have shown that when an owned item is needed by a user, “only slightly better than half the time is it on the shelf and available for use” [7], this would mean that about only one-fourth of a library’s collections are used in a year, and it is probably even less than this. Is this really valid? If it is, libraries are really overstocked. Think about businesses that tried to stock everything attempting to meet the needs of all comers. Most have gone the way of the dinosaur. Another side of the issue is what Richard Dougherty has termed the “user oriented research library.” He stated that, “Researchers will attach more importance to looking and obtaining information and less importance to where the information was obtained [8]. He goes on to say that I‘. . . Library users will be less concerned about the size of the local library collection and more concerned about the timeliness of document delivery” [9]. Perhaps the key in this statement is that “library users” are not concerned. Unfortunately, too many librarians are still concerned with size. The Dougherty scenario is very desirable, but being desirable will not make it happen. Waiting for library users to make it so will take a lot of time, and it will probably still not happen. Which puts us back to being a reactive organization. On the other hand, librarians can go out and tell our clientele what they need to know. Librarians can demonstrate that user needs can be met, even if the local library does not own the item. Librarians will have to convince our user populations that this will work, and then show them how it works. Access in the context of this paper is tied to technology and electronic access. More often it deals with commercially produced products rather than resource-sharing among libraries. Access also implies the ability to bypass libraries and go directly to the source. What is needed is the ability to go online and pay only for what is used [IO]. Where does all of this leave us? There are those who surely still want to debate access versus ownership. There are many who embrace access plus ownership, a partnership that strengthens the role of the library. There are probably some who see access through technology as the most viable future. There are those who will never accept access in place of ownership. What must be realized is that there is not one future, one model that will fit all libraries, even all large academic libraries. There will be several, maybe many models. There will be more divergence in the service provided by individual libraries. The basic role and function will remain unchanged, but that role will provide many more variations. Libraries with
Access vs. Ownership
195
very large collections may be less likely to emphasize access because they can fulfill more of their users’ needs with local resources. For the libraries with more limited local collections, access provides its users with an option for meeting their needs. In my opinion many libraries still see access in terms of identifying items and then using a manual means of obtaining the item. Access needs to be more. ft should mean availability as quickly as if the item were owned locally. That might mean a matter of minutes or even hours. It should not be weeks or even several days. It is time to put aside access versus ownership and concentrate on access and ownership. It is time for librarians, publishers, and utilities to begin to work together to provide a future that serves our users rather than ourselves. It is time to determine our future rather than having someone else do it for us. It is time to overcome and move forward to a future that meets the needs of our users.
NOTES 1. no, Richard. “Austerity, Technology, and Resource Sharing: ResearchLibrariesFace the Future,” Libmy Journal, 100 (May 15, 1975), 950. 2. Schmidt, C. James. “Resource Allocation in University Libraries in the 1970s and Beyond,” Library Trends, 23 (April 1975), 644. 3. DeGennaro, 950. 4. William, Gordon et al. Library Cost h&de&: Owning Versus Borrowing &rid ~bii~~ri~ns. Washington, DC: Office of Science Information Service, National Science Foundation, 1%8, p. iv. 5. Ibid, v. 6. Ibid, 2. 7. Ibid, 3-4. 8. Dougherty, Richard M. “Needed: User-Responsive Research Libraries,” Library Journal, 116 (January 1991), 59. 9. Ibid. 10. Ho&y, Edward G. “GCLC, Libraries, and Scholarship: #at Lies Ahead?” Colwnbus, Ohio: GCLC, 1989. (Keynote speech for the Annual Meeting of the Directors of Research Libraries in GCLC).