AARL

Conference report: thoughts arising from the Research Libraries Colloquium in Sydney, May 2002

R L Cope

The continuing interest in Australia in research libraries, scholarly communication and national resources for research and study received a further boost when the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW) organised a two-day Colloquium (16-17 May, 2002) to hear presentations by 12 speakers on a range of aspects of a complex topic. The title of the Colloquium was Research Library Futures: Strategies for Action. Presentations were of a high standard and audience reaction and questioning were keen. The Colloquium sustained interest over the two days and the smooth flow of arrangements was a credit to the organising skills of the staff of SLNSW. Participation (about 90 persons) was by invitation: those attending included a number of leading State and university librarians, the Director-General of the National Library of Australia, a Pro-Chancellor, a Vice-Chancellor and a Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Chief Justice of New South Wales, academics, researchers and writers, and librarians. Two of the presenters were from overseas. This is a difficult group of persons to bring together at any time, and the success in doing so attests to the importance of the issues discussed. But it is in the nature of things that there is still a large amount left for further discussion and analysis. A second Colloquium to take up from this first initiative might well be the logical outcome of the Sydney meeting. One could easily suggest further types of persons who might be invited should this happen.

Scope of the colloquium

The subject of research libraries has many layers and it can be approached from different points of view and set positions. No one focus can be adequate to addressing this topic. Attention at the Colloquium was predominantly directed to research libraries in tertiary education in Australia, but some Papers broadened the perspective by looking at other stakeholders. The Colloquium's organisers took three key questions as the framework for their program:

1. What role do research libraries play in achieving significant research outcomes?
2. What are the challenges for research libraries in this information-laden, technology-driven age?
3. Which collaborative ventures could boost the impact of research libraries and kick-start participation in global technology networks?

These are all important general questions and well worth pondering. The points are couched in broad terms without narrowing the focus to Australia, but in reality most presenters concentrated on Australia. It is likewise interesting that points two and three are pitched at a rather speculative policy level and may seem to presuppose the answers to the questions they pose. Of course, we must not overlook that SLNSW had in mind its own role and experience in formulating these questions. Other possible questions spring to mind and would merit exploring in any follow-up Colloquium. Technology is not the only issue of fundamental importance to the future of research libraries. The economics of research libraries is another theme that needs rigorous examination, to state the obvious. Educational and national information policy are also considerations, which need exploration in depth. Several speakers did make just this point and references to the Ministerial Paper Higher Education at the Crossroads 2002 were frequent. [1]

The papers are available on the web at http://www.slnsw.gov.au. The Colloquium has its own e-mail address at colloquium@slnsw.gov.au.nospam. Papers will remain available for an unspecified time on the Library's website. It is also intended that they be published in the journal LASIE.

The themes addressed

The Colloquium opened with a paper by Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Bolton. Entitled Confessions of a Library User, this paper is an autobiographical account of the writer's long experience as a user of libraries and archives. His early experiences in Western Australia and his tribute to Mollie Lukis will provide material for the historian of the development of librarianship and collecting in that State. But Professor Bolton's paper goes beyond these early experiences and makes observations on the way technology has changed research in libraries and archives. His paper nicely balances an acknowledgment of the benefits of technology with a continuing regard for the value and place of the printed word in research and librarianship. This urbane, personal paper made an impressive opening for the Colloquium and set the tone for points raised by subsequent speakers. It was noteworthy for its appreciation of the role played by libraries and archives in the life of a scholar.

Three papers by researchers and authors addressed the first of the issues set by the organisers. They were concerned with particular aspects of research, that is the experience gained in writing books about the Packer family and media empire (Dr Bridget Griffen-Foley), the life of Beatrice Davis (Jacqueline Kent), and the study of architectural drawings held by the State Library of New South Wales (Professor Neville Quarry). All these contributions were enlivened by their autobiographical nature and by the specifics of conducting research. All three were warm in their praise of the staff of SLNSW and all spoke of the value of the resources held by SLNSW. The stimulus and benefit of being able to draw on the expertise of the library staff were emphasised and counterbalanced the general emphasis in the Colloquium on the availability of online resources. These papers became even more interesting when the authors considered what resources were lacking or other limitations they experienced in using SLNSW. The implications of such remarks were unfortunately not followed up, but would form a useful topic for any subsequent Colloquium.

Two papers were delivered by overseas librarians: Dr Christine Lux from Berlin, and Dr Christopher Chia from Singapore were speakers who conveyed the lively enthusiasm they felt about the experiences they had gained in those two countries in developing library services and infrastructure responding to changing needs. Educating users to expect a higher quality of service was another theme they explored. Dr Chia presented a well-honed account of the impressive way the state of Singapore has undertaken a significant upgrading of its public library system by creating a depth of service which exploits modern technology, and which strives to achieve as wide an outreach as possible. He is obviously a librarian with public relations and political skills, which are not so common as to go unnoticed. In her paper and address, Dr Lux took the approach of outlining what was the best way for a library system to become irrelevant. She set up a model of ten means to ensure failure. Delivered with wit and humour but never downplaying the serious message, this presentation applied not only to research libraries, but also to reference, institutional and public libraries. Both papers contain a vision of what can and should be done to make libraries responsive to the changed environment of the 21[st] century. Coming from two very different library traditions and environments, these papers fed well into the consideration of what might be done in Australia to achieve objectives of service and resource building in libraries serving not only specialised research needs.

The paper by Dr Robin Batterham, the Commonwealth of Australia's chief scientist, bears the title Research Libraries: Hatch, Match or be Dispatched. Basing his paper on an historical overview of change in industry and research in the last few decades, Dr Batterham asked what role can and should be played by research libraries to remain viable amid the changes he identifies. He spoke about the escalating costs of serials, chiefly in the sciences and in technology, and the effects of digitisation as a means of publication. National site licences to digital serials may answer part of the problem for research libraries. He also discussed the problem of academic research appearing in costly journals that must be purchased by the research library in the institution which made the research work possible. Access to new research in specialised journals is still too slow and he mentioned the possibility of web-based peer review as a means of ensuring a quicker rate of publication. The growth in the publishing output of information and research activities makes it crucial for libraries to explore new means of storing this information and of developing better techniques for accessing it. The need for research libraries to collaborate in creating specialised collections was canvassed. This raises questions of its own, but Dr Batterham offered the vision of research libraries becoming cost-effective, collaborative and leaders in search techniques and in information manipulation. He also spoke of the need of a new AARNet to improve communication amongst Australian researchers so as to enhance their research capacity. This presentation, which used a number of graphic overheads to make its points, focused on scientific research carried out in universities and specialised institutes. He dealt with the research process as an ongoing reality, and considered the infrastructure and resources necessary to ensure its success. Dr Batterham opened perspectives which would be valid for many countries as well as for Australia.

One of the more unexpected and even intriguing papers was presented by the Chief Justice of NSW, James Spigelman. The Chief Justice has had a varied career in politics and public administration as well as the law, so he could draw on a wide background of high-level experience in framing his paper. Entitled Maintenance of Institutional Values this paper made a strong case against powerful, but often narrowly interpreted managerial values overwhelming other institutional and professional values. This is a cry that is nowadays commonly heard, but who heeds it? The Chief Justice offered a polished statement of this viewpoint which is applicable not just to libraries of any type. The following quotation sums up his message:

The fear is that the pressure of managerial values will degrade the significance of professional values with an end result that is the opposite of that intended, even by the managers. The intrusion of managerialist requirements may progressively undermine the ethos of public service which is of abiding significance in all public sector institutions, particularly those with a strong professional tradition... An institution's values and traditions will be best served by maximising [productivity in terms of service]. The issue is how you achieve that objective.

Another paper from an unusual angle was that presented by the executive director of the Nelson Meers Foundation, Sam Meers. Her paper Public/Private Synergies - New Directions in Private Philanthropy investigated the role that philanthropy can play in promoting cultural institutions. She compared the position in the United States, where private philanthropy is so significant in financing and supporting a myriad of cultural establishments, with that in Australia. The competition between private and public arts organisations was examined and she mentioned that 'increasing marginalisation of traditional art forms and institutions due to "culture wars"'. Following from this observation, she pointed out that

major public institutions no longer have the luxury of being able to perceive themselves as gatekeepers: they must behave as facilitators of engagement. This requires them to promote strategic alliances and connections, to understand the priorities of grant-makers and to encourage their various funders to work with each other in different domains.

These remarks which apply to arts and cultural organisations across the board, took on more direct interest when the involvement of the Nelson Meers Foundation with SLNSW became clear. The Foundation is cooperating in a digitisation project as part of SLNSW's ten-year Heritage Project. Sam Meers spoke also of the feeling among foundations and donors of lack of understanding in the wider community about the nature of the work foundations carry out and the lack of appreciation for its value. Public cultural institutions must, she believes, 'spearhead the synchronisation between the community, business and government in order to facilitate greater understanding of the arts and its [sic] relevance'. It is not clear how research libraries can take all this on board amid the plethora of other challenges they face, but if they are after funds from private foundations, it is perhaps time to think about a bigger picture. This paper is a good place to start in considering the question.

A paper of special merit was presented by Professor Deryck Schreuder (Vice-Chancellor, University of Western Australia). Because of lack of time the delivery of this paper was cut short and consequently its content was not as clearly conveyed as the paper merited. Webs of Knowledge: Australian Information Needs and 21[st] Century Research is an excellent exploration of what the university sphere is doing, often in association with the National Library of Australia, to ensure access to digital research materials, especially through the use of networking. Professor Schreuder offers a valuable tour d'horizon on the nature of a number of current research problems, often involving serials online. Drawing on some international comparisons, he outlined a number of impressive initiatives taken by Australian universities to engage in collaboration to meet research needs. His paper was enlivened with personal observations on the research problems he has experienced. He ends his paper with 'some stiff challenges' for research librarians, which he puts in the form of four large questions:

Are you ready to give us [ie university administrators] clear advice on the policy priorities we need for a national information infrastructure? What thinking can you bring to bear on the strategic questions that we should be considering?

Are you collaborating as closely as you could within the library community, and how can you increase your involvement with global initiatives?

Are you partnering as closely as you could with other sectors such as museums, art galleries and archives?

Are you working as closely as possible with information technologists?

Challenges for universities and for national policymakers are also spelt out. These are so appropriate to the aims of the Colloquium that it seems in retrospect a pity that the entire paper was not made a 'position paper' for the Colloquium as a whole and distributed beforehand for consideration. The paper also deserves a wider public than the projected publishing in LASIE can achieve. Certainly Professor Schreuder has delivered some 'theses' for the future welfare of research libraries, particularly in the Australian tertiary sector. These 'theses' can justly claim the attention of the influential policy makers and administrators to which he most usefully belongs.

The paper by Professor Malcolm Gillies (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Education, ANU) is entitled Collaborations: Probing the Limits. This paper has much in common with that by Professor Schreuder. Both papers have similar views and approaches to the problems of research libraries, and offer much the same orientation and diagnosis. Professor Gillies concentrates on the perspective of the Australian universities and draws on the 2002 Ministerial Discussion Paper Higher Education at the Crossroads. The individual capacity of research libraries to perform at the standard necessary to support the work of researchers is clearly increasingly limited and questionable. This leads naturally to consideration of how collaborative efforts can fill the void. Professor Gillies mentions, like Professor Schreuder, the forms that such collaboration has assumed in Australia and makes the following important observation on future forms of collaboration:

Might not the unit of integrity of our research libraries be more at that alliance level [eg Australian Technology Network, Group of Eight Universities], as an effective and functional compromise between any idealistic notion of a highly organised national collection, and the continuation of many small, 'inefficient' local providers?

He outlined the idea of a Central Research Library for Australia, which raises in turn 'the broader question of who, as members affiliates or partners, might collaborate in such research library alliances'. The necessity for such collaboration is emphasised as creating a kind of critical mass when negotiations with commercial information providers become necessary. The preservation of digital information in the long term is another area where such collaboration would be beneficial. He also criticises the adherence by universities to the notion of refereed articles as a measure of scholarly performance and suggests some modifications to the present practice. Finally, his paper looks at the vexed problem of the decline of scholarly participation in selection of materials for research libraries. Emeritus faculty might, he opines, 'reenter into that dialogue over collection development with which today's younger academics find insufficient time to engage'. This statement does not seem convincing.

One potentially explosive point is touched on by Professor Gillies when he talks about research priorities, 'currently all in scientific areas', being at odds with what research is actually being done. He states:

... our postgraduate student body, which is not necessarily marching in those priority directions and cannot quickly be turned around. In fact, our research students show strong signs of heading more for the humanities and social sciences in the coming years. (our emphasis)

Those words must command attention since their implications can be dramatic. The Colloquium did not have the opportunity to give them this attention.

The necessity for networking amongst research libraries is pretty well established these days. In an article not mentioned during the Colloquium, the now retired American university director, Eric Ormsby, commented sourly on the 'statement of priorities' issued in 2000 by the US Association of Research Libraries (ARL). This statement mentions priority being given to 'advanced networking applications and Internet'. Ormsby considers this a piece of 'coded claptrap', avoiding the central issue of not purchasing books and periodicals. His whole article is important for creating a nuanced debate on research library matters. [2] Is he really making a valid point? That is something that needs a reply.

Like Professor Schreuder's paper, that by Professor Gillies would have made an excellent 'position paper' for circulation in advance of the actual Colloquium proceedings. It is cogently argued and makes its points succinctly. It also throws some new ideas into the discussion ring. It is to be hoped that this ring will exist after the Colloquium ceases.

The Colloquium ended with a summary of what the various speakers and questioning had conveyed to the audience. This summary, presented with some flair by Ian McCallum, was welcome since it was not easy to absorb or retain what had been offered in such a generous and concentrated way. Finally, a short speech by the NSW State Librarian, Dagmar Schmidmaier, made clear the objectives her Library had in mind in holding the Colloquium. She stated:

Here at the State Library of New South Wales we see this Colloquium as part of a process to communicate, influence and assist us in consolidating our position...

She then outlined a number of impressive initiatives being taken by the Library within the framework of its 10-year plan Project 2001-2010. She also mentioned that:

Through the Council of Australian State Libraries we have begun to develop exciting co-operative activities, such as digitisation, exhibitions and this Colloquium, so that the role and importance of the Library is visible once again.

These remarks indicate important questions about policy priorities and institutional direction which did not arise during the Colloquium itself. There was no mention of strategies which SLNSW or any other research library might explore to rescue its role in building collections of printed monographs and other printed materials for the future promotion of research and scholarship. Periodicals did, however, receive a lot of mention, mainly because of the huge price increases now being charged by publishers. Digitisation and the web are of special relevance here. Perhaps the phrase 'exciting co-operative activities' is indeed code for the printed medium as well as the benefits of digitisation for researchers of the future. The State Librarian concluded her brief remarks with an invitation for those present to 'participate' in promoting the goals she had mentioned. Perhaps this is a hint of a follow-up Colloquium? Her last remarks narrowed the focus to herlLibrary, but the issues of research library futures transcend SLNSW.

I hope that the issues raised during the Colloquium will extend our reach and create new circles of influence for the benefit of our community of users. I encourage you all to participate.

What is a research library? Some questions

Many types of library support research, and support can take a variety of forms. This is one reason why they maintain growing collections. After all, the term 'research' is not a superlative, but merely a noun denoting an activity. Loose use of terms can lead to confusion in thinking and we find this often occurs with words such as 'research'. But are we not right to expect something qualitatively distinctive from libraries when they accept the term 'research' for themselves? The Colloquium did not examine this issue, perhaps from a belief that it was self-evident. But this may be something worth more explicit attention in a second Colloquium.

Naturally we expect more of libraries that call themselves research libraries. We approach their collections, their services and staffs with a specific attitude and heightened expectations that are not the same as those with which we approach other types of library. If a library considers itself a research library, this implies that it consciously accepts certain responsibilities and policy priorities, such as maintaining collections able to meet certain criteria. What those responsibilities and collections might be can be differently interpreted according to circumstances, but most of us would agree that the idea of a research library is that it will maintain research and specialist quality by implementing correspondingly delineated policies in the fields of acquisition, preservation and conservation, and in making its collections known and accessible. Where is it that we hope to find bookmen or subject specialists ('bibliographers' in American parlance) employed, if not in research libraries? Or perhaps, if we are to believe Eric Ormsby, bibliographers are more than likely to be 'phased out' by library administrators 'under the snappy banner of "cost effectiveness".'[3] Consistency of action and flexible policies responding to the needs of scholarship are surely fundamental prerequisites in a research library in those fields where it considers itself a sustainer of research. A research library must remain above all a reliable library in those respects that justify it calling itself a 'research library': the collection infrastructure (reference aids in major languages, for instance) as well as the substantive collections themselves are maintained at a standard that can be assessed in relative terms (eg as measured against holdings of similar libraries and against standard bibliographies in various languages in the field in question). One does not expect major shifts in collecting orientation from genuine research libraries. They are not as subject to fads and fashions as other types of library might need to be.

One further question we might ask is: does a library acquiring a special collection with research depth not take on the responsibility of keeping that material alive and not fossilised? If that is correct, what are the implications for the library's future? To what extent should later generations of library administrators be bound by the collections amassed and the policies implemented by their predecessors? Developments nowadays in collection scope and maintenance within some research libraries indicating a different point of view and contrary practices, seem to warrant a deeper consideration of such questions. Especially with regard to monographs and 'grey' literature, that is, materials often more valuable for humanistic and not scientific research, more exploration of what are the viable options for research libraries in Australia would be beneficial. One of the important issues in Nicholson Baker's Double Fold deals with the deficient regard some otherwise estimable contemporary library administrators have shown for the collections built up by their predecessors. This is painfully recorded in his book and has made us more sensitive to matters most of us would have hoped were long since settled. [4]

But there are also other painful inescapable realities to be recognised: no amount of 'doctrinal purity' can avoid the impact of the budget cuts to which libraries of all kinds are so vulnerable. High-sounding rhetoric, much less the achievements of the past, cut no ice here.

Conclusion

The choice of speakers engaged for the Colloquium was excellent. A range of views and hopes emerged from the papers, although nothing formal such as recommendations for strategic action by the State Library of NSW emerged. All the points addressed were important; some did indeed foreshadow the way policy review should go and indicated how an upgraded organisation of research in Australia might take shape. The chief emphasis in this regard focused on technology and networking arrangements. The Schreuder and Gillies papers were particularly instructive and convincing in this regard.

If the Colloquium might be criticised, it is for the lack of any direct addressing of the role of the National Library as the linchpin in the research structure of contemporary library organisation in Australia. So important is this topic that one would expect it to take up a large part of any Colloquium's deliberations about the problems and future of research libraries in Australia. That some sensitivities might be bruised in such deliberations seems unavoidable in view of a continuing public debate about the policies and direction of the National Library. Provoking, even dissenting, voices need to be heard in such debate where blandness is unhelpful. The Sydney Colloquium did not choose to enter this particular debate, but it is one that cannot be avoided in the long run. One would hope to hear voices, such as those of the well-informed ANU classics scholar and historian, Robert Barnes, called on to participate in a serious, constructive, and well-informed debate on the future of Australian research collecting and that of the National Library in particular. These issues with their vital short-term and long-term implications are of national importance. Their high political and educational relevance does not need emphasising. It must also be recognised that many overseas and local practitioners and scholars have already contributed much to the debate about the future of research libraries and we need to acknowledge what they have taught us. Not much of this actually took place at the Colloquium. This was disappointing in view of the fact that the theme of the Colloquium was research libraries in general, not just in Australia. [5]

The quality of the collecting of Australia's research libraries needs better transparency than is the case at present. This refers particularly to printed formats and monographs, but electronic formats should not be neglected either. What benefits have accrued to Australia's research capacity by the various copyright deposit provisions that exist? Has the Australian research community become aware of the implications of a recent decision of the Council of Australian State Librarians to abandon the exchange of the parliamentary publications of the Australian states among themselves?[6] This may prove a momentous decision with implications emerging only well in the future. It is not known how widely, or indeed whether, the State Librarians sought advice from among the research community (historians and political scientists above all) before taking this decision. Decisions by one group of stakeholders, in this case librarians, may impact in unforeseen ways on other groups, such as researchers whose work will suffer as a consequence. Such considerations open up a wide vista of questions and concerns.

We need a clearer idea of the research library landscape in Australia: such libraries are not all university or state libraries. Can a library thought at one time to be a research library cease to be so considered at a later time? If so, when is this the case? The economic aspects of collection maintenance need re-visiting on a scale that goes beyond State and university libraries.

The Sydney Colloquium offered a variety of well-informed papers and much interesting discussion. Those attending will have little to complain about, but there is now a need to take this initiative further, encompass aspects of research collecting not covered and to promote a deeper debate about the problems that can be identified. That the solution to these problems may not lie entirely in the hands of researchers, librarians or academics cannot be denied. The Schreuder call to look at national information policy is timely and introduces a political element involving further stakeholders. Does the Gillies proposal for a Central Research Library for Australia have a future? What is needed to get the idea taken seriously? What alternative ideas and proposals might be available? There are still many loose ends to the discussion of research library futures in Australia. SLNSW deserves our thanks for producing the Colloquium where some of these issues could be ventilated. When and where will a follow-up Colloquium take place?

Acknowledgments: The author thanks Ms Niki Kallenberger of SLNSW for assistance in preparing this report.

Notes

1. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training Higher Education at the Crossroads. (An Overview Paper: Ministerial Discussion Paper] Canberra Department of Education, Science and Training 2002
2. E Ormsby 'The Battle of the Book: The Research Library Today' in The New Criterion October 2000 pp4-16
3. Ibid p11
4. R L Cope 'Trusting Librarians too Blindly?' in Australian Library Journal vol 50 no 3 August 2001 pp211-227
5. Consideration, for example, of writings by Carla Hesse might be appropriate in this context. See, for example, her 'Humanities and the Library in the Digital Age' in Alvin Kernan (ed), What's Happened to the Humanities? (pp107-121) Princeton Princeton University Press 1997
6. Cope pp224-5 and footnote 18, p227 in item [4] above

R L Cope was NSW parliamentary librarian, 1962-1991, and has been a Visiting Fellow and Visiting Associate to the School of Library, Information and Archive Studies at the Unviersity of New South Wales during the period 1992-1999. He writes and reviews for Australian Academic and Research Libraries and the Australian Library Journal. E-mail: rcope@oze-mail.com.au.nospam (please remove the '.nospam' from the address).