Assumption/definition: The traditional research library would have all relevant materials from the past as well as the writings in the most recently published books & periodicals.

Although all past writings are not available online, let’s just say for the sake of argument that in 10 or 20 years, they will be. Unrealistic, I know, but here’s my point: even if all the books from the last 90 years were available in electronic format, they will NOT always be free.

Libraries have always existed in part in order to reduce the costs of publication and distribution. Although electronic files have minimal distribution costs, the publication costs are not much different than a traditional book (i.e., paying the author, the editors, the peer reviewers, the publishers, etc. The actual printing cost of a book is minimal.) Thus, a research library, if it subscribes to the appropriate journals, and if it holds still-copyrighted books/ebooks, is still able to fulfill one major mission: centralize purchasing. Not every researcher need pay to download the same electronic files on their iPad.

However, the point of special collections, which was brought up earlier, seems to have been overlooked in the increasingly personal sniping above. Special collections, in my regard, are one of the main strengths of a library even though a relatively new development (at least, captialized Special Collections are.)

Private book collectors have long been aware of the desirability of “special collections”, and of course, many libraries’ own SCs are formed from important donations. We should care about SCs because the letters of an important deceased scientist, say, are more useful to a modern researcher if they are collected. If libraries go all digital (which essentially means they become a website with a login), then this scientist’s letters go to private hands. Over time, if not immediately, the letters get broken up, sold off piecemeal. History is lost.

Special Collections might also take the form of collecting materials, including digital files, based on certain themes. UCLA is receiving a donation of over 10,000 items which are American depictions of Arabians: movies, books, cigarette ads, etc. Sure, the individual items are out there somewhere, but put them together and what do you see?

Finally, I have a different take on this statement: “Traditional catalogs were needed in the print era, but in the online era the practice of cataloging is dead.” I agree with it, but whereas Anderson takes this as a good thing, I take it as a shame. The art (yes, I mean art) of cataloguing is NOT the same as searching online. For my own researches, I find so much more information in booksellers’ catalogues, annotated bibliographies, and professional indices, than I do in WorldCat, Amazon, Google, or LOC keyword searches. In this “information age”, I firmly believe that part of the role of librarians and booksellers alike is that of filtering the information. Otherwise, we rely on keywords and algorithms, both of which miss massive amounts of information. Also, those methods are not able to qualify information, whereas a professional cataloguer or bibliographer is. In public libraries across the country, the amount of reference questions is skyrocketing: why don’t these people just Google the answers, if we live in such an age of free information? Because there’s too much information, and it can take a librarian’s skill to filter it intelligently.

So, for these three reasons, I would argue that traditional research libraries should (for they certainly do) still exist: centralizing known material, and collecting errant material, and intelligently cataloguing everything.

You indicate the need to measure, but your instrument is not academic. It is clerk-like (bean counter). Wouldn’t a better measurement be how often your library or librarians are cited in the acknowledgements or prefaces of books and dissertations. The thank you notes in articles (of faculty and students) often appearing in the footnotes are good as well. Acknowledgements to the library and librarians in assisting with grant applications. And much more about the interactive role between librarians and professors as well as the administrators.

Of course libraries retrieve requested books and answer factual questions. This can be done at a public library as well. If this is what you want in an academic library, then, yes, I agree the academic library is dead. Consolidate all the libraries into the public library (in this you will find great cost savings). Keep a study hall on campus and “chat” with the public librarians to find and request materials.

You seem to forget (or perhaps it never dawned on you), that the key role of an academic library (and all libraries in my view) is to enhance serendipity (finding great ideas, new directions, innovations and more that were not originally sought). A librarian is the facilitator of this great endeavor.

Your business-type alumni might agree that this is baloney–but not your professors. Whom do you serve anyway?

Are you suggesting that we collect only material that is currently desired (highly likely to be used on your watch) and not information useful to future inquiry.

Your points are debate points. However, I find them too personal and not befitting an academic inquiry. You equate COST with VALUE. You are, to paraphrase Oscar Wild, a cynic who knows the cost of everything the and value of nothing.

I have nothing against efficiency or cost sharing. But academic libraries should not forget their mission.

Campus libraries are looking more and more like European libraries of old. Books cannot be browsed but only retrieved upon need and not always in a timely fashion.

In many research libraries, it’s true that low-use books are migrating from the stacks to some kind of storage, either local or remote. This does decrease their physical browsability (though browsing online is arguably far more effective, even if the experience feels different from shelf browsing). However, as with all library strategies, it’s important to look not only at what is lost but also at what is gained. If–as is the case is virtually every research library with which I’m familiar–your book stacks are deserted while your study spaces are crammed to bursting, then sacrificing theoretical browsing in favor of actually-needed space may well be the right choice. All available choices involve trade-offs, which will vary from library to library, and these have to be considered carefully.

Keep in mind that libraries and librarianship is not about finding materials or answers to questions. It is about posing intelligent questions (the basis of good scholarship) and collecting material that will generate inquiry not just now but in the future.

Gosh, but it makes us feel good to say that, doesn’t it? What’s so wonderful about this position is that it undermines any attempt to assess whether or not the library is actually returning good value to the institution that sponsors it. If no one can find the documents needed in order to complete a scholarly task, the librarian need not feel bad–after all, finding documents or answers to questions is beside the point! Let’s focus on improving the quality of your question instead. (What? That doesn’t help you complete your assignment or complete your book or secure your grant funding? Please, try to avoid such instrumental thinking. The process is the goal here. Where are you from, anyway, the Library of Congress?) If the stacks are filled with books that no one has used in 40 years, what does that matter? They will surely generate inquiry in the future! (The beautiful thing about the future is that it’s always ahead of us, allowing us to delay indefinitely being called to account for the wisdom of our spending today.)

Needless to say, I consider this position to be baloney. Of course it’s true that one important function of academic libraries is to help in the formulation of intelligent questions–but to assert that this is “the” function of academic libraries (as opposed to connecting students and scholars with materials and helping them find answers to their questions) is absurd, even perverse.

Campus libraries are looking more and more like European libraries of old. Books cannot be browsed but only retrieved upon need and not always in a timely fashion. Sure, there are electronic resources everywhere now–in libraries, out of libraries, on the Internet or elsewhere. In the debate, the following was asserted:

“…the world of information is easier than ever to navigate and many tools are now available.”
” The role of the librarian as intermediary is no more.” No, the most authoritative and relevant information (what scholars need) is hidden in a sea of information. It is not easily discoverable and is often referred to as the “deep web.” The librarian is once again playing the role of intermediary in the form of a filter — helping to identify the best information in the sea.

At the same time, our notion of the traditional research library is not that of the perspective of scholars (whom we should be working with). It is unfortunately the notion of not very well informed librarians overly influenced by the Library of Congress types. The best examples of influential, scholarly libraries are special libraries/ departmental libraries that were once associated with elite, highly ranked schools and departments [something that should be elaborated upon--but not in this venue] where librarians worked with scholars on research projects and helped guide inquiry.
Keep in mind that libraries and librarianship is not about finding materials or answers to questions. It is about posing intelligent questions (the basis of good scholarship) and collecting material that will generate inquiry not just now but in the future.

This brings me to the other assertion:

“Collection building is becoming building collections of online resources.”

“One of the key and undervalued roles of the traditional library is preservation. It is not fashionable but it is important, and traditional research libraries know how to do it.”

Yes, librarians know how to do this. However, we are making every effort not to do it correctly. We continue to ignore that fact that digital archiving is an oxymoron. And, we are not honest with our benefactors about the long-term costs of keeping digital material in a form that will be sustained long-term. Out approach is dishonest and short-sighted (two attributes that should never be associated with libraries or librarians).

In fact, the question of this debate is wrong. There has never been a “traditional research library.” The best libraries are unique, integrated with research, and a part of the academy.

The only part of the library maintaining this function are the archives and manuscripts collections. It is my assertion that every academic unit deserves something similar to what we now associated with archive and manuscripts. If this is not done, there will be no role in the academy for librarians–just a role for clerks. Our library leaders are succeeding in turning libraries into cost centers rather than value centers.