Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share or sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

Working on borrowed time?

Librarians fear redundancy as open access alters role of academic collections. Matthew Reisz writes

A report offers a sobering analysis of the implications for academic libraries - and academic librarians - of the "shift to more open-access scholarly content".

Released last week, Moving towards an Open Access Future: The Role of Academic Libraries summarises a round-table discussion between 14 librarians and other industry experts from Europe, North America and the Middle East that took place earlier this year and was organised by the publisher SAGE in association with the British Library.

"The more content that is available as open access [OA]," argues the report, the less need there will be for "institutional collections". "The concept of the individual library is going to go away," suggests one contributor. "We are going to have to work together."

Librarians themselves face an equally challenging future, with traditional skills such as collection development becoming far less relevant and "users" not always interested in what they might be able to offer in future. While one participant says librarians "still want to provide quality-controlled, relevant information for our community", others are unsure "whether or not users want librarians telling them which are 'good' OA resources and which are 'bad'".

"We have to admit that the best discovery systems aren't library ones," adds someone else. "Working towards OA puts us out of one of our main jobs, but the purpose of the library isn't to secure the job of the librarians."

Another potential role for librarians is to help researchers understand "the difference between vanity publishing and gold [author-funded] OA", although such guidance is not always welcome, and there are still major problems of terminology, the summary suggests.

"If the people who are engaged with OA all the time can't agree on what it means," notes one contributor to the debate, "then how are we going to communicate it to researchers?"

A further threat comes from IT staff who believe they are better able to manage digital repositories than librarians, although the report acknowledges that current "university management felt that libraries are best placed for the task".

There is also little comfort for those in the humanities keen to produce traditional monographs.

Although several librarians regret "the need to reduce book-buying due to budget constraints", they show few signs of wanting to reverse the process and favour spending any unexpected extra injection of cash on "digitizing and analyzing metadata for the unique special collections that many libraries hold".

Facing up to the complex demands of "a changing education and information environment", the report suggests, requires "the ability to be creative and even radical".

But several participants in the round-table event doubt whether this would come easy to librarians, a group who, they claim, often "chose their profession because they wanted a quiet life and because they liked being with books rather than people".

matthew.reisz@tsleducation.com.

Readers' comments (2)

  • OA is going to become the dominant model for scholarly publishing within the next decade, if not sooner. It is a disruptive innovation that will succeed in replacing subscriptions because it is more effective and cheaper. We need to understand that in a paper/subscription world subsidy for scholarly journals flowed through libraries. This subsidy is required because scholarly journals, like the research they report, are public goods. OA changes the subsidy flow and it will not longer flow through libraries, except where they support OA repositories or OA journals. This is a big change, but one that is for the better. Those interested in a further exploration of these issues might want to see: http://crl.acrl.org/content/73/5/493.full.pdf+html

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Libraries have traditionally been physical entities - spaces containing collections of material. As a result, the role of librarian has come to be over-identified with materials management processes like collection development and conservation. However, it's both important and timely to remember that librarianship is not only about 'looking after stuff' but also about *supporting the people who use the stuff*. Librarians have a part to play in helping students develop their higher-level information handling abilities. These abilities include critical thinking and evaluation, interrogating and synthesising variant points of view, and developing an informed and reflective approach to encountering information, not just in academia but in daily life - what Neil Postman called "the art of crap-detection". The 2011 Demos report on digital fluency found that "[young people] are unable to find the information they are looking for, or trust the first thing they see. This makes them vulnerable to the pitfalls of ignorance, falsehoods, cons and scams" (http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/truth-lies-and-the-internet). Helping people develop a judicious and independent approach to information in any format, on any platform, is what librarians are all about. We're not gatekeepers, guides, or 'the experts' - we're teachers, and we're here to enable learning at every level, because information is a fundamental part of learning at every level.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save