INFOMATTERS

Another survey, this time the fourth of the three-yearly Ithaka studies of faculty perceptions of their libraries, suggests all is not well. Without putting too fine a point on it, the authors state up front:

Since the first Faculty Survey in 2000, we have seen faculty members steadily shifting towards reliance on network-level electronic resources, and a corresponding decline in interest in using locally provided tools for discovery.

What follows is a colorful presentation of data that is wrapped up in suitable contemporary jargon (network-centricity, digitized resources etc.) that paints a picture which is not as bleak as some are interpreting it. Surprise surprise, faculty don’t like to leave their desks, know how to find stuff with Google, prefer domain specific to generic databases, follow links from articles, like full-text ejournals. In short, all the design features that we have been advocating for years such as ease of access, direct readability, linked documents, full coverage etc. are proving to be important to people.

Where the survey might be posing some more challenging thoughts is the shifting view of academic libraries as less the gateway and more the purchaser, though this has always been a role that academic libraries played. The shift seems sharpest among scientists, who unlike their colleagues in the humanities, report less value in the library for teaching, research, or even archival purposes, and appear to just want libraries to buy the materials. I have some doubts about this. The data are not provided which might explain how scientists imagine teaching materials of the future to be provided or how they foresee the scientific record being curated, though this surely is an issue of very real concern to many that I know, as confirmed by the results in section three, so I suspect the wording and terminology in some questions might be crucial here.

We do see faculty becoming more and more comfortable with electronic only versions of holdings. Much is made of the media shift from paper to digital but this also points to the continuing value placed on provision and curation through time. More and more faculty seem willing to trade off paper (even seeing it ‘discarded’ in terms used here) for reliable e-versions as we move forward, but this should not surprise us. Yes, 40% of respondents agree with this, but the key issue for faculty is availability, and that is a role the library has long fulfilled. Long term preservation of the record is what matters, and faculty are wide-awake to the importance of ensuring electronic resources are maintained. But for those still seeking the e-book tipping point, for all the desire to preserve these, still relatively few faculty seem to use them for teaching or research purposes. Maybe there’s a publication market here?

Media shifts get the news but the constants of quality triumph. In a series of questions about publication venue, faculty care about readership by peers and reputation more than medium. While much noise occurs about the need to revamp scholarly publication systems, there’s little data here to suggest faculty are so concerned. The published paper, tenure-dossier approved, is the gold standard. Self-interest motivated publishing behavior and the survey authors seem a little concerned at the end that faculty are unwilling to lead a revolution in the publication paradigm. It’s interesting stuff but I am not sure any of it is surprising. What is surprising is the suggestion of commentators that this points to the irrelevance of libraries to faculty. Hardly so, would be my interpretation.