Dear All,

While the thread and comments have been of real interested, I did not have much to say until Lubomir’s post went by. Two or three point interested me, though perhaps not enough to comment. 

There were several posts that were not so much lacking value as perhaps being irrelevant. Many sensible posts discuss the importance and value of the *public* library in serving a broad, general public. To me, this is laudable, but irrelevant — the question here involves the future of the university research library at major research universities. 

Research universities are a very specific institution. The great majority of top-rank research universities were established to focus on research. Some very few of them began in other ways, but not many. To see the distinction, examine the top 500 universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities, 

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html

Some few among these were established in other ways or amalgamated from other kinds of institutions. Most began as research universities. Their purpose was — and is — to create new knowledge and to preserve existing knowledge for the benefit of the societies that fund them. Nearly all of these universities have taken on additional goals because of significant public policy decisions in the societies they serve, and the nations, states, provinces, and organizations that support these universities. Nevertheless, it is the unique research mission of the top-ranked research university that sets the core goal of these libraries.

The posts calling for research libraries to expand their remit to general public service is, in my view, misguided. Every additional goal at a great research library requires additional funding. University budgets are shrinking relative to the goals they are required to serve because public funding places greater demands on universities than ever before without funding resources commensurate with those demands. Requiring university libraries to serve the general public takes more money. Requiring research libraries to provide greater service to undergraduate may come at the cost of service to the research staff. Even though anyone with access to the web can access digital libraries, even digital services involve a cost — and the library must pay for every added subscriber.

I have no objection to the ideas that have been put forward here about all the good things that libraries ought to do for undergraduates or for the general public. These are good ideas.

My concern is that I retain a belief in the importance of the research university to the world. I even believe, if you don't mind the term, in the elite research university. Everyone regardless of social background or social class ought to have access through merit to a place in elite research universities — the policies that should ensure this involve early childhood education, proper funding to elementary and secondary schools, accessibility to scholarships and tuition waivers, grant funding for undergraduates and graduates, research assistant funding for researchers, teaching assistant funding for teachers, and more. These policies should support general education and improvement to all members of the public. These policies should also provide for good public colleges and tertiary education opportunities for everyone. In California, for example, that means the two-year community college system, where everyone can attend within their college district, or the excellent California State University system. 

Nevertheless, the University of California was established as, and remains, an elite research university. Nine campuses in the ten-campus university system rank among the world’s top 100 research universities. The library serves the research mission, and it should. While I’m concerned for these other worthy goals, I argue that there are other ways to meet them.

What I have not had much to say about in this thread are *new* goals for the future research library within the necessary yet likely future of the research university. 

Lubomir’s post did trigger two ideas, however, that deserve a comment.

The first is a useful way to relieve your book storage problem while retaining access to your books.

Many of you know Michael Lissack. He is an adjunct professor at the College of Design and Innovation of Tongji University, and President of the American Society for Cybernetics following the late Ranulph Glanville. Mike is founder and director of the Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence, ISCE. ISCE is a not-for-profit research organization that maintains a digital library at

http://isce-library.net

This library also incorporates a unique search engine, epi-search. This allows you to enter a chunk of text — based on the concepts in the text, the library will recommend to you the books within the library that you should examine. 

In the past, I used to give books to different university and museum libraries depending on the collection. Today, I give all my books to ISCE when I no longer need the physical volumes. ISCE digitizes these, and I now have access to my former physical books as a donor to and member of the Institute. If you have a major collection of books to give due to storage problems, I’d suggest that you think of ISCE. Drop me a note, off-list, and I’ll introduce you to Michael Lissack. Your books will be welcome and in exchange for your gift, you will have access to an excellent growing library and a unique search engine system that makes your books even more useful than they may be on your shelves.

The second note in Lubomir’s post deserves an affirmation. This is the important role of subject specialist librarians. While I agree with Lubomir’s comments on new job possibilities for these highly trained and important staff, I think that the future research library will continue to need specialist librarians. Even though we may not go to a building to access the digital library, specialist research librarians continue to meet the research needs of remote users.

Research universities will continue to need research libraries, and those of us who engage in research will continue to need specialist support. Even though users do a great deal of their own work in the computer-based digital research library, we do need specialist help from time to time.

Yours,    

Ken

Ken Friedman | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn 

—

Lubomir Popov wrote:

—snip—

Several disclosures. I have thousands of paper books that now are a logistical problem for me. I hate the current monitors that are not good ergonomically and hurt the eyes. (We have to wait about 30 years to see the effects of these screens on the Millennials.) I would like that the transition is soft and there are enough possibilities for gradual retooling of all library personnel to continue working in areas of their choice and liking. This is a valuable personnel with exceptional training and intellectual qualities that need to be used by society. These people have studied and learned all their lives and the society should use their expertise. Many of them can teach excellent humanities and social science courses, information organization and retrieval courses, and so forth. The society and the university presidents need to consider all these issues. 

—snip—


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------