College and Research Libraries The Electronic Campus: The Impact of the Scholar's Workstation Project on the Libraries at Brown Barbara B. Moran, Thomas T. Surprenant, and Merrily E. Taylor The academic library has traditionally served as the centralized storehouse of information for the academic community, but inevitably its functions will change as more campuses are ''wired'' and as students and faculty have access to information through individual computer workstations linked in a local campus network for scholarly communication. This case, study describes the Scholar's Workstation project, a campuswide computerization project at Brown University, and assesses the. effects, to date, of that project on the institution's libraries. Sug- gestions are provided to other libraries whose institutions are beginning to explore the possibil- ity of a similar venture. ~~~- ~~ ~~"1f] rown University in Providence, ~ ~~ Rhode Island, has embarked on 'j:~ ? major p~oject to expand and mtegrate 1ts computmg, com- munication, and information systems. As a result the school has received a great deal of publicity and has been touted in the literature of higher education as an ex- ample of a liberal arts university that is be- ing transformed from a traditional campus into an electronic one. Obviously, a trans- formation of this magnitude will affect all segments of the university, including the library. The purpose of this research was to look specifically at the impact of the campuswide computerization project on the role and operation of the academic li- braries at Brown. The researchers' interest in the Brown experiment began in the summer of 1984, · when the Council on Library Resources sponsored an Association of Research Li- braries' Institute on Research Libraries for Library Science Faculty. At the institute there were many discussions about the role of the academic research library in a changing technological and educational environment. In particular, the group speculated about how the crucial role the academic library plays in scholarship and instruction could be maintained in an era of electronic information. Although writers of library literature have dealt extensively with the effects of applying computer technology to library processes and services, little has been written about the effects of campuswide computer technology on the academic li- brary. The lack of research on the topic is not surprising since it was no! until the · Barbara B. Moran is Assistant Professor at the School of Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Thomas T. Surprenant is Director at the Graduate School of Library and Information Studies, Queens College, City University of New York. Merrily E. Taylor is University Librarian at Brown University . Research was made possible by a Faculty/Librarian Cooperative Research Grant provided by the Council on Library Resources. 5 6 College & Research Libraries last two or three years that institutions be- gan to develop campuswide networks for information sharing. There has not been sufficient time to study how this innova- tion is changing the lives of students and faculty, and, possibly, the very nature of higher education. The "wiring" of cam- puses will have a profound impact on aca- demic libraries, and for the first time it is possible to begin to gauge that effect. The three authors of this report felt that it was critical to assess the place and role of the academic library in the electronic cam- pus of the future. Since Brown University was in the process of undergoing an evo- lution towards such a campus, it provided a rare opportunity for such a study. Brown, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have been called the "Star Wars" universities-the high-tech innovators in a transformed world of higher education. Together, these three institutions have invested nearly $200 mil- lion in information technology for instruc- tional purposes over the last few years. 1 Brown provides a particularly interesting example of this technological transforma- tion since it, unlike CMU and MIT, is not a technological institution but primarily a liberal arts college, an orientation more typical of the vast majority of institutions of higher education in the United States. Brown also has a tradition of emphasizing humanistic education and of considering the library central to the education pro- cess. Thus, Brown could provide a sce- nario of what may happen to many aca- demic libraries in the near future. Studying the process that is going on at Brown would provide information about the effects of campuswide computeriza- tion of libraries, particularly information in the broad area of institutional planning and management, which should be useful to other librarians. As a result, they should be able to make more informed de- cisions as their own institutions move to- ward incorporating more information technology. A grant proposal to study the Brown experiment was submitted to the Council on Library Resources and was ap- proved. This article summarizes the major findings of that research. January 1987 BROWN UNIVERSITY It is not surprising that Brown Univer- sity is one of the sites of the latest innova- tion in higher education. In the past, Brown has been a pioneer in other educa- tional developments. In the 1800s under the leadership of Francis Wayland, Brown was one of the first universities to permit students to take elective courses. Then, in the early 1970s, the school was at the fore- front of American curriculum reform again, adopting a flexible undergraduate .., curriculum that is still proving to be very attractive. By the late 1970s Brown was experienc- I ing the same problem as many other insti- tutions: a computer capacity that was in- creasingly inadequate to meet student and j faculty demands. Although the main- frame computer was frequently up- graded, these upgrades never permitted the school to meet or stay ahead of de- / mand. In 1983, Brown began an ambi- tious, long-term undertaking called the / Scholar's Workstation project. The goal J was to experiment with, shape, and evalu- ate new types of computer and communi- cation tools that might have a profound ef- fect on future education and scholarship. The keystone of the project was the de- velopment of an integrated network of campus computers that could be used for a wide variety of teaching and research purposes. Individual workstations were proposed that would be more powerful than most existing personal comput_ers with a capacity of a million pixels of infor- mation on the screen, a million processes per second, and a million bytes of storage. The original plan for the Scholar's Workstation project envisioned 2,000 workstations on campus by the end of 1984. By 1987, there would be 10,000 workstations including those located in faculty homes and Brown-affiliated hospi- tals. 2 These powerful microcomputers would be connected into local networks that in turn would be connected into the university network, BRUNET, a broad- band, coaxial cable communications sys- tem that already linked many of the cam- pus buildings. The workstations, which were expected to affect almost all aspects of teaching and learning at Brown, would include such functions as computation, word processing, information retrieval, data analysis, computer graphics, net- work communications, and library access. The result of the Scholar's Workstation project would be a campus with decentral- ized computing resources, but one that would be integrated electronically with students, faculty, staff, and resources tied together in a functioning ''wired univer- sity." The Institute for Research in Informa- tion and Scholarship (IRIS) was estab- lished at Brown in 1983 to oversee ·the Scholar's Workstation project and to serve as a self-supporting, umbrella organiza- tion. Its primary purpose was to coordi- nate research and experimentation in the development of innovative use of infor- mation and communication technologies in education and scholarship. IRIS was also charged with the task of evaluating and analyzing the impact of the project on both individuals and the institution. The purpose of IRIS was pivotal in the Scholar's Workstation project. When he announced the establishment of the insti- tution, President Howard Swearer stated: From IRIS will stern the technical and creative impulses that will drive and focus a broad range of experiments. Information developed by IRIS will show us how the new generation of com- puting can best serve faculty and students in the humanities as well as in the sciences, pre- serving our strong liberal arts tradition. 3 To make this project a reality, Brown had to rely heavily on outside funding. Be- ing a pioneer is always risky, but to attract large amounts of outside money, it is ad- vantageous to be among the first working on a project, as funding agencies are more willing to invest. The type of project that Brown envisioned was especially attrac- tive to corporate sponsors because it held out the promise of eventual commercial viability. If a Scholar's Workstation could be produced that fulfilled the expectations of its proponents at Brown, it should also be extremely attractive for eventual mar- keting at other campuses. Brown obtained a great deal of support for its efforts to bring computerization to its campus. In !\.fay 1983, the university The Electronic Campus 7 announced the gift of fifty LISA systems from Apple and thirty systems from Apollo. Apple also agreed to provide sub- stantial discounts on purchases of addi- tionalcomputers.4InJuly 1983, major sup- port from IBM was announced. The total value was estimated to be about $15 mil- lion over three years, the largest single corporate partnership in the history of the university. IBM's participation included both a grant and support for a Brown-IBM research and development partnership. 5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS Brown was obviously gearing up forma- jor changes on campus. The authors wanted to be on campus as early as possi- ble to see what the effects of technological change would be on the library. Specifi- cally, information was sought on the fol- lowing research questions: (1) To what extent are the plans for the Scholar's Workstation operational at Brown? (2) How does the library fit into the sys- tem and, specifically, how is the library being drawn into the teaching/learning process? (3) What are the basic problems that have been encountered in both the plan- ning and implementation of the project? (4)What is the perceived and the actual role of the library? Is it central, tangential, or bypassed? (S)What will the widespread use of per- sonal computers do to the use of tradi- tional printed materials found in libraries? (6)Will the funding of an electronic cam- pus present a threat to the library's budget? (7) What elements can be identified as critical to the proper integration of the li- brary into the electronic campus? (8) What can be learned from the expe- rience of Brown that can be transferred to other campuses? RESEARCH METHODS To gather the information needed to provide answers to these questions, the researchers decided to use a case study ap- .proach. The case study method was felt to be the only valid approach despite the lim- itation of not being generalizable to a 8 College & R~search Libraries larger population. Using this method, the researchers would be able to describe what had gone on at Brown to date, assess the impact of the project, and then, by means of additional studies, be able to track future developments. By necessity, the research was explor- atory, but the researchers hoped to gather baseline information that might provide the foundation for future studies in this area. The research would be enhanced by the presence on the team of one individual who was directly associated with Brown and two who had no connections with it. The inside member would be invaluable in terms of providing access to key individ- uals, supplying the outsiders with basic information and documentation, verify- ing data, and identifying crucial elements in the environment. Finally, as an ongoing participant in the process, the insider would be able to keep the others abreast of developments and changes. On the other hand, the outsiders could supply objectiv- ity through their lack of vested interest in the process at the university . In addition, the individuals to be interviewed would be more likely to be open with outside in- terviewers because there was no political liability associated with speaking frankly. Extensive background reading was done to prepare for the interviews. A great deal of information was available from Brown about the Scholar's Workstation project, and, in addition, access to internal documents and memoranda pertaining to the project was provided. The researchers also read the published literature relating to the project, although that literature is, to date, rather scant. Two separate interview schedules were drawn up: one to be used with the univer- sity administrators and faculty and a sec- ond to be used with librarians. The ques- tions on the first set were broadly focused on the implementation of the Scholar's Workstation project and its likely impact on the campus in general and the library in particular, while the questions on the sec- ond set were focused more narrowly on is- January 1987 sues relating to the Brown University li- braries. After the question sets were drawn up, they were pretested andre- vised. In September 1985, the researchers met on the Brown campus to plan the research and to select the sample of individuals to be interviewed. The sample consisted of two sectors: (1) individuals chosen ran- domly, and (2) key individuals who were included because of their importance to the project. In October 1985, the two out- side researchers returned to Brown for the actual interviewing process. All inter- views were done over the course of five days, and both of the outside researchers were present for most of the interviews. Thirty people were interviewed; the in- terviews ranged in length from thirty min- utes to two hours with most averaging about an hour. All of the individuals ex- cept one gave permission for the inter- views to be tape recorded. The interviews were held with a cross-section of univer- sity administrators, faculty, library ad- ministrators, and librarians, and one student.* All were extremely open about the process of implementing the Scholar's Workstation project. No one refused to be interviewed, and the researchers were im- pressed by the frankness of everyone in their appraisals of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the project. At the close of each day, the researchers met, recapitulated the day's events, and discussed plans for the next day. In be- tween interviews, as many campus facili- ties as possible were visited. After the week of interviewing, the taped inter- views were transcribed. The data were or- ganized, key issues were identified, and the report was prepared. RESULTS General The outside researchers arrived at Brown with some expectations of what would be found on campus. From the published reports about the project there- searchers expected to find a network of *Due to lack of time, more interviews with students could not be scheduled as originally planned. fully functioning workstations, a wired campus, and workstations being used in- dividually and in classrooms by both fac- ulty and students. What was actually found was different. As with almost all complex plans, delays and slippage had occurred, and Brown had not progressed as far as it had anticipated. The timetable for implementation had been far too ambi- tious. Most disappointing was the fact that the Scholar's Workstations had not yet been installed. There was at least one prototype machine on campus at that time, but the prototype could be viewed only by individuals who had signed non- disclosure agreements with IBM. Most of the people interviewed had not yet seen the prototype and thus did not know how well it met prior expectations. The campus was almost completely wired with plans to finish wiring the dorms by the end of summer 1986. Al- though the campus is considered wired, the wiring goes only to the outside of the buildings, and individual departments have to pay for the T -box connections and the wiring inside the buildings. There were still some departments, especially in the humanities, that had not brought the wiring inside their buildings. It was quickly discovered that Brown had already scaled down its expectations about the project. No one at Brown was talking about 10,000 workstations; the ex- pectation was that the university would begin with a small number of worksta- · tions and acquire 500 at most. The costs of the original plan had been much higher than expected, and the realization of these costs had applied a brake to the hopes of acquiring a larger number. There was also a greater acceptance of a mix of computer technologies on campus than originally planned, and the realization that the power of the Scholar's Workstation was far more than was necessary for many us- ers. The interviews made it clear that Brown administrators, faculty, and librarians on all levels were divided in their opinions about the Scholar's Workstation project. They were split in their expectations, their knowledge, and their acceptance of the project. With one major exception The Electronic Campus 9 though, all the individuals interviewed were in favor of the concept, although the degree of acceptance varied. Where disagreement arose, it almost al- ways centered on the overall cost of the project. The grant from IBM has covered most of the initial costs to the university, but the grant is drawing to an end, and the cost of the project soon must be assumed by the university. The costs have greatly escalated from the original estimates, and the fact that the expenses of the project will soon have to be covered as a part of the regular operating budget has caused many early proponents to worry that Brown may have undertaken more than it can afford. As in all universities, espe- cially private universities, there are many competing demands on the budget, in- cluding demands for increased faculty sal- aries and more generous student aid. Al- though Brown is considered to be a wealthy university, the researchers were reminded often that its endowment is the smallest of any of the Ivy League schools. It has become obvious at Brown that the funds needed to support the workstation project could consume ever-larger por- tions of the budget to the detriment of other areas. No one seems to have much factual in- formation about the actual costs of the project in the future. Even people who are in charge of budgeting do not have firm figures. There are rough estimates of the percentage of the budget computerization may require, but nothing concrete. Every- one interviewed admitted that budgeting for the project in the future was going to be extremely difficult and that not enough had been done to think through the pro- cess. But this uncertainty seemed to be ac- cepted with equanimity by the senior ad- ministrators interviewed. One of them remarked: Brown is absolutely a tightrope act. We all walk on high wires around here. The only thing that is less comfortable than this is not having this attention, not having this activity, and not do- ing this at all. So you live with one set of anxie- ties or another and we have chosen to live with these. There was a certain amount of impa- tience and disillusionment at all levels, 10 College & Research Libraries which was not surprising, considering the scope of the original plans and what has been realized to date. There was also a widespread awareness that the problems of developing the hardware had been much greater than expected. Many people were also concerned about the software to be used, especially the courseware that would have to be developed if the work- stations were to be used as originally planned. Among the faculty there were fears expressed that the university had no way of rewarding faculty for the time and the effort that would need to be invested in production of courseware. Because Brown's instructional budget is already so large, there was little hope of faculty re- ceiving released time to work on such projects. Despite the concerns of many, there is still an air of optimism on campus about the project. Although there are few who believe that the original objectives of the project will ever be met, most of the peo- ple interviewed still believe in its ultimate · worth. Opposition to the workstation project certainly exists on campus, some of it quite bitter. Estimates of the opposi- tion ranged from 5 percent to 50 percent of the faculty. The most likely estimate seems to be 10 percent to 20 percent. These opponents feel that the worksta- tions are consuming money that could be better used for other educational pur- poses. Detractors say that the whole mis- sion of the university has been skewed by this project and that the institution is be- ing transformed from a liberal arts institu- tion into "Brown Tech." Although the actual workstations are not in operation on campus, the Brown environment has changed drastically from what it was prior to the planning for this project. Computer technology is highly visible on the campus. Every departmen- tal office and almost every faculty office that was seen had at least one computer terminal in it. People's work habits have changed, and most of the faculty and staff are utilizing existing computer technology in their jobs. Many students are arriving on campus with computers and even more are purchasing them in the Brown "Computer Store." Although the Scholar's Workstations were not opera- January 1987 tiona! in fall1985, Brown did have a fully installed campus network with over 3,200 personal computers of various types con- nected to it. Brown is a "wired" campus now, even though the development of the Scholars' Workstations is far behind the original schedule. Ways the Implementation Could Have Been Improved Other institutions contemplating a simi- lar project to the one at Brown could learn a great deal from Brown's experience. In retrospect, it is easy to point out some things that might have made the process of computerizing the campus at Brown go more smoothly. The most obvious one of these would have been greater attention paid to communication between the peo- ple in charge of the Scholar's Workstation project and the rest of the university com- munity. Although there was some com- munication about the project from its in- ception, among the individuals interviewed almost all felt that communi- cation between IRIS and the rest of the campus had been inadequate. The second major flaw in Brown's im- plementation involved building up expec- tations that could not be met. There were gross underestimates of the time and cost involved in making the project opera- tional. Part of this deficiency stemmed from the fact that Brown decided not to go with off-the-shelf technology but, instead, entered a partnership with a corporate en- tity to produce its own. Brown thus had to rely on its partner, IBM, to maintain its schedule. By October 1985, the project was at least sixteen months behind sched- ule because the technology had not . moved as fast as most people had pro- jected. The cost escalations also had re- sulted from contracting for undeveloped products. Because of the uncertainties in- volved and the subsequent downscaling of the plans, the process was described as one where "people's expectations were raised to very high levels initially and then they had to be damped back." Another shortcoming in the process at Brown stemmed from the fact that the in- dividuals who had the most influence in the project operated, at least in the begin- ning, under the assumption that everyone at Brown would be uniformly in favor of the project. Thus, they provided inade- quate preparation for readying the rest of the campus for the changes that would en- sue and failed to enlist support in advance of the project. None of the downside risks involved in entering the project seem to have been adequately thought through and were certainly not publicized. As one administrator said, ''We committed first and asked searching questions later.'' This administrator believes that if the searching questions had been asked the . project would still have been undertaken, but the school would have been spared some of the surprises it has had to endure in the process. It was explained that the project was un- . dertaken hastily because the opening op- portunity with IBM did not permit more time. The university agreed to participate in the project and then announced this agreement. The project was thus a "top- down" decision that violated the tradi- tional route of campus decision making, wherein the faculty have at least the per- ception that they have input into the decision-making process. As one faculty member said: The whole possibility of doing this came about in a kind of entrepreneurial effort .... And, the senior administrative decisions had to be made quickly. There was really not the time to go through the faculty and have all the commit- tee meetings, and all of the four, and six, and twelve hour debates that usually ensue. But what happened is that when it was brought for- ward to the faculty, it was brought forward in a way which I and a number of members of the faculty conceived as ''This decision has already been made. Why are you asking us? Many faculty still resent the fact that the university made a commitment to the project without prior faculty approval. The other major difficulty Brown has had to deal with is a lack of coordination not only in regard to the Scholar's Work- station project but also to computerization in general. Although the Academic Com- puting Center and IRIS seem to have co- operated well, there has been a general perception that the roles of each have been confused. Neither faculty nor staff is sure exactly what each unit is responsible for, The Electronic Campus 11 and there still appears to be some overlap in the responsibilities of each. In an attempt to provide some cam- puswide coordination of computing, a vice-provost of computing was appointed in the fall of 1985. It was evident that ex- pectations about what this individual would be able to accomplish were ex- tremely high. Many of the individuals in- terviewed used the term Superman in de- scribing the attributes the vice-provost would have to possess in order to com- plete the tasks he would be expected to undertake. Unfortunately, the first vice- provost of computing left after only a few months in the position. Another has re- cently been appointed, but the task of co- ordinating computer resources at Brown is an immense challenge and one that has not been achieved as yet. Brown seems to be coming slowly to the realization that the Scholar's Workstation project will never be implemented fully in the form originally envisioned. One fac- ulty member put it well: There is a lot of joking around about these ma- chines which people have which are not the machines that people are going to have which they may never have. I think at some point, someone is going to have to say that what [the project] was or turned out to be was a catalyst for a different kind of thing. And I haven't heard anyone say that yet. By fall 1986, there were a small number of Scholar's Workstations on the campus with more expected for the spring semes- ter, but the grand vision originally set out in 1983 of 10,000 workstations on campus will never be achieved. The workstation project presented a concept-a vision of the future. Brown has moved and will move still closer to that vision using a mix- ture of both existing technology and the workstations. Like any innovation, a group of true believers at Brown seized the initiative and began to implement change. Their efforts, although not yet successful, have changed the direction of the campus forever. Present and Future Impact on the Brown Library Although the Scholar's Workstations are not yet operational, the libraries at 12 College & Research Libraries Brown have, like the rest of the institu- tion, been affected by the attempt to com- puterize the campus. Here, too, the Scholar's Workstation project has served as a catalyst to promote change. The Brown libraries are already serving a highly computerized, "wired" campus, and they are preparing to serve an even more computer-oriented campus in the future. There is an air of expectancy in the library, and many of the librarians inter- view~d remarked that Brown was an excit- ing place to be working. For instance: One of the most exciting and opportunistic things for librarians here at Brown is that expec- tations are very high all over campus that some- thing different is going to happen and it is going to reach the library .... It is going to affect ev- eryone because the library is a part of it . . . . I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. It is super to be a part of this. Many of the librarians at Brown have been actively involved in planning for the Scholar's Workstation project. The uni- versity librarian, Merrily Taylor, has had a major role in the project since her arrivaL. on campus in 1982. Other librarians have also been involved. For instance, the sys- tems librarian serves on the executive board of IRIS. The librarians reported that before they became involved in the plan- ning there were many unrealistic assump- tions and misconceptions about the li- brary. For instance, one person remem- bered a statement in one of the first plan- ning documents that said the whole library could be put on a disk for the cost of a B 1 bomber. Various members of the staff, under the guidance of Merrily Tay- lor, have been able to correct major mis- conceptions. The library's online catalog committee has worked closely with the Academic Computing Center (ACC) in developing plans for implementing the online catalog. And finally, there have been good contacts between the head of IRIS and the library. Cooperation between the library, IRIS, and the ACC appear to be strong, with in- January 1987 dividuals in each unit showing respect for their colleagues. The Scholar's Worksta- tion project has helped bring about the re- alization that all elements in a wired uni- versity are interconnected. As one librarian stated: The Library first started looking at the idea of an online system in '76, and at that time, we had no relationship with the computer center at all, and they weren't doing much on the rest of campus .... It would be our computer and our system. We went ahead and did something that just existed in the library. Now there's not only the computer center but a number of computer related groups on campus and they are inter- ested in plugging the library into what they are doing. They recognize that if you are going to connect up the whole campus, everyone does want to plug into the library. Ideally, in a "wired" university, where technological innovation is affecting in- struction and research, the library would be at the center of this activity. Happily, · this appears to be so at Brown. Surveys of the faculty and students show th~t access to library holdings through the worksta- tions is a top priority. The library has taken measures to en- sure this access. It sought and was awarded a $1.5 million grant from the Pew Memorial Trust to cover the cost of imple- menting the online catalog. Brown has purchased the BLIS system from Biblio- Techniques and hopes the online catalog • will be operational by fall 1987. * One of the most attractive features of the online catalog is its ability to integrate with the network of workstations. Any terminal or workstation connected to BRUNET would have dial access into the catalog. Planning · is also under way to link the catalog to the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN). With the start-up of the online catalog, the library will have the first operational system on the network. All the academic administrators we spoke to recognized the importance of the library to the project. There is no doubt that the Pew Grant in- creased the importance and visibility of *Although Biblio-Techniques has encountered financial difficulties in the past few months, it is not expected that this will cause the schedule for the online catalog to be delayed greatly. the library to many at Brown. The library is also central to the worksta- tion concept because it provides a use for the workstation that is extremely attrac- tive to many who otherwise might not see its applicability to themselves and their re- search. As one senior administrator said, "We saw the library as a key to the hu- manistic use of the workstations. That was always in the back of our mind.'' The library was described by several of the senior administrators as being one of the driving forces behind the workstation project. They see the library as an organi- zation in the process of being changed into a much more important source of informa- tion, both in traditional and electronic forms. The administrators who have worked most closely on the workstation project envision the library becoming more and more dependent on computer technology: The librarians, whether they know it or not, are going to be running, probably in a very short time, a computer system larger than what the university had two years ago. I was joking with them last night. I showed a picture of the entire Brown central computing facilities two years ago, and I said, this is what the library is going to have to look like in terms of their part [of the workstation project]. The online catalog is going to be just the first of a number of library services that faculty and student will want on their workstations. The library is starting to ex- plore the direction it might go in providing access to online databases through the workstations. At an earlier stage of plan- ning, there had been the expectation that the library might purchase and locally . mount databases such as ERIC and Chemi- cal Abstracts. The realization of the costs and the complexities of locally mounting such databases has put that notion on hold. However, laser disks or CD-ROM may ultimately provide a method of pro- viding local access to commercial data- bases. The library has begun to experiment with acquiring some databases. For in- stance, it recently purchased a crystallog- raphy database. The library, at the request of the provost, is developing a database policy for the university that will deal with The Electronic Campus 13 items such as security, access, and acquisi- tion of databases. There is also the expec- tation that scholars will soon want to download portions of larger databases and construct their own. What unit on campus will act as a consultant in helping create such databases and who will coor- dinate them? How will copyright be pro- tected? None of these questions has been answered, but they are all being raised. It is expected that the library will play a key role in these discussions. The librarians are concerned about more mundane changes that will likely occur as a result of the opening of the online cata- log. For instance, the librarians who work in the government documents depart- ment and the rare book libraries expect more use of their materials once records are entered in the online catalog and more people are made aware of their holdings. There is also concern that patrons may have expectations about the online catalog that cannot be met. For instance, one spe- cial collections librarian stated: If it works out as it is visualized, they [patrons] will have greater access ... it is going to create a delivery problem. There should be a great deal more activity, possibly more than we can han- dle, initially ... an expectation to say since we search it electronically, and probably reserve it and check it out electronically, that eventually they are going to want us to transmit it to them electronically so that they may never leave their terminals .... We'd never be able to transmit. Rare books is not going into electronic publish- ing. It is to the library administrators' credit that they have consistently sought not to raise the expectations about the online cat- alog. The library has not, for example, wanted to ''fill the newsletter with articles about the online catalog because we don't want people expecting it around the cor- ner.'' The information provided has been understated and has stressed only the ele- ments of the catalog that will be available immediately. But many fear that what has been done with the online catalog is simi- lar to what has been done with the work- stations; people's expectations have been raised, and some will expect all the en- hancements from the very beginning. It is clear that the online catalog will lead 14 College & Research Libraries to changes in the staffing of the library. It is foreseen that the library will need to ex- tend its hours or, at least, have some help available to users in hours the library is closed. If your online catalog is up at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning and you have a student in a dorm or a faculty member who is up at that hour trying to do something and they need help, who are they going to call? . .. Who's going to do the night duty? Whose phone number are we going to give to people who want help in the middle of the night? There is also an awareness that the staff will need to devote more time to instruc- tion of patrons, initially in the use of the online catalog and, later, in various data- bases. The majority of librarians interviewed agreed that the technical services/public services lines at Brown were becoming more blurred. The technical services divi- sion will assume an increasing educa- tional role with the implementation of the online catalog. Most, however, felt that the traditional division would remain in place, at least in the near future. It is also recognized that the next logical step after the online catalog becomes a re- ality is the creation of a document delivery system. The faculty were uniformly en- thusiastic about the possibility of having the items located on the online catalog de- livered to them. The librarians recognize the need for a document delivery system, but the logistics of such a system have not yet been worked out. Another intriguing possibility that arises in connection with the institution of a document delivery system is that the so- cial role of the library might change on an electronic campus. At this time, the Rockefeller Library (central library) is a so- cial gathering place. Students congregate there to study because it provides access to needed library materials and to other students. Some have speculated that the electronic campus may allow libraries to relinquish the study-hall role they play on so many campuses. Both faculty and li- brarians doubt that this will happen at Brown. It is expected that for those faculty who are ''comfortable and skilled at using the catalog from a remote location and have somebody to pick up the material or January 1987 a delivery service, there may be less physi- cal use of the library." But for many fac- ulty and most students, the library will still be the place to go not only to mingle with others but also to receive personal- ized help in using the information avail- able. There seems to be agreement with Naisbitt's ideas on the need for a "high tech-high touch'' combination. 6 There is much concern about what may happen to the library's budget in the com- ing years. Librarians see a threat arising not only from the diversion of funds from the library to pay for overall campus com- puterization but also an internal threat as more of the library's funds have to be de- voted to electronic information sources at the expense of traditional acquisitions. The Brown libraries went through two lean decades, the 1960s and 1970s. The li- brarians still feel that a great deal of catch- ing up has to be done, and the prospect of a less-than-adequate book budget is espe- cially upsetting to those librarians work- ing in the collection development area: I feel that we already have spread so many re- sources, so thin, that I hope it is not a house of cards, and it will all come falling down, because I see the library as a strong supporter of the computer, and it would be more than upsetting to me, if the support didn't come back. I'm not sure the jury is in. and: For the next 10 or 12 years, the electronic costs are going to continue to escalate. It may be, since all budgets are reasonably finite in univer- sities, that the proportions that are devoted to the more traditional acquisitions may suffer. . . . If there is separate outside money as there has been, and, hopefully, continues to be, the impact will not be as great, but it is still go- ing to be there. It seems likely that the library will, in the absence of a large increase in its budget, have to devote a greater percentage of the budget to electronic information sources. Given the general problems with financ- ing computerization at Brown, it would also appear highly unlikely that the li- brary's budget will increase significantly. One senior university administrator as- sured the interviewers that the library budget had not been affected by the Scholar's Workstation project. ''The ques- tion is where it (money for computeriza- tion) comes from, and we have not at- tacked the library. It has come from other discretionary sources." But there is defi- nitely a sense that the library and the com- puterization project may soon be compet- ing for the same funds. As another senior administrator remarked: We haven't had a situation here where there is a concrete next step to move the faculty worksta- tions program ahead, and there is a concrete next step to do in the library, and they both cost half a million dollars, and you can't do both to- gether. I think that sometime in the future, be- fore the decade is out, that we will probably have it. The librarians are aware of the possible . threats to their budgets and realize the need for creative funding (i.e., more out- side money) and more productive net- working with other systems. Considerable thought is also being de- voted to whether it will be possible to go on providing all library services without charging patrons. Currently, Brown charges students and faculty for online computer database searching, but at a subsidized rate. There is a great resistance on the part of most librarians to charging students directly for other library services, especially since it already costs approxi- mately $15,000 a year to attend Brown. Their strong preference is to insure that all students have access to the information they need without regard to their ability to , pay. Whether this resolve can be main- tained at Brown has yet to be decided. · Clearly, the changing role of the library raises the question of whether a merger of the library and the computer center might · be expected, and individuals in both have begun to perceive common areas of inter- · est. Curiously, there was a greater inclina- tion for those who worked outside the li- brary to see such a merger as likely than for those who worked in the library itself. One individual who works in the com- puter center stated: I see them as merging. I suppose if I wanted to play prophet, I could pick a year, but that doesn't seem useful .. .. I am going to make two assumptions. The first is that over the next few years a higher and higher percentage of what people are looking for is going to be found in electronic indices. And, if they do retrospec- The Electronic Campus 15 tive conversion, eventually nearly everything people are looking for is going to be found elec- tronically. Secondly, I think that more primary sources are going to be found electronically on videodiscs, over national or international net- works or some might be mounted locally. As these two things happen, we are going to merge. This individual went on to sketch a lengthy scenario of the role of the "compu-librarian" in the campus of the future. The university administrators recognize the difficulties inherent in merging the two functions. One stated: The problem is librarians are not trained . . . very much in terms of understanding and using electronic forms although they are open to them. Computing people, information services people have no real appreciation of libraries . So bringing the two together, even with two peo- ple with good will and controllable tempers ... it's going to be a long time. The implication was that it would be a lengthy process. The merger of the ACC and the library is likely, but probably not in the near future. The outside researchers feel that the strength of the library staff and administration at Brown bode well for the library in case of such a consolidation. In summary, the library at Brown sees it- self as caught up in the process of innova- tion. It is clear that the technological inno- vation related to the network of scholar's workstations (regardless of their ultimate configuration) will have a profound im- pact upon the library. The effects are be- ginning to be felt now. The new informa- tion technologies are requiring the university and the library to rethink how scholarly information should be provided and accessed on campus. The process is still in its beginning stages, but the Brown experiment gives us the opportunity to · watch an institution invent the appropri- ate structure for the provision of informa- tion in a "wired" university. Lessons to be Learned from Brown For all those libraries whose institutions are just beginning to explore extensive computerization of the campus, there are some lessons that can be learned from the Brown experiment. Needless to say, the experiences of one institution cannot be 16 College & Research Libraries transferred to another, and each institu- tion will have a distinctive pattern in its ac- quisition of electronic technology. None- theless, some of the things that have been learned by the librarians at Brown can be used by other institutions. All individuals interviewed were asked what they would tell people at another institution contem- plating a venture similar to Brown's. There was some uniformity in their re- sponses. None of the responses were very original, but, to the individuals inter- viewed at Brown, it was still advice worth repeating. One common element that was stressed over and over again was the necessity of adequate planning. Many others spoke about the need to create and nurture a healthy climate of change within the insti- tution and to realize that change, espe- cially technological change, is extremely threatening to staff members. Everyone mentioned the critical role of communication: "You can't overcom- municate. '' Be sure that it is regular and consistent throughout the process and that all members of the staff are included. Don't raise expectations too high. The Scholar's Workstation project at Brown has brought home that lesson. The voices were loud and clear: ''Don't promise what you can't provide" and "Don't oversell in hopes of convincing people.'' Remember to put heavy emphasis on a transition pe- riod; not everything is going to work im- mediately, and not everything will be in- cluded from the beginning. Finally,. ~any individuals said to re- January 1987 member ''that Murphy will get you, every time." You cannot plan for all problems, but they should be expected at every turn. Remember too, that when you work with outside vendors, they will have a plan. or cycle of their own that may not coincide with yours. Therefore, it is necessary to be as flexible as possible. There is always a need for contingency plans. They tend to sharpen the main plan and allow for shifts without undue upset. Every institution is not going to be an in- novator, and, indeed, most should not be. The few that have the institutional re- sources, expertise, and freedom to experi- ment perform a useful service for the rest. The non-innovating majority can learn both from the successes and the failures of the pioneers. The verdict is still out on the Scholar's Workstation project, and it will be several years before an accurate assess- ment can be made on its real impact. At this time, it appears that the project itself may not be the success that was expected, but that, paradoxically, the side effects generated may have succeeded in trans- forming Brown along the same lines envi- sioned by the project's planners. Ultimately, it seems the critical elements in the process were the emerging concepts about the educational uses of computers in higher education, not the specific tech- nology itself. The Brown experiment ex- ists as an exciting opportunity for other in- stitutions to study and to adapt variations of it to their own needs, as quietly and with less publicity, they too become ''Star Wars'' universities. REFERENCES 1. Marc S. Tucker, ed., Computers on Campus: Working Papers, AAHE Current Series in Higher Educa- tion, no.2 (Washington, D.C.: American Assn. of Higher Education, 1983-84), p.2. 2. WilliamS. Shipp, "The Scholar's Workstation Project at Brown University," photocopy. 3. Tucker, p.16. · 4. Maurice Glicksman, "Memorandum to Members of the Faculty," May 31, 1983, photocopy. 5. Glicksman, "Memorandum to Members of the Faculty" July 12, 1983, photocopy. 6. John Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives (New York: Warner, 1982), p.39.