Academic Library Autopsy Report: My Response

On January 2, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a brief commentary entitled Academic Library Autopsy Report, 2050.  In this commentary, the author, an instructional librarian at Alfred University in New York, highlighted five key factors that he believes may lead to the eventual (and relatively soon) death of the academic library.

Of course I, as a librarian, had a pretty strong reaction to this article.  My first thought was that the piece was totally extreme; my next thought, as I saw that the author was also a librarian, was that the article was a call to action from one librarian to the professional community of librarians.  In the comments below the article on the Chronicle website, the author himself, Brian Sullivan, chimes in and pretty much says this himself.  That said, I think the author makes a few interesting points that could underscore the ways that academic libraries NEED to change in order to maintain relevancy and value in the academic community--the thoughts below are the first ones I had in response to Sullivan's report.  As a library user, do you agree?

1.  Book collections become obsolete
Sullivan takes libraries (and their administrators) to task when he writes that libraries "signed their own death warrants with deals to digitize their books," like in the Google Books situation.  Although I do believe that electronic collections are the future (see my post on e-books from last week) for many types of books, I think that libraries can drive the electronic book phenomenon in a way that it currently is NOT.  Right now, publishers hold the power with how and when books are published, and who can access them.  Libraries need to take a more proactive role in figuring out what's going on with e-books and how we can leverage access to the.  I don't have an answer here, but I am actively questioning!

2. Library instruction was no longer necessary
Sullivan seems concerned that better tools (like web-scale discovery tools:  think Google for library resources) will eliminate the need for librarians to focus on resource-specific instruction.  To a certain point, I think he's right!  Interestingly, a group called Project Information Literacy just published a report that, among other things, suggested that students really need instruction on the research process, rather than specific resources.  I agree!  If we can teach the process, the resources bit will follow--especially if we have better, more faceted searching tools.  More on this in the next section...


3.  Information literacy was fully integrated into the curriculum
Okay, this one is definitely happening.  You may see it called "inquiry" in the literature, but information literacy has become more and more a concern within all academic disciplines, it seems like.  As Sullivan writes, I do see major, campus-wide adoptions of information literacy standards (like ACRL's) in the future, and with librarians playing a major role in this--which Sullivan agrees with.  However, I think that what's missing from this picture now is the intimate, simultaneous instruction related to information literacy (the research process) and discipline specific information.  Essentially, an intimate collaboration between librarians and faculty members.  Librarians have made it their lives' work to help students understand how to research; faculty members can spend MORE time covering discipline-specific material if they collaborate with librarians who are able to support students in experimenting with, and learning more about, the research process itself.


4.  Libraries and librarians were subsumed by information-technology departments
Again, I see collaboration as the key here.  Digital resources really are changing the collection development game, but let's face it:  librarians bring a special expertise in selecting, weeding, and maintaining library collections, whether they are print, electronic, or something else that we haven't even dreamed of yet.  That said, I think that librarians need to become technology savvy in order to understand the new environment of information and research materials.  Sullivan's "report" envisions librarians using their talents to work with major publishers or IT groups--since the library will be dead--but if we establish an identity early on (as, ahem, e-book leaders, for example), collaboration will occur, and the "librarian" identity will stay strong!


5.  Reference services disappeared
In academic libraries, the focus has very much moved from reference to instruction and other tasks.  I'm sitting on the reference desk right now while I write this, and I have only been asked for directions to the bathroom and the printer, and to locate lost books.  I think that many members of the university community still value the idea of reference services, but again, I think that librarians need to be more vocal about communicating that this service exists.  We're not exactly competing with Google, but we could stand to improve our visibility and promote our services.


6.  Economics trumps quality
I think that this factor is what, in many ways, drives the previous five.  But I don't think that this WILL happen if librarians establish an identity (see 4) and provide evidence and support of their value.  Librarians need to be more proactive in establishing relationships with faculty AND students, in claiming their identity on the college campus, and in promoting it.  That's my goal, at least!