The academic library: A time of crisis, change, and opportunity

The Academic Library: A Time of Crisis, Change, and Opportunity by Richard M. Dougherty and Ann P. Dougherty

What do academic librarians view as the major professional issues of the coming decade? Library funding? Technologybased change? Educational reform? Professional development? A new campus information infrastructure? We polled our Board of Editors and readers to find out what they had to say. Many of their comments and concerns are synthesized here.

Richard

M.

Dougherty

and Ann Associate

Editor

is Editor

P. Dougherty

of The

Academic

Journal

Librarianship.

is of

S

everal months ago we polled our own Board of Editors and official manuscript readers for their opinions on the prospects for academic libraries. Specifically, we asked each person to list his/her top three concerns for academic libraries. While the comments of the 15 respondents varied in scope, length, and depth, several common themes emerged. These included concern for the future of library education, copyright, budgets and funding, access to information, electronic publishing, the library infrastructure, and a number of sub-themes that fall under the categories of library management and information technology. Some of the librarians polled are research library oriented; others draw their perspectives from college libraries. We didn’t conduct a scientific survey, and we do not intend this report to be either a comprehensive list of all concerns or an analysis of possible solutions. What we have compiled here is a sampling of the issues that this group of experienced, talented, and committed librarians view as the challenges and opportunities that lie before us. General Observations Technology. The respondents agreed that, to a large degree, technology can be viewed as both the root of our troubles and the font of our opportunities. New technologies are serving as the catalysts of change; many of the stresses experienced by academic libraries and librarians may be traced directly to the rapidity of change occurring in this area. Innovations in information technology have destabilized traditional library services and put additional pressure on strained budgets. Automated library processes, new electronic resources, and computerized tools require funds for purchase costs, implementation, and personnel training. Librarians must face the fact

that there has never been and will never be enough money: they must make hard choices in prioritizing and allocating inadequate funds. As difficult as this task might be, traditional library activities-whether in technical or public service+-will have to be reassessed and probably reconfigured to accommodate new information resources. Leadership. Leadershi-r rather the leadership vacuum that frequently exists in areas related to information in the campus environment-was viewed as another problem. Academic officers may urge change, but they have limited knowledge about how. the campus information environment really operates or, more specifically, about the nature and traditions of libraries and academic computing centers. Furtber, provosts may want to see their institutions take advantage of new technologies, but they also want to put a lid on expenditures. Provosts, often new to their jobs, find themselves under siege given the budget contraints under which they operate. Their opportunities to exert leadership in the information environment are minimal. And although faculty are becoming increasingly aware of the forces that are constraining libraries, very few are yet actively involved in shaping solutions. They remain, by and large, a disengaged constituency. Given all this, it is easy to simply state that library administrators should step forward and provide leadership, but it is far more difficult and risky to actually take that step. One challenge facing all academics who desire change is the creation of an environment in which risks are kept manageable and opportunities reasonable. In today’s turbulent environment, that is no small task. This point was cogently made by Nick Burckel:

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 342-346. 01993 by the Journal of Academic Librarianship. All rights reserved

It is difficult to ask library directors to be innovative and to exercise leadership in a period of stable or declining resources and rising expectations when doing so is likely to be successfully challenged by faculty. Presidents, provosts, vice chancellors, and deans almost all have secure tenured positions as back-up. That gives them the freedom to take on difficult problems without worrying about the impact of this involvement on their present job or on the potential for their next job.

nologies. It is important to keep in mind that many of those currently working in academic libraries will be the ones who lead the profession into the 21st century. What are we doing to develop these staff members? We talk about personnel being our most important resource while we consistently allow staff development to be one of the first sacrifices to the budget ax. Are we prepared to allocate adequate funds to the task of developing our future leaders?

Pamela Snelson, commenting on who plays which leadership roles, saw the need for librarians to better advertise their strengths and potential contributions to campus information policy making:

Communicating. The advent of email, electronic bulletin boards, and teleconferencing has altered communication among librarians, between library managers and staff, and between the library and other campus units. Traditional lines of communication are becoming blurred, and more information is available to all levels of staff. In addition, new applications of telecommunications technology, such as the distributed online catalog, have allowed and even encouraged the decentralization of library services. While this trend may be viewed as desirable, it has also raised the per-unit cost of providing services at a time when economies are being reduced; it has increased the complexity of communication among users, staff, and management; and it has bred problems related to ensuring compatibility among various computer-based systems.

Administrators should be made aware of the abilities librarians have in organizing and managing information so that we can become players in campus information policy, especially as it relates to technology. We have a great deal of expertise-a fact not widely known on many campuses.

Library users. Another area of general concern for our Board members and readers was their constituencies: the seekers of information and the users of libraries. Given the current fiscal climate, one might not wish to raise questions about who really uses the library, how intensively they use it, or for what purposes. However, such questions ought to be asked even though, or perhaps because, the answers could disrupt some long-held assumptions. What proportion of the faculty are really library users? How many use surrogates to retrieve documents? The existing literature strongly suggests that libraries are not a primary source of information for many faculty. How are the new technologies affecting perceptions about the library as a source of information? What do enhanced modes of information access and changing information-seeking behaviors suggest about the need for new library services? More basically, how can the library continue to be a major provider of information services for its various constituencies? Management Recruitment.

Issues

A panoply of management-related issues were cited as major concerns-attracting the best and the brightest, creating a staff composition that reflects the diversity of our society, providing opportunities for staff to develop proficiencies in the new tech-

New services and traditional structures. Many of the respondents indicated that their libraries are taking a close and critical look at traditional job, departmental, and library-wide structures. Reports occasionally appear in the literature or on the Internet about libraries reshaping reference, creating service units to improve access, or restructuring the traditional technical servicespublic services division. Bill Gosling asked: What positions are being eliminated as staff budgets are reduced? What changes are occurring within large academic libraries-such as the elimination of serials departments and middle managers-as efforts are made to streamline operations and take greater advantage of the electronic information systems now employed by most, if not all, academic and research libraries?

New technologies have opened up many new service options for libraries. Bill Gosling pondered a couple of choices:

Some libraries are providing workstations..& access a variety of electronic resources while others are providing remote access over the Internet or regional electronic networks. What types of products are being supported in-house and what types are being accessed over networks and down-loaded...to individual workstations?

How far have we come in providing patrons with the ability to create personal online data files of text, bibliographic citations, and other electronic information? What services are we providing or should we be providing for the creation and online support of end users’ personalized information resources? Relationships with other campus units. The nature of and potential for

new information services suggest that libraries should become better connected with other campus units, and that librarians should become more involved in campus decisions impacting these services. How can these objectives be achieved? Nick Burckel had the following observations and advice to offer: Librarians need greater access to and influence with key university decision makers. My experience suggests that the greater the contact, the greater the acceptance of librarians as important players-not merely on information policy, but academic policy generally. Librarians need to be involved in reviewing new proposals for academic programs that will require library resources. Librarians need to spend more time on campus making things happen and less in attending meetings with other librarians.

Pamela Snelson argued that it’s time to shatter the myth of the library as “the heart of the university” and to instead demonstrate the specific ways libraries contribute to the institutional mission. There needs to be a hue understanding of the place of the library and the librarian in the educational process. The “heart of the university” is a myth that is given merely lip service by faculty and administrators. We need to demonstrate how we contribute to the educational process and be more aggressive in marketing our services. A partnership is needed between librarians and faculty.

Access Issues Ownership vs. access. The Board and our readers recognized that one un-

the Journal of Academic Librarianship,

January 1993

343

fortunate spin-off of the growing emphasis on providing user access services is the tendency to dichotomize the issues of ownership and access. While viewing library services in this manner may simplify the situation for the purposes of discussion, it also creates an extremely misleading picture. The access or “virtual library” model will not, in our lifetime, replace the traditional ownership model; libraries will certainly continue to purchase resources in a variety of formats for the foreseeable future. Providing access to electronic information-raw data, article abstracts, or full text-should be seen as a way that libraries can augment their local collections and enhance the range and depth of the information services they provide. This is not an either-or, winlose situation, and it should not be characterized as such. Funding patterns. Having said this, it must be acknowledged that the inexorable movement toward information access will require new organizational models and, more than likely, new ways to fund library and campus information services. Some campus officials have raised the question of whether funds earmarked for document acquisition should be funneled directly to academic departments rather than used, in part, to fund library operations. Nick Burckel addressed this concern: Administrators have generally recognized that access is a realistic altemative to local ownership. Faculty still haven’t internalized that to their own disciplines. This issue carries important budgetary implications-less in total amount budgeted than in where that budget resides. For example, does the university budget access in the departments or among professors, or does it centralize it in the library or computing facilities?

Research patterns. Several Board members discussed the influence of electronic access tools on research patterns. Dora Biblarz raised several key questions concerning this issue: I would lie to know how access to information in electronic format is changing the ways research is carried out (if it is). Is there a difference by discipline? How does one browse the “virtual library?” How do we prepare for this in a way that is transparent to scholars?

Copyright. Another important concern expressed by our readers and Board

344

members is copyright and ownership of information-an issue often ignored or finessed by campus administrators, faculty, and networkers, but taken to heart by publishers. Experimentation with different forms of access may not founder on the problem of copyright, but information providers and librarians alike must find ways to deal with it equitably, to create an environment in which ownership rights are acknowledged and recompensed without unnecessary encumbrances for information providers. Licensing. An issue related to ownership is the growing trend among libraries to purchase site licenses for the use of information rather than purchase the information outright. On this issue Bill Gosling offered the following observations: A variety of issues will emerge as more and more of the library’s products have campus-specific or institution-specific licenses. What hinds of cooperative ventures are being initiated in an attempt to get broader coverage under a single license for regional cooperatives and multi-campus institutions? What does the librarian need to know about licensing? What is the long-term archival impact when electronic information acquired under a licensing agreement is returned at the point the library decides it no longer wants to pay the annual fees? If the library community is to better serve its clientele, it must become more knowledgeable about licensing related issues.

Based on the comments and observations of our Board members and readers, the issue of improving access to information and documents will be among the most pressing concerns of the next decade. Vendors are making available a variety of products-online full-text utilities, electronic document delivery systems, article abstracting services, etc.-that will change the information access model. Meanwhile, as electronic publishing continues to expand, on-demand publishing may become a reality. New Campus RewardStructures Most people who advocate changing library operations and service deliveryincluding our own readers and Board members-agree that the greatest impediment to advancing those changes is the prevailing campus culture. Bound by tradition, the university/college campus has proven to be remarkably resilient and resistant to change. One facet

the Journal of Academic Librarianship, January 1993

of the current culture that acts to impede educational reform is an imbalanced system of rewards for teaching versus research. In most comprehensive universities, teaching and research are cited as equally important components of faculty responsibility; but in many of these same institutions, faculty who engage primarily in research receive greater tangible rewards than their teaching colleagues. Much discussion on educational reform focuses on balancing this system. Steve Marquardt succinctly described the situation as follows: Many faculty members hesitate to spend their time developing courseware because they lmow that only refereed publications can be counted and ranked. Balancing rewards for faculty research and service ought to be a top priority for academic officers. Closer to home, we librarians have created our own version of the traditional campus reward model. Some research universities give disproportionate weight to librarians’ publications over their service in educating and training faculty and students in the changing world of information access and management. As dean or provost, I would be concerned about the service output of the library, how it was leveraging the learning of our students, the research of our faculty, and the productivity and information literacy of our graduates.

Eddy Hogan also expressed the belief that faculty members who author course materials and develop educational software should be supported and rewarded for their endeavors. He stated: Faculty wishing to develop software for use in educational settings should be supported by their local departments, computing centers, libraries, universities, and academic disciplines. Incentives such as moral and tinancial support, release time, consulting, peer review, and promotion/tenure credit should be provided.

If a better balance between teaching and research were achieved on university campuses, the effect would be felt in the library in another way too. With a greater institutional emphasis on teaching, faculty would be likely to deepen the content and possibly broaden the scope of their courses, making greater use of information generated by others in their disciplines. Tom Kirk stated his belief that this change would make it “even more important for faculty to become further educated (or possibly re-educated) about research and teach-

ing techniques, especially those techniques associated with electronic information resources.” The campus culture has always evolved more slowly than the larger culture. In the case of the university reward system, traditional ideals of scholarly achievement are too ingrained and campus funding is too dependent on research grants to allow universities to move quickly toward change.

Electronic Publishing Issues surrounding electronic publishing run the gamut from technical, organizational, and financial considerations (how do we do it and who’s going to pay for it?), to legal concerns (how is ownership established and enforced?) At this point, librarians seem to have more questions than answers to how this transition might take place. Eddy Hogan, however, put forth the following suggestion for a phased-in approach to the electronic publishing of scholarly journals: Several alternative models should be developed by a national ad hoc coalition of appropriate scholarly associations (e.g., AAAS, AMA, MLA, APA, etc.) in consultation with publishers, editors, university administrators, information technology companies, and librarians. Corporate and institutional sponsors for the most feasible model should be identified. Model implementation should take place in an open marketplace. Time and approval of the scholarly community will determine the model(s) which will prevail.

Although this approach may represent the ideal, our competitive environment makes it improbable. More likely, it will be those organizations with the deepest pockets that will have the greatest chance of succeeding in the electronic publishing arena. Numerous people have advocated the active involvement of libraries and other campus agencies in producing. storing, and disseminating the research of faculty. For the short term, however, it seems probable that any changes in this area will occur only in the balance of involvement among the current players-commercial, society, and university publishers. For most librarians, the issue is not what role libraries will play in producing electronic publications, but how they will pay for them and make them readily available to users. Susan Campbell, speaking from her perspective as a small college library director, expressed doubt about the ability of li-

braries such as hers to budget for the electronic environment. She stated: “The existing patterns need to be revamped.” On this same note, Helen Spalding asked: “What are the real costs and limitations of electronic information? How much of what we’re talking about is truly realistic from an economic perspective in the short-term?” Economic considerations such as these are a part of the larger question: How can libraries prepare themselves to absorb, maintain, and replenish new electronic technologies as they become available?

“Based on the comments and observations of our Board members and readers, the issue of improving access to information and documents will be among the most pressing concerns of next decade.” The Changing Campus Information Infrastructure Who will pay? As technology has provided new ways to handle information, expectations and aspirations have grown in proportion. One focus of current discussions on the future campus information environment is the notion of wired campuses linked together through a national network. While this may be a technical feasibility, it is surely an economic question mark. How will we pay for this fabulous new campus infrastructure? Can mere reallocation provide adequate funds? Or must new funds be generated from legislatures and foundations?

Reconfiguration. Using either approach to funding new technologies, however, will clearly necessitate the downsizing, reconfiguration, or outright elimination of some library activities and services. Although the process of pruning and weeding is a natural one in a dynamic campus environment, it should be done in an organized and well-understood manner. Dora Biblarz expressed concern about this very issue in the academic library environment: TO do an intelligent job of “downsizing” we need to know from academic administrators what priorities they set for the institution. We can’t continue to water down our resources in some phony democratic manner,

supporting all programs in what amounts to an equally mediocre manner. Business is not going on as usual, and the word will soon be out about this, so we need to work together and support each other.

Reconfiguration that eliminates or reduces duplicated efforts among campus units can be a very effective “downsizing” activity, as can inter-unit cooperation. Bill Goslinng discussed the trend toward cooperative campus information ventures. There appears to be a major shift on campuses from competitive to cooperative efforts to provide information resources, with librarians and computing center staff identifying their respective portions of the information delivery systems. The computing center people recognize that they have the networking and computing support while the librarians have the infonnation management skills. More and more, one hears reports of joint meetings and cooperative efforts to provide information delivery to the campus. EDUCOM and CNI (Coalition for Networked Information) meetings are two national forums in which these groups and others meet jointly to move forward an agenda.

Such cooperative efforts may not substantially reduce the pain felt in the library in response to reorganizing and downsizing, but when-they are carried out as part of a well-articulated longterm plan, joint ventures must be viewed as serving the best interest of the campus community as a whole.

Developing NREN. The developing national network, NREN, is another component in the changing campus information infrastructure-one that inspires questions of ownership, costs, and accessibility. Helen Spalding asked: “Who owns the networks now being built? What are the implications of NREN for those who now own them?” If the NREN is privatized, questions will surely arise about access and funding. What happens if and when network users are required to pay for access to information that was formerly available free of charge over, for instance, the Internet? Although network usage may decline, the main effect will probably be more pressure on institutions to sort out funding issues, which will in turn put pressure on libraries to examine the relative importance of existing services. In this context, academic organizations may tend to hold innovation and change hostage to their budgets. Aca-

the Journal of Academic Librarianship,

January 1993

345

demic administrators and librarians may plan strategies for change, but each side waits for the other to offer a proposal for funding the new programs. As a result of this stalemate, nothing changes. Although the campus culture is clearly resistant to change, librarians must find ways to involve themselves in reshaping the information environment. Making changes in an economically and organizationally constrained environment will require more than the assessment and re-prioritization of library services: it will require that those in the larger academic community acknowledge the need for trade-offs and support the library in its adjustment efforts.

Educational Preparation of Library Professionals The education and training of library professionals ranked as a high-priority concern among many of our Board members and readers. Susan Campbell expressed a related concern: our ability to attract good people to the profession, “I don’t see shrinking opportunities in the job market or the quality of candidates in the pools as being nearly as crucial as the fact that fewer and fewer people are choosing librarianship as a career.” She also acknowledged the negative influence of library school closings on the number of potential professionals, and wondered how these problems could be overcome: “With fewer students interested in librarianship and fewer library schools available, what recruitment tactics should we be using?” The recent series of closings and threatened closings of library schools is a symptom of the growing concern about the quality of library education. David Farrell stated his strong beliefs on this issue: Library education is inadequate for the changing profession. The traditional education for librarianship is largely obsolete and inadequate. Library school curricula need reform; continuing education and professional development programs need to be improved; advanced degrees and certification for professionals need to be emphasized.

Farrell’s analysis is astute, but what direction should curriculum reform take? How should library schools-whose graduates often grapple with on-the-job

346

issues of a largely interdisciplinary nature (e.g., hardware/software configurations and legal, financial, and political issues)-reorganize their programs? Should they build bridges with other campus programs to diversify library and information science programs? Should they eliminate the current MLS accreditation, or expand it? Will the traditional 36-hour MLS program survive the decade unchallenged? And if it does, will it survive merely as one among several avenues to professional-level positions? Will we see the re-emergence of bachelor-level library/information programs and a trend toward hiring more individuals with management, financial, and technical knowledge?

Information Literate Campuses Our readers and Board members also commented on the need for faculty and students to become more skilled in using the vast and exciting array of emerging information products. David Farrell emphasized the importance of information literacy: Library literacy is a primary tool: academic professionals and especially students need to be information literate in order to fully contribute to and compete in today’s and tomorrow’s world. The best institutions will have the most “information literate” graduates.

Most librarians would agree that they are capable of playing a meaningful role in this learning process, but impediments stand in their way. How many libraries have enough staff-or are willing to free staff from other dutiecto engage in information literacy programs? Are these programs viewed as essential beyond our professional community? If they are, will campus officials view library staff as the logical group to facilitate such programs? Are librarians the best or most logical choice? Steve Marquardt wondered “how well our students are prepared to cope when entering the ‘third wave’ world out there, full of ‘powershifts’ and ‘megatrends’ in the information/technology world.” He said that if he were a dean or provost, he “would want to issue a survey to ascertain how well graduates are performing relative to info-smart colleagues and competitors out there where information is power.”

the Journal of Academic Librarianship, January 1993

The whole notion of information literacy is one that remains unresolved. Those who raised this issue concur that the library profession-by virtue of its traditions and the knowledge and experience embodied in its membership-is intellectually and organizationally well positioned to play a role. Whether or not others in the community view librarians in such a capacity is another battle-one the profession has been fighting for years. Enhanced understanding and appreciation of librarians’ role will result from finding ways to become better connected to and involved with the larger academic community.

Summing Up Each of the last several generations of professionals has talked about the turbulence of change, describing itself as standing on the threshold of a vastly different world. Over the years, colleagues have waxed eloquent on this view, using phrases such as “library of the future,” “paradigm shift,” and “crossroads to oblivion.” Nevertheless, we can all agree that the current rate of change in the information field is higher than ever before, while our ability to respond quickly and decisively has never been more constrained. Joe Branin summed up the challenge and the situation succinctly: In just a few years, I think great universities will be measured, at least in part, by the quality of their campus information infrastructure. Libraries, computing centers, and networking and telecommunications units must come together to create a logical, effective system of information provision for teaching, research, and service support. The library needs to assert a leadership role in the organization of the overall campus information structure.

Librarians seem to agree on the common problems and opportunities: now we must find ways to reach a common agenda for dealing with them. As we said at the outset of this report, our intent is not to offer solutions here, but to put the views of a group of talented, experienced, involved librarians into a framework for analysis. Clearly this type of analysis is only the first step in the change process. The next step, planning our future, remains a challenge for all of us. V