ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 4 7 6 / C&RL N ew s Choosing to act: The 1 9 9 7 ACRL National Conference By Liz B ish o ff, C a th e r in e L arson , a n d R ob ert R en au d Librarians m ust defin e the fu tu r e or som eone else will I n his keynote address at the ACRL National C o n feren ce in N ashville, C ornell W est asked, “Will we survive?” He responded, “Yes. Ho depends on what we do.” The preconferences, contributed papers, panels, and poster sessions held between April 10 and 14, 1997, responded to this challenge, a challenge summ ed up by the conference theme: “Choosing Our Futures.” That them e places responsibility for the fu­ ture o f libraries with us. We are painfully aware o f the fact that w e are living in times of great change. As Paul Saffo stated, “w e are living in a moment between two revolutions—one of print not quite spent and another electronic not quite u n d er w ay .… Libraries face the twin chal­ lenges of trying to maintain and sustain the paper m edium while exploring and parentheti­ cally, adopting, the new paperless media. …”1 In order to focus the energies o f conference attendees, Liz Bishoff, o f OCLC, and the late Paul Evan Peters, o f th e Coalition for Net­ w o rk e d Inform ation, w ere ask ed to p u t to ­ g e th e r a program th at w o u ld e x p a n d indi­ v id u a l in v o lv em en t an d co m m itm en t to a future. Using a te ch n iq u e d e v e lo p e d by Pe­ te r Schwartz in his 1991 A rt o f th e Long View, co n fe re n ce p lan n ers p u t to g e th e r a program that w o u ld allow atten d ees an d n o n atten d ees to discuss several scenarios for the future of academic libraries, define w hat environmental factors will affect the outcom e o f a selected scenario, and discuss the scenarios with their faculty and library and nonlibrary colleagues.2 They th e n identified th ree k ey activities that th eir library n e e d e d to u n d e rta k e to assure th e d es ire d scen ario , w h at th ree activities they n e e d e d to u n d e rta k e p erso n ally , an d w h at th ree activities ACRL co u ld u n d ertak e. T h ese d iscu ssio n s, w h ich w ere h e ld o v er wt h ree days o f ro u n d tab le sessions, b eg a n the p ro cess o f identifying actions to determ ine the future. Predicting the future Predicting the future is difficult for all of us. The following predictions, m ade by reputable thinkers, illustrate this fact. • The sun does not move.— Leonardo da Vinci • Who the hell w ants to hear actors talk?— H arry Warner, 1927 • While theoretically and technically TV may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility.—Lee De Forest, in ­ ventor o f the vacuum tube • T here’s n o reason for any individual to have a co m p u ter in their h o m e.— K enneth Olsen, p resident a n d fo u n d e r o f Digital E quip­ m en t Corporation, 1977 Although the future is always difficult to pre­ dict, it is critical that w e seek ways to improve our likelihood o f success. Futurist Jo el Barker stresses th a t w e n e e d to an ticip ate, n o t just recognize, paradigm shifts.3 If w e do, w e can b e tte r co n tro l o u r future. H e g o es o n to say th at if w e d o n ’t co n tro l o u r future, so m eo n e else will. O f course, this leaves th e crucial question of how w e recognize paradigm shifts. The scenario-building m ethodology responds L iz B is h o ff is vice-p resid en t o f m e m b e r services, OCLC.; e-m ail: liz_bishoff@ oclc.org, C a th e r in e Larson is tea m leader, F in e A rts /H u m a n itie s Team, th e U niversity o f A r iz o n a ; e-m ail: ca l@ b ird .H b ra ry.a rizo n a .ed u . R obert R e n a u d is te a m leader, B ib lio g ra p h ic Access, th e U niversity o f A r iz o n a ; e - m a i l : re n a u d @ lib ra ry .a rizo n a .e d u mailto:liz_bishoff@oclc.org mailto:cal@bird.Hbrary.arizona.edu mailto:renaud@library.arizona.edu J u ly /A u g u s t 1 9 9 7 / 4 7 7 to this dilemma and helps us embrace the fact that w e can and must assume responsibility for our future. Scenarios for the future In 1995 Paul Evan Peters developed four sce­ narios for a North American Serials Interest G roup (NASIG) conference.4 A sum m ary of these scenarios appears as a sidebar in this ar­ ticle. T hese alternative p red ictio n s a b o u t o u r future b ecam e th e basis o f th e ro u n d tab le discussions in Nashville. The ro u n d tab le p a r­ tic ip an ts d id n o t reach ag re e m e n t o n the m o st p r o b a b le s c e n a rio . H o w e v e r, th e y a g re e d th a t s c e n a rio 4, “Ivory T o w ers in C y b ersp ace,” has th e g rea test p o ten tial for a co n tin u ed p rese n ce for libraries. It sh o u ld also be n o te d th at som e o f o u r colleagues p referred o r ac ce p te d a dim in ish ed ro le for libraries on their campuses. This fact suggests th at w e are a reactive profession, w hereas tom orrow ’s competitive world requires a pro­ active predisposition. W ho do w e have to talk to about the future of universities, future roles of electronic uni­ versities, the role o f cable and telecommunica­ tions companies, the role o f scholarly societ­ ies? Not if, but w hen will scholarly publishing change? What factors d o w e look for that may be outside our immediate sphere that will af­ fect the future of academic libraries? W hat can libraries do? What can libraries do? During the roundtable discussion the groups discussed actions that can be taken by libraries, and also by individual librarians, to bring about a desirable future. The attendees identified some o f the fol­ lowing actions that libraries can take: • strengthen connections with faculty, cam­ pus computing, the external community, and other libraries; • pursue consortial agreements, both aca­ demic and multitype; • proactively market the library’s role in the academic community; • becom e stronger advocates of intellec­ tual property; • undertake strategic planning an d refocus priorities; • take leadership on campus, promoting the functions and role of libraries in the new environment; • focus on user-centered/learner-centered service. These quotes dem onstrate some of the com ­ mon actions many participants intend to pur­ sue once back in their hom e institutions, in­ cluding partnering with other organizations and campus units; focusing on users rather than on internal issues; and reprioritizing work and time to achieve the most important strategic goals. Not reflected, however, are the great num ber of participants w ho intend to take action in the electronic front by increasing access for their users. These actions include everything from ministeps (create a Web site for a library) to major rehauls o f front-end and online catalog systems. Also not reflected is another signifi­ cant theme, that of focusing on learning: on sharing new information learned at conferences and w orkshops; on improving communication w ithin the library; and in setting up and con­ ducting learning opportunities for all staff. Within the realm of strategic planning, many people intend to reexamine how their library uses space, recognizing that customers are us­ ing our libraries differently than they used to. Others h o p e to engage more librarians and staff in supporting annual plan efforts and to incor­ porate their input on w hat needs to be done. Aggregating our resources In partnering, librarians are recognizing more and more that aggregating our resources will result in outcom es that are ultimately benefi­ cial for all of our users. Some ACRL attendees specifically m entioned setting up resource-shar­ ing agreem ents with nearby libraries. Others intend to increase their outreach efforts to net­ work within the campus, for example, with fac­ ulty, with com puting centers, and with other units that w ork with students. O n an individual level, librarians cited the following actions that could be taken in the short term to respond to these challenges: • increase scope o f reading to include ar­ eas beyond library professional literature; • reprioritize work and time; • place priority on training and learning for staff and self; • expand political activity; • maintain technology currency; • articulate library vision; • convince ourselves that w e have power; • get out of our library nests; • make our library essential— make sure everyone know s it; • participate with faculty in instructional design. 4 7 8 / C&RL N ew s For a profession that inherently values read­ ing, w e cannot seem to do enough o f it! Read­ ing m ore an d im proving o u r aw aren ess o f trends in and outside the profession arose as a them e over and over again. It is apparent that as busy professionals, w e need to sp en d more time “sharpening the saw ” and learning those things that will allow us to be successful not just today, but also in the future. In support of radical change Finally, the attendees suggested ways that ACRL could, as a professional organization, support libraries and librarians undergoing radical change: • partner with other professional confer­ ences; • advocate/lobby for libraries; • prom ote education and training for librar­ ians an d staff, provide educational opportuni­ ties beyond conferences; • provide opportunities to exchange ideas; • u p d ate/ed u cate about professional stan­ dards; • p rom ote/support need ed research; • ex p an d collaborative w ork w ith other associations and reach out to businesses; • shed bookish image; • include all library staff. Defining our futures The three roundtable sessions that took place (Choosing cont. on pa g e 486) A lte rn a tiv e scenarios fo r th e fu tu re Summary of Paul Evan Peters’s “Alternative Scenarios for the Future of Academic Libraries.” S c e n a r i o A: A n o t h e r m a r k e t p l a c e f o r S c e n a r i o C: K n o w l e d g e g u i l d r e i g n s s u ­ g l o b a l e n t e r p r i s e s p r e m e • G lo b al In fo rm a tio n In fra s tru c tu re • Wide-area netw orks organized for fo­ dom inated by corporate investors. cused clientele make resources available to • Scholarly communication controlled by scholars. large commercial firms. • Scholarly societies key providers o f net­ • D ependence on tuition leaves few re­ w ork services to members and holders o f joint sources for new, strategic activities in higher ow nership of intellectual properties. education. • Higher education, still in slow financial • Libraries confined to serving selected recovery, concentrated to geographically close institutional priorities. clientele. • Libraries continue to organize infor­ • Libraries subscribe to netw orked infor­ mation, train scholars and students, and o p ­ mation and serve as paym ent managers. erate within consortia. • Libraries provide access for students • Libraries “out of the lo o p ” o f scholarly across disciplines and across networks. com munication. • Select libraries partner with societies for preservation. S c e n a r i o B: M a s s c u s t o m i z a t i o n f o r a n d b y in d i v id u a l s S c e n a r io D: I v o r y t o w e r s in c y b e r s p a c e • G lo b al In fo rm a tio n In fra s tru c tu re • Global Research and Education Network m akes access to netw orked resources more (GREN) succeeds as successor to Internet. affordable to larger population. • Research institutions principle provid­ • Artificial intelligence stretches com put­ ers o f education and access. ing capabilities. • Academic, not commercial, standards • Scholars and scientists affiliate with govern intellectual property use. h ig h e r ed u c a tio n institutions project-by- • Complex negotiated agreem ents govern project o r course-by-course. access by non-GREN to network. • Libraries co n tin u e to organize access • Libraries play key role in life cycle of to inform ation bu t d e p e n d o n co n so rtia information creation and distribution. affiliation for access to co n s o lid a ted c o l­ • Libraries play key role in organization lections. and preservation of GREN resources. July/August 1997 / 479