In the New York Times today, Edward Rothstein asks “If Books are on Google, Who Gains and Who Loses?” He points out that technology “doesn’t make things easy; it makes them unpredictable.”
He also mentions that the New York Public Library is sponsoring a smackdown this Thursday at 7 pm. If anyone is able to attend, please send us a report!
There’s been no dearth of articles in the mainsteam media and in our own literature over the last two years about how Internet services (a generic term for you-know-who) are eating academic libraries’ lunch. To a large extent much of what’s being said is true. Most members of our user communities no longer routinely make the library portal their first stop when they need information, whether it’s for ready reference or more in depth research. But perhaps we don’t need to be the first stop, but just one of the stops that should be made. Perhaps we need to focus more on how we influence our user community to think of the academic library as a stop that’s worth making. And if we can learn from the lessons of others who are in situations similar to our own, then we may find ways to create that influence. But where are such case studies to be found? How about the newspaper industry.
I draw your attention to an op-ed article in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Like libraries, the newspaper is being portrayed as the 21st century equivalent of the buggy whip maker. It’s a dinosaur soon to be extinct, and who will really miss it because no one really makes use of it any more anyway. Sound familiar? While I’m not sure about the presentation of data that suggests that the Inquirer is actually more heavily read than thought, I think there are some points made here to which the academic library community should pay attention. First, newspapers are realizing that Internet services are eating their lunch, and they are doing something about it, mainly having their own competing Internet presence. Well, academic libraries are way ahead of them. We’ve been on the Internet pretty much since day one. Somehow we failed to make ourselves essential and indispensible to our user communities and they went elsewhere. But we do have an Internet presence and we need to continue to capitalize on that.
The second, and more important observation, is that newspapers are continuing to be relevant to their communities because they are effectively influencing how people think and act. This article clearly demonstrates how the Inquirer rallied individuals to create change in their communities through reporting, editorials, and partnerships within the community. If we look at our academic user communities as a newspaper sees its readership community then we might find some parallel ways to reach and influence their thinking and action. One of the primary ways we can do this is through user education. Whether it happens when a librarian speaks to students directly or when a faculty member has integrated the library into the fabric of the course, it’s an opportunity to influence a member of the user community. Beyond that, like newspapers, academic libraries can create partnerships with other academic units to allow for more opportunities to reach the user community. Newspaper editors appear to be savvy in identifying issues of relevance to their communities where they can get involved. That may be a strategy worth studying more closely.
In the good old days academic libraries could sit back and focus on building and organizing collections while waiting for business to come through the door. Just as newspapers can no longer count on everyone picking up a newspaper on their way to work, academic libraries can no longer afford to wait for the user community to acknowledge our resources and services. We need to pay more attention to industries in situations similar to our own, and identify strategies that will allow us to be more influential in getting our users to think about all their potential options when they have an information need – and how we can be at or near the top of their decision tree when the search process begins.
Last week I posted (“ Connecting With Generation Xbox“)about trends in gaming and how this cultural phenomenon is impacting – or may be impacting in the future – on higher education. Whether you think it’s something to which academic libraries need to pay serious attention or it’s just a bunch of hooey, there’s no denying that there’s a segment within higher education that is already integrating game playing into the teaching and learning process. The big question is in what ways will academic libraries contribute to that – if at all. I asked ACRLog readers to take part in a completely unscientific and informal survey about attitudes and responses to gaming. I want to thank the 55 respondents for taking time to respond, and for their informative comments. Rather than take up space here with the results of the survey, I’ve created a separate and temporary page for those are interested in learning more about what the respondents had to say. There were some great comments and I wish I had the time and space to post them all, but I think the sampling provided will demonstrate the range of reactions to the gaming issue.
My usual habit with the Sunday New York Times is to start with the front section, then proceed to op/ed, with Travel and Styles reserved for, oh, lining bird cages and other useful functions, perhaps because I can’t afford much of either. However, this morning the lead story in Styles caught my eye. It’s about how Who’s Who entries are selected and how those criteria are changing. The “old-boy’s club” is now admitting icons of popular culture. But notoriety can blackball you; Martha Stewart, according to the story, was delisted while she was in the slammer, but now that she’s paid her debt to society, she’s back. (This makes me wonder: was Nelson Mandela excluded while he was in Robben Island?)
Members of our profession are quoted in the story, and the reporter (who notes mobsters don’t qualify for listing) finds us “an egalitarian but tough crew when it comes to reference materials, exhibiting a protective ferocity that might impress the Gottis.”
We may not know where the bodies are buried – but we know how to find out. So your favorite celeb isn’t in the next edition due to slight misunderstanding? No problem, we’ll help you identify another source of information.
Remember our conversation about the EDUCAUSE piece about standing at the wrong platform? I think I see some publishers huddled down the station, anxiously checking their watches.
The Economist has yet another analysis of Google Print and its “threat” to publishers. They buried the lead, though: the real impact of the Internet on traditional publishing is online sales of used books – jumping from 1% of market to 20%. (That was 2002 – I suspect it’s higher now.) Funny how that doesn’t seem to have made trade publishers reconsider their traditional practice of embargoing mass market availability for a year after hardcover. Now you can buy the hardcover at paperback cost within weeks of publication. If an industry can’t adjust to that reality, it has bigger problems than Google.
Luckily, university presses don’t generally play that annoying game of making us wait for the paperback. Which reminds me: are you all aware of the excellent “Books for Understanding” program? Wonderful lists of UP books that are ready to roll when an issue is suddenly in the news. Sign up for it today. I use it a lot for collection development, and faculty seem delighted with it too.