- Email: [email protected]
Articulating a compelling reason to take action
Articulating a Compelling Reason to Take Action
KATHLEEN
HEIM”
In Rethinking the Library in the Information Age, Louis Vagianos and Barry Lesser discuss information policy issues. They note two conclusions: 1) There is an immediate and compelling need to find an appropriate definition of the information sector and appropriate methods for measuring the size and performance of this sector, and 2) There is a need for an in-depth review of info~ation law, legislation, regulations, functions, and agencies of government. l These observations appearing in the second volume of the U.S. Department of Education’s OERI Library Programs project, Issues in Library Research: Proposals for the Nineties, underscore the importance of the OTA report, Informing the Nation.
THE REPORT
AS A REPORT
The focus of Informing the Nation is on public information that is or should be in the public domain and is not subject to exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. The report focuses on the process of information dissemination, including the Federal govemment’s technical and institutional infrast~cture for dissemination, not on info~ation collection. However, the audience for this report is not clear-is it Federal policymakers, the general public, academics, or all of the above? The conclusion is that congressional action is urgently needed to resolve Federal information dissemination issues and to set the direction of Federal activities for years to come, but the attention of these policy makers will not be gripped in the report as it stands. This is not to say that the report is not good or thorough, or does not address critical issues relating to information policy. It is ironic in a report that includes a section on
Direct all correspondence to: Karhleen Heinz, Dean, School of Library and InformationScience, Louisiana Srate University, Baron Rouge, Louisiunna 70803 Government Info~~tion Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 2, pages 149-152. Copyright a 1989 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X.
GOVERNMENT
150
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. 2/l 989
technologies that the mode of dissemination is so fraught with distractions. The business of the text, boxes, lists, tables, quotations from famous men, screened sections, and meaningless photographs, plus the erratic boldfacing of various important points, distract the reader from the salient observations. While the report is not complex or difficult to understand, the over-organization and lack of consistency in the use of headings and breakers from chapter to chapter dilute the overall impact. Mode of presentation aside, it becomes important to try and isolate the issues from the user perspective. For the writers of this report the “user” was interpreted, by and large, through the intermediaries of depository librarians. Much of this report deals with the depository library system-its present state, alternative structures, and possible reorganization. To stalwart readers of recent analyses of the depository library systemnotably Hemon, McClure, and Purcell’s GPO’s Depository Library Programs2-much of this ground has been covered before. However, the recapitulation of issues from the perspective of OTA is welcome and the documentation provided is impressive. Major writings on the depository system from both the vantage point of librarians/researchers and Federal agencies are thoroughly reviewed. LACK OF A COMPELLING
STATEMENT
FOR
PUBLIC
ACCESS
Dozens of times the authors of the report affirm public access to Federal information as a fundamental cross-cutting issue. Dozens of times they note that debate over the use of electronic information, privatization, and the like is obscuring the commitment of Congress as expressed in numerous public laws to the importance of Federal information and its dissemination in carrying out agency missions. Dozens of times it is noted that a renewed congressional commitment to public access in an electronic age may be needed. But what is missing from this report is a compelling statement of the scope of need for public access or the grassroots mandate that might really move Congress to action. In reading this report 1 tried to imagine myself a freshman legislator elected most likely in a spirit of my perceived responsiveness to a local electorate. This report would do little to move me. Though the depository library program is described well, there is no corresponding description of the needs of end-users. At best, a highly perceptive legislator might extrapolate the need for electronic information on behalf of a university or business constituency, but more likely this would not be the case. The report needs to be made real for the needs of a user in a busy branch library in Brooklyn, for the needs of a shrimper in a branch library in the marshlands of Louisiana, for the needs of a tired parent in the suburbs of Chicago, and so forth. And, of course, the sophisticated case presented by OTA is removed from the needs of these client groups. We have had increasing attention paid in library literature to the mechanisms by which research can be translated into policy. Fact-finding, such as this report, must be made compelling. I am certain that this cannot happen without a concerted effort on the part of depository librarians-especially at the regional level. THE
ROLE
OF DEPOSITORY
LIBRARIANS
It may seem onerous to lay yet another burden on the backs of our overextended depository library system. Yet where else can it be placed? Documents librarians operate in vastly
Articuhting
a
Compelling Reason to Take Action
151
different organizational contexts. They must argue eloquently within their own institutions that their mission (whether they service public, academic, or legal constituencies) is expansive and populist. We can see from the wildly varying levels of professional support accorded these libraries that this case has been made with different degrees of success. Some depositories have good staffing and outreach, while others are barely accorded a professional presence. Yet administrators with the power to deploy institutional resources hold the key to making the case for expanded electronic access, and the argument must be developed with their support. At point-of-service, end-users of depository services may need sophisticated access to Federal information but have not received it (even at the most basic levels through accurate reference service or speedily processed paper and microfiche), and thus will not miss it if it is not forthcoming. The level of user services must be escalated to a point where the expectations are higher at the grassroots level. This can only be done if administrators who, after all, have the unique power to do so shore up the overextended depository collection staffs. Once this is done the arguments of documents librarians may gain a hearing. It is a tired tune we play here. Documents librarians have tended to see all this clearly. They understand and communicate it eloquently when the audience is knowledgeable. However, if this critical point in the development of information technologies is to be marshalled on behalf of all citizens, it can only be done through more compelling and dramatic means. The Coalition on Government Information, to which many individuals are allied through the participation of library associations, provides one reasonably strong voice to argue for the general citizenry. But again, the strength of this Coalition is the sum of its parts. No legislator will be convinced of the need to draft and lobby for passage of a bill that will enhance funds for depository libraries to the point of the purchase of CDROM players, without evidence that these products are needed by a broader base of citizens. We know that the voice of those arguing for privatization is more likely to be heard than the voices arguing for egalitarian access. We also know that if the battle to gain funding for electronic dissemination is lost that the disparity between those with the resources to buy information products and those without will become an unbridgeable chasm. The Battles Remain
Informing the Nation is one building block in the erection of a fortress that could secure information equality. The facts clearly demonstrate the direction of information dissemination. We can be certain that without access to electronic formats those who are disenfranchised from the information society will comprise a larger segment of that society. There is something peculiar about this fight. On one hand, efforts to achieve basic literacy have never been so visible-so much so that the arguments to forward electronic access may seem remote, yet they cannot be viewed as such. it is appealing to deploy our intellectual resources on behalf of basic literacy, but we must continue to redouble our efforts on behalf of access. While these changes are many, these are battles that cannot be neglected. What else remains to secure information access? The next building block we require is a report or document that demonstrates with passion that all types of information must be
152
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. 211989
available to all categories of people. Armed with the facts and the reasoned arguments that show why access must be guaranteed, we may be able to sway policy makers to commit resources. Today the Federal government faces a $2 billion deficit. The OTA report is unlikely to cause a redeployment of resources unless a concerted lobbying effort comprised of librarians backed up by their constituencies-which, after all, is every single citizen of the United States, fights without cessation to win the funds to revamp the structure of information delivery. Informing the Nation is a blueprint for what is needed. Making this happen must be the next step. No librarian should dodge the draft in this battle, otherwise the war will be lost.
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.
2.
“Information Policy Issues: Putting Library Policy in Context, ” in Rethinking the Library in the Information Age: Issues in Library Research: Proposals for the 199Os, by Louis Vagianos and Barry Lesser (Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1988), pp. 11-12. Peter Hemon, Charles R. McClure, and Gary Purcell, GPO’s Depository Library Program: A Descriptive Analysis (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1985).
KATHLEEN
HEIM”
In Rethinking the Library in the Information Age, Louis Vagianos and Barry Lesser discuss information policy issues. They note two conclusions: 1) There is an immediate and compelling need to find an appropriate definition of the information sector and appropriate methods for measuring the size and performance of this sector, and 2) There is a need for an in-depth review of info~ation law, legislation, regulations, functions, and agencies of government. l These observations appearing in the second volume of the U.S. Department of Education’s OERI Library Programs project, Issues in Library Research: Proposals for the Nineties, underscore the importance of the OTA report, Informing the Nation.
THE REPORT
AS A REPORT
The focus of Informing the Nation is on public information that is or should be in the public domain and is not subject to exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. The report focuses on the process of information dissemination, including the Federal govemment’s technical and institutional infrast~cture for dissemination, not on info~ation collection. However, the audience for this report is not clear-is it Federal policymakers, the general public, academics, or all of the above? The conclusion is that congressional action is urgently needed to resolve Federal information dissemination issues and to set the direction of Federal activities for years to come, but the attention of these policy makers will not be gripped in the report as it stands. This is not to say that the report is not good or thorough, or does not address critical issues relating to information policy. It is ironic in a report that includes a section on
Direct all correspondence to: Karhleen Heinz, Dean, School of Library and InformationScience, Louisiana Srate University, Baron Rouge, Louisiunna 70803 Government Info~~tion Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 2, pages 149-152. Copyright a 1989 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X.
GOVERNMENT
150
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. 2/l 989
technologies that the mode of dissemination is so fraught with distractions. The business of the text, boxes, lists, tables, quotations from famous men, screened sections, and meaningless photographs, plus the erratic boldfacing of various important points, distract the reader from the salient observations. While the report is not complex or difficult to understand, the over-organization and lack of consistency in the use of headings and breakers from chapter to chapter dilute the overall impact. Mode of presentation aside, it becomes important to try and isolate the issues from the user perspective. For the writers of this report the “user” was interpreted, by and large, through the intermediaries of depository librarians. Much of this report deals with the depository library system-its present state, alternative structures, and possible reorganization. To stalwart readers of recent analyses of the depository library systemnotably Hemon, McClure, and Purcell’s GPO’s Depository Library Programs2-much of this ground has been covered before. However, the recapitulation of issues from the perspective of OTA is welcome and the documentation provided is impressive. Major writings on the depository system from both the vantage point of librarians/researchers and Federal agencies are thoroughly reviewed. LACK OF A COMPELLING
STATEMENT
FOR
PUBLIC
ACCESS
Dozens of times the authors of the report affirm public access to Federal information as a fundamental cross-cutting issue. Dozens of times they note that debate over the use of electronic information, privatization, and the like is obscuring the commitment of Congress as expressed in numerous public laws to the importance of Federal information and its dissemination in carrying out agency missions. Dozens of times it is noted that a renewed congressional commitment to public access in an electronic age may be needed. But what is missing from this report is a compelling statement of the scope of need for public access or the grassroots mandate that might really move Congress to action. In reading this report 1 tried to imagine myself a freshman legislator elected most likely in a spirit of my perceived responsiveness to a local electorate. This report would do little to move me. Though the depository library program is described well, there is no corresponding description of the needs of end-users. At best, a highly perceptive legislator might extrapolate the need for electronic information on behalf of a university or business constituency, but more likely this would not be the case. The report needs to be made real for the needs of a user in a busy branch library in Brooklyn, for the needs of a shrimper in a branch library in the marshlands of Louisiana, for the needs of a tired parent in the suburbs of Chicago, and so forth. And, of course, the sophisticated case presented by OTA is removed from the needs of these client groups. We have had increasing attention paid in library literature to the mechanisms by which research can be translated into policy. Fact-finding, such as this report, must be made compelling. I am certain that this cannot happen without a concerted effort on the part of depository librarians-especially at the regional level. THE
ROLE
OF DEPOSITORY
LIBRARIANS
It may seem onerous to lay yet another burden on the backs of our overextended depository library system. Yet where else can it be placed? Documents librarians operate in vastly
Articuhting
a
Compelling Reason to Take Action
151
different organizational contexts. They must argue eloquently within their own institutions that their mission (whether they service public, academic, or legal constituencies) is expansive and populist. We can see from the wildly varying levels of professional support accorded these libraries that this case has been made with different degrees of success. Some depositories have good staffing and outreach, while others are barely accorded a professional presence. Yet administrators with the power to deploy institutional resources hold the key to making the case for expanded electronic access, and the argument must be developed with their support. At point-of-service, end-users of depository services may need sophisticated access to Federal information but have not received it (even at the most basic levels through accurate reference service or speedily processed paper and microfiche), and thus will not miss it if it is not forthcoming. The level of user services must be escalated to a point where the expectations are higher at the grassroots level. This can only be done if administrators who, after all, have the unique power to do so shore up the overextended depository collection staffs. Once this is done the arguments of documents librarians may gain a hearing. It is a tired tune we play here. Documents librarians have tended to see all this clearly. They understand and communicate it eloquently when the audience is knowledgeable. However, if this critical point in the development of information technologies is to be marshalled on behalf of all citizens, it can only be done through more compelling and dramatic means. The Coalition on Government Information, to which many individuals are allied through the participation of library associations, provides one reasonably strong voice to argue for the general citizenry. But again, the strength of this Coalition is the sum of its parts. No legislator will be convinced of the need to draft and lobby for passage of a bill that will enhance funds for depository libraries to the point of the purchase of CDROM players, without evidence that these products are needed by a broader base of citizens. We know that the voice of those arguing for privatization is more likely to be heard than the voices arguing for egalitarian access. We also know that if the battle to gain funding for electronic dissemination is lost that the disparity between those with the resources to buy information products and those without will become an unbridgeable chasm. The Battles Remain
Informing the Nation is one building block in the erection of a fortress that could secure information equality. The facts clearly demonstrate the direction of information dissemination. We can be certain that without access to electronic formats those who are disenfranchised from the information society will comprise a larger segment of that society. There is something peculiar about this fight. On one hand, efforts to achieve basic literacy have never been so visible-so much so that the arguments to forward electronic access may seem remote, yet they cannot be viewed as such. it is appealing to deploy our intellectual resources on behalf of basic literacy, but we must continue to redouble our efforts on behalf of access. While these changes are many, these are battles that cannot be neglected. What else remains to secure information access? The next building block we require is a report or document that demonstrates with passion that all types of information must be
152
GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
QUARTERLY
Vol. ~/NO. 211989
available to all categories of people. Armed with the facts and the reasoned arguments that show why access must be guaranteed, we may be able to sway policy makers to commit resources. Today the Federal government faces a $2 billion deficit. The OTA report is unlikely to cause a redeployment of resources unless a concerted lobbying effort comprised of librarians backed up by their constituencies-which, after all, is every single citizen of the United States, fights without cessation to win the funds to revamp the structure of information delivery. Informing the Nation is a blueprint for what is needed. Making this happen must be the next step. No librarian should dodge the draft in this battle, otherwise the war will be lost.
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.
2.
“Information Policy Issues: Putting Library Policy in Context, ” in Rethinking the Library in the Information Age: Issues in Library Research: Proposals for the 199Os, by Louis Vagianos and Barry Lesser (Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1988), pp. 11-12. Peter Hemon, Charles R. McClure, and Gary Purcell, GPO’s Depository Library Program: A Descriptive Analysis (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1985).