I would offer only one, very minor, clarification: it’s not quite accurate to say that I “worry” about POD casting into serious question the function of most library collections. On the contrary: I see POD as very possibly a much better option than the traditional collection for getting information to people. If POD does obviate the traditional collection to some degree, I would see that as a good thing, not a bad one. I discussed this idea in an AtG column a few years ago, and have been continuing to explore it in talks and publications ever since.

http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/income.pdf

Labor says: “Reading includes subscriptions for newspapers and magazines; books through book clubs; and the purchase of single-copy newspapers, magazines, newsletters, books, and encyclopedias and other reference books.” That definition appears at http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxgloss.htm. To be technical, reading apparently isn’t under “Entertainment” as officially listed, perhaps because so much of reading is for other purposes. Also to be exact, note that the household reading figure apparently does not include textbooks, but that still shouldn’t make much difference in terms of the scope of the problem.

I couldn’t agree more that publishers should consider such depressing news to be a wake-up call! I want to see much MORE money spent on books. The way to do this isn’t to jack up prices or otherwise give consumers less value, but rather to grow volume and work with libraries and others to expand the book market, which, as you can see, is pathetically small right now. Please note that, as author of seven books published by houses ranging from St. Martin’s and Balllantine to a tiny press in Tennessee, I am highly sensitive to the issues of fair compensation and advocate a mix of business models to encourage a diversity of content. While I am approaching the digital library issue from a public interest perspective, publishers and writers could benefit hugely. Imagine—typical households now spending several thousand a year for entertainment and just a bit over $100 for books and other reading. Outrageous. More openness to new business models—and lobbying for bigger collection budgets for libraries—could help change that. Not “disruption” but rather smugness about the status quo is the real threat to publishers of all sizes.

Also of interest:

–A national digital library endowment: How America’s billionaires could be modern Carnegies for real
http://librarycity.org/?p=6800

–A partial reproduction of the above on James Fallows’s site on TheAtlantic.com
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/infrastructure-watch-buffett-as-the-next-carnegie/273263/

–Dwarf-sized public e-libraries vs. abundance: Listen to veteran publishing guru Brian O’Leary and librarian Sarah Houghton
http://librarycity.org/?p=6691

–Toward a Library-Publisher Complex for the digital era: Where the money is for both sides
http://librarycity.org/?p=6553

–With so many U.S. kids in poverty, a national digital library and hardware program could be a godsend for children’s e-book publishers
http://librarycity.org/?p=4879

I’d love to hear from publishers, librarians, products and services vendors, and others—I’m eager to answer questions and otherwise engage in friendly dialogue and learn from others. Yes, I did follow up with a note to Tom Allen, but have yet to hear from him. I hope that he and his colleagues at the Association of American Publishers will keep open minds. I’m in Alexandria, Virginia, just across the Potomac from AAP and would be delighted to meet with him and his colleagues in person.

Thanks,
David Rothman
Cofounder and Editor-Publisher, LibraryCity.org
703-370-6540

“Who has access to the ARL PD Bank?
Registered and approved users from ARL institutions.”

However, the ARL announcement that we linked to does not mention “registered and approved users” it uses the softer phrase “participating academic and research libraries.” And the introductory paragraph in this same announcement sounds pretty inviting:
“Would you like to search job descriptions at your peer libraries from a single interface? Could you use a digital archive of job descriptions from your own institution? The new ARL Position Description (PD) Bank—launched today—could be just the tool for you.”

Terri also raises an interesting question about the future intent of possibly making the ARL Position Description Bank openly available. We will inquiry if such open accessibility is part of an eventual plan and report to our readers.

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.