College and Research Libraries Inventing the Electronic University David W. Lewis Higher education is confronting a fundamental change. The transition from print on paper to digital and electronic technologies is transforming instruction, scholarly communication, and the storage and preservation of knowledge. What is required is not the automation of old sys- tems, but the restructuring of institutions. The drive for autonomy, needed for effective schol- arship, and the push for standardization, needed to assure easy and open access to information, will create conflicts difficult to resolve. Universities must find new ways of funding and financ- ing information services and new staffing patterns if they are to continue as effective learning and research centers. II wice in recent years librarians, joined by faculty and university administrators, have gathered · at corporate conference centers to consider developments in communica- tions and computing technology and their effects on the scholarly enterprise. The first meeting was held at Conoco' s Purple Sage Ranch in Bandera, Texas, in Novem- ber 1985 under the auspices of the Re- search Libraries Group. The second fol- lowed eight months later, sponsored by OCLC at the Johnson Foundation's Wing- spread Conference Center in Racine, Wis- consin. 1 These gatherings demonstrated a commitment to, in Patricia Battin's words, ''create an institutional capacity to re- invent the university in the electronic age." 2 For 500 years knowledge has been communicated and stored largely through the use of printed documents. This tech- nology is rapidly being supplemented and replaced by one that is digital and elec- tronic. The power of the new media and the failings of the old system are driving scholarly institutions toward change. For librarians, the papers presented at these conferences, and other recent works, are important because they mark a change of perspective. The change can be illustrated by comparing Battin's state- ment above with one she made only four years earlier. In 1980 she wrote, ''We must reinvent the research library in the net- work environment. " 3 Then the goal was to reinvent the library; today it is to rein- vent the university. A dramatic shift, the issue is no longer library automation: it is remaking the structure of scholarly com- munication. Many in the academy may be surprised that librarians have these con- cerns, but as Hugh Kenner, citing the ex- amples of the incandescent light and the copying machine, states, "One lesson the past has to teach is that every new technol- ogy, when it applies for admission to a cit- adel of the intellect, has invariably re- ceived its first welcome from the librarian.' ' 4 This is a time of transition and funda- mental changes in institutions. The re- search university, for 100 years the locus of scholarly communication, has become a large, inertial social and institutional structure. It is also a playing field, where intellectual contests not only advance knowledge, but reap rewards of prestige and funds for the players. The current de- bate over the course and extent of the change is complicated because the partici- David W. Lewis is Lehman Librarian at Columbia University, New York, New York 10027. 291 292 College & Research Libraries pants, almost without exception, have a stake in the existing structure and play the academic game. This paper will attempt to sort through the rhetoric and to bring the issues into focus. For if this transition is not carefully considered it will be, as Wilfred Lancaster warned a decade ago, ''one of disruption and chaos rather than one of ordered evolutionary progress. " 5 LEARNING AND TEACHING The use of computers for teaching holds great promise but also threatens to disrupt traditional roles and practices. Richard Cyert, the president of Carnegie-Mellon University, sees a revolution resulting from the instructional use of electronic media in higher education. He cites three ways in which the computer will have an impact. First, it will increase students' comprehension by building complex sim- ulations and "real world" problems. Sec- ond, "intelligent tutors" will guide stu- dents, at their own pace, through the body of knowledge to be ,mastered. Fi- nally, the computer, by acting as a gate- way to large bodies of knowledge, will ex- pand students' ability to learn on their own. 6 But what Cyert sees as revolution- ary, Harvard's president Derek Bok, after reviewing similar developments, sees as an occasion for "cautious enthusiasm. " 7 Such is the range of views. In a closer look at instructional technol- ogy, Gregory Jackson defines four classes of software: (1) "computer assisted in- struction" (CAl) software, which "tu- tors,'' usually through individualized drill and practice; (2) "tool" software, such as word processors, which manage the pro- cedural details that often interfere with learning; (3) "problem" software, which serves the same purpose as any problem set, but can be more complex; and (4) "simulation" software, which allows stu- dents to experiment easily with real-life situations and observe the results. 8 CAl is usually an individual activity, and the other three are often used by groups of students. Most of the applications now in use are CAl. Jackson suggests that its fo- cus on individual activity may be one rea- son for CAl's lack of impact, an interesting insight in light of current thinking on col- July 1988 laborative learning which argues the most effective way to think about learning is to focus on its social nature. It takes place among people, not between a person and things. As Kenneth Bruffee argues, ''Stu- dents learn better through noncompeti- tive collaborative group work than in classrooms that are highly individualized and competitive. ''9 The combination of a collaborative style of teaching with tool, problem, and simulation software may . present an opportunity for significant im- provements in instruction. Maurice Glicksman, noting the failure . of computer technology to significantly af- fect instruction, reminds us that even though most faculty have no pedagogical training, they generally consider them- selves good teachers and see little need to change their methods of instruction. 10 The resistance that Glicksman cites is com- pounded because teaching in general and the development of instructional software in particular are not highly valued aca- demic activities. 11 In addition, the devel- opment of effective teaching software re- quires skills not often possessed by teaching faculty. Knowledge of the sub- ject, an understanding of cognitive the- ory, and an ability to combine the two into a software package are all required. Rich- ard Van Horn expresses a very different view. For him faculty are not the key; rather, making electronic tools available for students' use is what matters. Then, as he says, "All the faculty member must do is assign problems relevant to the disci- pline, and students will decide how to solve these problems .... Students can use computing whether a faculty member loves computing, knows anything about computing, or even cares. " 12 For many years the library has been the primary teaching tool outside of the classroom, and except for faculty, librarians have been the only university staff to assist large numbers of students in the academic process. The use of other technologies will require new skills and will involve other staff in academic activities outside the classroom. The revolution in instructional technol- ogy will also change libraries. First, librari- ans can put the technology to use them- selves. Much of what needs to be taught about library use is tutorial and appropri- ate for computer packages. Second, and more importantly, there will be competi- tion for resources, both dollars and space. The university will need to decide where to locate the new computer tools, both physically and administratively. Libraries are an obvious choice, but many librarians will be uncomfortable supporting tools rather than resources, especially if no new money accompanies the request for ser- vice. There will be debates like those over nonprint materials, and the result will be similar. Community colleges and medical schools, where nonbook materials areal- ready common, will slide easily into the new role, as may four-year residential col- leges where the library is already one of the centers of campus life. University li- braries, especially those associated with prestigious universities, will have a more difficult time accepting this nontraditional role. An important impact will be rising user expectations. Students may expect the li- brary to be as powerful and easy to use as electronic teaching tools. Unfortunately, libraries are rarely easy to use. If analysis with new computer tools becomes easier and more productive than library re- search, students can be expected to use the new tools rather than the library. If li- braries do not improve their services so that they remain an essential teaching tool, they risk becoming irrelevant to the teaching process. If this is allowed to hap- pen, it is easy to predict a decline in library funding. ''If, as Van Horn suggests, improve- ments in learning will come not in the classroom, but outside of it, li- brarians and other support staff will have a key role to play." There will also be opportunities. If, as Van Horn suggests, improvements in learning will come not in the classroom, but outside of it, librarians and other sup- port staff will have a key role to play. Li- Inventing the Electronic University 293 brarians combine a knowledge of the aca- demic process with an attitude of service unique in the university. But, university libraries and librarians have been strained and stretched by the breakdown of the paper system of scholarly com- munication. Much of the stress has been passed on to library users in the form of lines, cataloging backlogs, and inade- quate service staffs. As the process of scholarly communication becomes more completely electronic, efficiencies will come into play and library service both inside and outside the library should im- prove. To take a mundane example, when books and articles are online, there is little reason to require students to wait in lines at reserve desks, or even come to the library, to read them. Librarians will be able to create and provide information resources that reach beyond their walls. Dial-up access to the catalog will be only the beginning. Grolier Electronic Pub- lishing already offers site licenses for the Academic American Encyclopedia, Facts On File, and a number of other standard ref- erence sources, and Carnegie-Mellon University provides access to this mate- rial through their campus network. 13 Similar developments have been re- ported at the Georgia Institute of Tech- nology.14 To make the new modes of instruction successful, librarians will have to abandon comfortable roles, and the library will need to become the institutional provider of scholarly tools in all forms. The most important tool will be, as it has always been, the ability to communicate with the scholarly record. Books will continue to play a large part but so will databases of all kinds. Also required will be tools to ma- nipulate the scholarly record: word proc- essors, statistical and graphics packages, concordance programs, and simulations. All will have their place. In its electronic form the scholarly process will become seamless; students and faculty will use the same machines for data collection, analy- sis, and communication. The library will need to encompass all of these activities. It must become, in John Sack's phrase, "the public space for scholarship on cam- pus."ts 294 College & Research Libraries COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCHOLARS Forty years ago Vannevar Bush, noting the press of scholarly work, proposed a device, what he called the "memex," that was probably the first expression of the scholar's workstation. The device was to serve as a researcher's personal informa- tion system. 16 What is usually remem- bered about the memex is the use of micro- film as the storage medium. One has an image of a 500-pound desk with lots of screens, motors, and whirling reels. It is easy to chuckle at Bush's mistaken choice of medium. But more importantly, he was incorrect in a fundamental way-the me- mex was unconnected. What is important about today' s personal computers is not that they have the capacity to store books, but that they can communicate. As Francis Crick has said, ''communication is the es- sence of science," and indeed all scholar- ship.17 Electronic communication is not simply a link to colleagues, but a link tore- sources. It can replace storage, or as ali- brarian would put it, access can replace ownership. ''Electronic communication is not simply a link to colleagues, but a link to resources. It can replace storage, or as a librarian would put it, access can replace ownership." When we consider the effects of the elec- tronic media we must begin with the es- sential fact-the formal print system is no longer adequate. More than 300 years ago the scholarly journal was created because scientists could no longer keep up with each other's work through word of mouth and correspondence. The weight of the system, based on the printed scholarly journal, has become more than existing structures can bear. The evidence is all around us. Publishing delays are such that no self-respecting scholar depends on journal publication as a primary means of staying current. Preprints and working papers have become a way of life, and for- July 1988 mal journal publication is more for poster- ity and tenure committees than communi- cating with colleagues. Journals prolifer- ate and become more specialized, and li- braries can no longer afford to acquire this scholarly output. Scholars are overrun with a deluge of publications, many of which add little to the corpus of knowl- edge. Kenner suggests that one of the prob- lems with the paper system is that we have been asking it to do things for which it is not well suited. 18 He points out that the paper publications are mass- produced, and as such must be made in quantity. The mechanics slow the process, and the economics require that many cop- ies will be uselessly stored on library shelves. Kenner points out that in many situations alternative forms of communi- cation would be preferable. As he says, ''much scientific communication is essen- tially news, news of what's going on in whose lab, news only interesting when it is hot. " 19 He cites the distribution of dis- sertations on demand by University Mi- crofilms as one appropriate alternative. The emerging electronic technology promises to provide others. The electronic journal is an early exam- ple. The first attempts were not entirely successful, 20 but the more recent BLEND experiment has demonstrated the feasibil- ity of such a system. Like earlier attempts, BLEND showed that mechanics, such as ease of access to terminals, cause much of the difficulty. 21 The personal computer, with its word-processing and communica- tions capabilities is, as Donald Case puts it, "the 'missing link' between yester- day's and today' s methods of publica- tion. " 22 A recent study in the social sci- ences and humanities indicates that most scholars now have access to computers and close to half have a gersonal computer for their exclusive use. The more impor- tant point that Case makes is that schol- arly communication is a bottom-up enter- prise. When scholars find that it is easier to keep in touch by electronic mail, they will use it or any other method that works. Electronic means of scholarly communica- tion will not have a quick or radical effect. As Priscilla Oakeshott predicts, based on the BLEND experience, the more likely result will be, ''the gradual integration of electronic publishing with on-demand printing and retrieval systems over the next twenty years or so." 24 An array of communication options will be available, from electronic mail messages arranging lunches to electronically referred journals. In this world the distinctions between for- mal and informal communication will blur. Bryan Pfaffenberger argues that elec- tronic communication has the potential to reduce the tendencies toward elitism and internal stratification present in much of scholarly communication. As he states, "Because computer-based communica- tions media tend to foster group attach- ment, a focus on intellectual issues, equity among participants, and informality, they seem ideally suited to research network communication. " 25 Pfaffenberger sug- gests that small-scale systems based on personal computers or public access sys- tems such as the Source will have greater impact than large, expensive systems such as ARPANET, the Department of De- fense research network. Michael Spitzer looks at communications in computer con- ferencing systems and discusses the in- between nature of the medium. It lacks both the permanence of written prose and the personal presence of face-to-face con- versations. Like Pfaffenberger, Spitzer notes a leveling and democratizing effect of electronic communication. It rewards, he claims, clear thinking and persuasive writing, without necessarily giving clues as to the author's status or position. 26 Electronic communication can make re- search data that are not now easily accessi- ble available to many users. Up to now, the data collected for one research project has rarely been usable by another re- searcher, but his is changing. To quote Kenner: But as more and more material gets onto tape and disc, for whatever purpose, more and more · workers are going to be thinking of other things to do with it: a departure from the rule that used to govern all research, that raw material, raw data, gathered by no matter what effort, never seemed to get used a second time by anybody. ... But we are now able to think of such data as Inventing the Electronic University 295 a community resource. Moving it around the continent by modem or even mail will soon be, I hope, routine. 27 The Inter-University Consortium for Polit- ical and Social Research already fills this role to some extent for numeric social sci- ence data sets, and some journals have taken to distributing programs and data on floppy disks in conjunction with printed articles. At least one scholarly journal, World Cultures, is published only on floppy disks. Problems with documen- tation and data integrity, exist but this es- tablished trend will continue. The formal paper-publishing system serves not only as a means of communicat- ing and storing ideas, but as Alan Single- ton states, "The journal plays a crucial role in the social system of science, confer- ring public recognition and thus reward on authors of published papers. ''28 Single- ton identifies the criteria an electronic sys- tem must have if it is to replace the printed journal's social role. First, all authors must have access to the system; it can not oper- ate on closed networks. This problem al- ready exists. Douglas E. Van Houweling states that ARPANET has become such an important means of communication in a number of fields that, "persons without access ... are effectively cut off from ef- fective collaboration.' ' 29 Second, all inter- ested readers must have access to the sys- tem. The availability of appropriate equipment has been largely overcome, qut restrictions on transnational data flow complicate the creation of an international electronic journal. Beyond these two crite- ria the system must have accepted pres- tige. Articles, whether read or not, can be counted by review committees, and the pecking order of academic journals is well understood. Similar recognition will need to be granted to electronic forms of schol- arly communication. Beginnings can be seen as the editors of Medical Care stated when they distributed a floppy disk containing a computer pro- gram with their July 1987 issue, "The aca- demic reward system traditionally values the printed scholarly publication. In our opinion, accessible computer programs should be given equal, and on occasion 296 College & Research Libraries more, weight in judging an academic re- search career.'' Disciplines where the results of research can be separated from the reporting of results will find the transi- tion easier than disciplines where a large part of the scholarly task is the expression of understanding. A biochemist receives a Nobel Prize for work done in the lab, but a historian will receive a Bancroft, not for work in an archive, but only for a book. In the paper system, printed materials are an institutional resource. A univer- sity's library is among its most valuable, if not always most appreciated, posses- sions. Scholars cluster around university libraries because they are necessary tools. An electronic system makes possible the distribution of resources, and scholars will not need to be associated with large uni- versities to have access to the corpus of knowledge in many fields. Electronic mail and conferencing systems can connect col- leagues even if they are not on the same campus. Many scholars already feel iso- lated; the recent ACLS report on scholarly communication indicates that 25 percent had no one in their department who shared their research interests. 31 Elec- tronic means of communication will help overcome the isolation, but the social im- pact will not stop there. In the past, the large library collection available only at a large established research university was a requirement for world-class scholarship. Tomorrow, a wide range of scholarly re- sources will be available at smaller institu- tions. Great libraries alone will no longer draw or keep the best faculty. PRESERVATION AND ACCESS The conservation of knowledge by col- lecting and preserving the artifacts con- taining recorded information has been one of the library's historic missions. The library's other traditional mission has been to make the accumulated stock of knowledge available for use. In the print system, information is distributed as a physically tangible object-a book or jour- nal. The information is locked in an un- changeable state when it is printed and be- comes a fixed piece of the written record. Both the preservation and distribution of the information are tied to the physical ar- July 1988 tifact. Libraries, especially academic re- search libraries, have long been caught in the dilemma of wanting to encourage use, which threatens the physical object, and to preserve the object, which limits use. The electronic medium has the potential to resolve this conflict. The physical form of electronic information, at least in the- ory, makes distribution to many people across great distances and secure storage compatible. ,Libraries, especially academic re- search libraries, have long been caught in the dilemma of wanting to encourage use, which threatens the physical object, and to preserve the object, which limits use. The elec- tronic medium has the potential to re- solve this conflict." If this sounds too good to be true, it may be. As Gordon Neavill, in a thoughtful study of the problems of the electronic me- dia for libraries, states The malleability of information that is one of the major advantages of computer-based electronic systems has its corollary the potential tran- sience of information. Nothing inherent in the technology of computer-based electronic sys- tems ensures that information in the system will survive .... When information is freed from the confines of a physical container it is rendered vulnerable . It can be altered or revised without any indication that a change has been made. It can be purged from the system alto- gether. Information without a physical con- tainer cannot survive on its own.~2 It is interesting to look at Neavill's con- cerns in the context of Timothy Weiskel's structuring of the problem. Weiskel be- gins by defining information as the nonran- dom arrangement of energy or matter, and, because entropy drives both energy and matter toward a random state, no such arrangement can be permanent. Be- cause this is so, Weiskel argues, to pre- serve information it must be renewed by switching it from one medium to another. Weiskel calls this activity channel switch- ing, and for him it has always been a li- brary function. With the advent of new and powerful channels he predicts that moving information between different media, both to distribute it and to preserve it, will become increasingly important. 33 The switching technology exists. Optical scanners are being developed that can rec- ognize many typefaces and alphabets and can digitize text at speeds of 50 to 100 pages an hour. Once digitized the infor- mation can be stored on magnetic, optical, and even paper media. The magnetic me- dia are malleable and flexible; they allow for the easy manipulation of information. Some optical media, such as CD-ROMs, are mass-produced and can be used flexi- bly, but are not malleable. Write once read many (WORM) optical technology need not be mass-produced. Paper digital sys- tems are as of yet largely unapplied, but they appear to have all the advantages of other paper media. 34 The important point is that digital information makes the channel-switching process significantly faster and easier than it has ever been be- fore. There exist any number of containers for digital information; taken together they should be able to meet all the require- ments for preservation, distribution, and manipulation of recorded knowledge. The ease with which digital information can be copied from one medium to an- other raises significant concerns for the ownership of intellectual property. Cur- rent concepts of intellectual ownership will probably not hold up in the digital en- vironment, and this will lead to an insta- bility in the information marketplace. Copyright has served as the protection for a publisher or author's return on invest- ment. If electronic media render this pro- tection ineffective, other mechanisms will need to be developed. Some of these will certainly be in conflict with the desire for unencumbered distribution of informa- tion. Universities and their libraries may be required to act as agents of control if they are to acquire some kinds of commer- cially produced information. Another view, which is either realistic or short- sighted, is expressed by D.I. Raitt, "Copy- right? Forget it! ... So long as the library has it or can get it-who cares who owns it? Anyway possession is nine tenths of Inventing the Electronic University 297 the law! " 35 The ease with which electronic media can be used will have another effect. Many items that have not been published in the traditional sense will be broadly distrib- uted. Publishers, with their editorial screening and quality control, have been gatekeepers of the public record. The loss of the publication hurdle, which occurs when everyone becomes a desktop pub- lisher, will lead to an enormous increase in low-quality materials, and the already challenging intellectual task of selecting items for inclusion in library collections will become even more difficult. The routine use of electronic communi- cation by scholars and students can be ex- pected to change not only the way they work, but the roles played by the library in the process. It may be useful to look at on- line searching for some of the trends. As the first electronic component of the schol- arly communication system, bibliographic databases have been widely used for over a decade. These databases are usually supplements, rather than substitutes, for the printed versions and were, until re- cently, accessed primarily by librarians. In the last year or two this picture has changed. New systems, pricing schemes, and marketing aimed at the "end-user," have changed the librarians' role from the intermediary to the facilitator who pro- vides access to terminals, instruction, and guidance in choosing the best system for the task at hand. Importantly, the library continues to make information available to all members of the community. This has not been without stress. Funding expen- sive systems and the need to control costs on pay-as-you-go systems make free unre- stricted use difficult. The university, through its library or some other mechanism, will need to pro- vide access to networks, bulletin boards, and electronic journals just as it has pro- vided access to the printed record. The systems acquired and the barriers to ac- cess, such as fees or limited access toter- minals, imposed will in large part define the working environment of the univer- sity. As electronic scholarly resources be- come widely available, institutional status will not be enhanced simply by owning 298 College & Research Libraries materials. What will matter in the compe- tition for students and faculty will be the ease of access to information and the ex- tent to which the institution will pay the bills. STANDARDIZATION OR AUTONOMY? The fundamental issue in the applica- tion of electronic technology to scholar- ship will be the balance between central control and standardization, on one hand, and the need of individual scholars to ap- ply idiosyncratic applications to special situations on the other. Much of the cur- rent opinion leans toward decentraliza- tion and away from central control. Van Houweling makes this case strongly and clearly: The strength of higher education is derived from its decentralization and diversity. Since the new economics of information technology reinforce these institutional characteristics, di- versity and decentralization will be fundamen- tal to achieving our information technology goals. As a result, central activities need to be carefully targeted and designed so as to make the maximum amount of resources available to the various decentralized units in our colleges and universities. Therefore, while almost any information technology activity can be accom- plished, in principle, through a central organi- zation, the best organizational strategy for the future is based on quite the opposite premise. Information technology activities in higher education should be pursued at the lowest level of the organization consistent with their effi- cient and quality performance. 36 ''Information technology activities ip higher education should be pur- sued at the lowest level of the organi- zation consistent with their efficient and quality performance." However, this view is not universally held. Battin argues the other side: The paradox of our situation is that the achieve- . ment of our goal, because of the character and cost of computer and communications technol- ogies, will require a substantial level of initial cooperation and centralization that runs July 1988 counter to the strongly autonomous nature of scholarly inquiry. The very diversity of schol- arly inquiry and information needs requires in the electronic age an unprecedented degree of centralized, coordinated linkages and compati- bilities to serve that diversity and permit the au- tonomy necessary for productive and creative scholarship. 37 An important aspect of this debate in- volves administrative structures. Many observers have suggested the conver- gence of the library and the computer cen- ter. 38 The electronic technology has cre- ated a situation in which these two organizations share similar resources and service responsibilities. Many campuses have already begun to integrate academic computing and library services, and, at least among librarians, the good sense of this approach is no longer an issue for de- bate. The more important concern is the conflict between the central organization and the many, often semiautonomous, departments, institutes, and centers that make up the university. The question will be who buys what machines with which money. The debate will be over turf, but as Weiskel reminds us the relationship be- tween scholars and libraries is symbiotic. 39 Faculty need to be involved in planning for the university's use of electronic tech- nology, but this is not always the case, as the example of Brown University's scholar's workstation project shows. 40 For Sack it is less the autonomy required by the scholarly process than the nature of the technology that will make centralized · control impossible. For him the real revo- lution will be in the way individuals adapt to the new tools. He believes the mallea- bility of electronic information and the openness of the systems containing it will II combine to encourage the spread of in- formation and ideas beyond the capacity or control-for better or for worse-of in- formation specialists. " 41 Sack suggests that the openness of information systems will allow institutions to become more flexible. An institution should become, as he says, "more able to shape itself to the scholar, becoming less a specific place than a service and a near-transparent me- dium."42 To do this will require a change of orientation. The traditional "Ptole- "The traditional 'Ptolemaic,' or institution-centric view needs to give way to a 'Copernican,' or scholar- centric view.'' maic," or institution-centric view needs to give way to a "Copernican," or scholar- centric view. The fundamental truth of Sack's analysis is that the technology will allow a department or an individual to supply services for themselves if central services are not appropriate to their needs. The result many not be in the best long-term interest of the university. It is difficult to argue that institutional changes are not in order. Diseconomies of scale are clear in most research libraries and many university computer centers. Concurrently, the ease with which infor- mation can be communicated has out- striped the individual scholar's ability to manage it. Institutional support must be used to build networks and to assure open communication. The extent and complex- ity of the technology require that the int~­ grating network function be institutional- ized. It will also be necessary to identify electronic resources within the university, to assure access to them, and to preserve them. In this effort, incentives rather than regulation will be effective. Individual scholars and departments need to be con- vinced that centrally controlled systems can provide better service than they could provide for themselves. If they are not convinced, they will go their own way. What Richard W. McCoy says about li- brary networks is also true about elec- tronic structures within the university, ''It is of critical importance that research insti- tutions spend the time it will take to un- derstand and internalize the apparently subtle difference between decentralized (fragmented) vs. distributed process- • 1143 mg. ISSUES OF STAFFING The ability of individuals to tap into the electronic systems and to access resources without a large upfront investment may lead toward deinstitutionalized informa- Inventing the Electronic University 299 tion services. Scholars have always cre- ated their own information systems by building personal collections of books and journals, by traveling to conferences, and by maintaining a network of colleagues. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect them to add electronic sources to their rep- ertoire. The more interesting change may come to librarians, who may now be able to function independently. R.R. Featherlingham suggests that reference li- brarians and information specialists, "may tend increasingly to freelance their services, to bring their remuneration more under their own control. " 44 This trend is already apparent in business, but academ- ics, except those with large grants, do not have the cash required to support free- lancers on a large scale. Nonetheless, it is easy to imagine academic reference librari- ans moonlighting. This possibility raises ethical and policy issues that few libraries have faced. Evelyn Daniel suggests that librarians will need to work more closely with re- search teams because of the complexity of information systems and the interdiscipli- nary nature of many projects. 45 When ac- cess replaces ownership as a significant means of providing scholars and students information, high-quality reference and consultation services will become part of expected institutional support. This will likely lead to an organizational structure based on client-centered work groups as suggested by Charles Martell. 46 The client- centered approach will require staff with strong subject backgrounds and an under- standing of the scholarly process as well as library and computer skills. In fact, the former may be more important than the latter. Diane Cimbala considers the Scholarly Information Center model as presented by Battin and points out a number of poten- tial problems of combining library and computer center staffs. 47 Academic librari- ans are generally required to have at least a M.L.S. and often a second subject mas- ter's degree; the profession is largely fe- male, and salaries are generally low. Com- puter center personnel in equivalent positions often have only a B.A.; they are more likely to be male, and they enjoy 300 College & Research Libraries higher salaries and opportunities for lu- crative employment outside the univer- sity. Librarians are often faculty, or have ''academic '' rank; computer center per- sonnel are generally considered staff. Combining these two groups into one or- ganization has the potential to cause much tension. Librarians have for many years distinguished between professional and nonprofessional staff with the M.L.S. be- ing required for entry into the professional class. The organizational structures that will be required for effective service in the electronic environment may require groupings of staff with many back- grounds, and the class structure may be forced to give way. ISSUES OF FUNDING AND FINANCE There are two mechanisms that can be used to fund information resources or any other general service in the university. Contributions can be taken from all mem- bers of the university community in the form of ''tax,'' or fees can be imposed for use. The traditional mechanism for fund- ing libraries has been a tax, usually as a percentage of general funds allotted to the library from tuition, gifts, and the admin- istrative overhead on grants. Occasion- ally, as in the case of online searching, li- braries charge for services on a fee-per-use basis. In these cases, the demand is usu- ally price sensitive, and use is low. The computer center, on the other hand, has generally supported itself by the imposi- tion of fees for use, usually through the sale of CPUs. In the past these systems have worked for both libraries and com- puter center. Because most of their costs have been fixed, libraries have been able to manage on a set budget allocation. For computer centers, until the recent influx of naive computer users who require large amounts of support, most services could be tied to CPU use, and costs could be cov- ered by billing back to departments and outside users on this basis. Ironically, as the library becomes more like the computer center and the computer center becomes more like the library, the traditional funding mechanisms have be- July 1988 gun to fail. When libraries provide infor- mation by accessing online systems their costs are often variable. In these cases, fees are usually imposed to recover costs; this has tended to limit use of these sys- tems. As Nancy Kranich points out, many libraries discourage use by charging fees while at the same time aggressively pro- moting their services. Fees therefore un- dercut attempts by the library to establish itself as the information center on cam- pus.48 However, if fees are not charged, there is real danger of losing control of costs. Fortunately many online systems have moved to flat fees or subscriptions, and CD-ROMs are fixed cost systems. Even so, as information becomes more and more a service and less and less a set of purchased items, price structures will become more complex. Libraries also must supply, at least in the short term, services in parallel forms. During the tran- sition, both printed and electronic copies of the same sources will need to be ac- quired. This duplication will put severe pressures on library budgets. Computer centers are also in a difficult situation. With the introduction of small powerful computers, many individuals and departments are purchasing their own machines. As a result they no longer use central time-shared equipment; they no longer buy CPUs, and computer center income declines. At the same time, the in- dividuals and departments need and ex- pect the computer center to supply advice and consulting services; of course, they are expected to be supplied at no charge. Communication networks have increased in importance, and computer centers are usually asked to supply the technical and · consulting support to install and maintain them. Unfortunately, rarely do substan- tial budget increases accompany the new responsibilities, nor are the full costs of networks billable. Most computer centers have seen the services that have traditionally generated income decline and the demand for free services increase. Libraries are expected to supply variable cost services without charging fees, and computer centers are expected to supply a fixed-cost service with no tax base. They are both confront- ing severe budget problems as a result. The combination of the two organizations will not provide any financial relief to the university, but it may focus attention on the need. This is certainly to be preferred to the two competing in a zero-sum game. Battin offers a structure that may lead to- wards a solution: "The vastly expanded potential for expensive services makes it necessary to analyze our information functions, regardless of format, and estab- lish new policies for centrally subsidized services with a series of optional, incre- mental fee-based services available on re- quest. " 49 The approach is supported by Michael Cooper's analysis of the nature of information. He shows that information is best understood as a merit good. A merit good is, as he explains, "a private good that society thinks is important enough to be supplied publicly. It is supplied by in- terfering with consumer preferences, be- cause, left alone, the consumer would purchase less than society thinks worth- while. " 50 Cooper goes on to conclude that in some cases and for some users informa- tion services should be supplied free of charge, as are Battin's subsidized services. In other cases and · for other users direct charges should be applied. This is simple notion, but it belies the difficult political decisions that will be required to imple- ment it. The university with its diverse needs will have great difficulty making these decisions, and disgruntled depart- ments or individuals can easily set up their own systems in response to policies or prices that do not suit them. However the decisions are made, two things are clear. First, the university will need to allocate more for information ser- vices. The new information technology will make students and faculty more pro- ductive, and, at some point, there will be a need to shift funding from faculty to infra- structure. Some of this has already hap- pened; universities today are spending more on their libraries and computer cen- ters combined than they spent on their li- braries alone fo'rty years ago. This trend will continue, but it will be hard fought each step of the way. Second, libraries Inventing the Electronic University 301 must find ways to limit the need to pro- vide services through both print and elec- tronic means. In most cases this will re- quire giving up print. ''We must not be afraid to follow through on our ideas even when this requires reconsideration of ortho- doxies and established practice.'' CONCLUSION The creation of the electronic university will require radical thinking and action. As librarians, we must not be afraid to fol- low through on our ideas even when this requires reconsideration of orthodoxies and established practice. How we re- spond will in large measure determine whether our campuses succeed in making a smooth transition to the electronic world. Traditional approaches will be in- effective, especially if coupled with short- sighted notions of turf. Among the issues will be.: • Structure. The structure of the informa- tion function in the university will com- bine the current functions of the library, the computer center, and the telecom- munications office. Such a combination will quickly move beyond a common re- porting relationship to a mixing and melding of staff and responsibilities. • Educational Technology. There will be a need for a public scholarly space on campus. Here students will find the tra- ditional reference services of the library, but beyond these will be everything from facilities for viewing Soviet televi- sion or listening to Mozart, to comput- ing on all types of machines from micros to supercomputers. The challenge will be to integrate these sources and ser- vices to create an open and inviting en- vironment for both individual explora- tion and group learning. • Communications. Effective communica- tions networks require standard proto- cols and compatible software. Without these, intellectual collaboration may be- 302 College & Research Libraries come easier off campus than on, and it will be difficult to share institutional in- formation resources. Together these re- straints will render the university inef- fective. The key to building and maintaining a campus communications infrastructure will be central control over the links to the outside. If control over these links is lost there will be little incentive for departments to cooperate or accept institutional standards. Battles to maintain control over links to super- computers and networks such as Bitnet, and even OCLC or RLIN can be ex- pected. • Electronic Archives. More and more scholarly resources will be created in digital form. Many of these will be raw data, and they will not be published by commercial firms. These data nonethe- less have potential research value and will need to be preserved in a fashion that will allow their later use. Individual scholars will not be up to the task, and an institutional commitment will be re- quired. • Staffing. This issue will be particularly difficult for librarians who have fought long and hard to gain their present sta- tus in the university. The traditional skills provided by the M.L.S. and pos- sessed by many practicing librarians will no longer be adequate for many po- sitions. Subject experts and computer programers without library back- grounds or credentials will be hired. What it means to be a librarian will change, as may the name. • Intellectual Property. Copyright in its present form will cease to be effective when information is digital and subject to easy transmission and manipulation. July 1988 Other mechanisms will be needed to as- sure that the creators of information re- sources receive an equitable return on their investment. Universities will need to resist inappropriate assertions of the right of ''fair use.'' License agreements and other contracts will become com- mon and will need to be carefully nego- tiated and honored. • Funding. Ways will need to be found to both control costs and provide equitable access to information. This will require at least a two-tiered system. Some ser- vices will be provided free to all mem- bers of the university community and will be paid for from general university funds. Other services will be available only on a fee-per-use basis. Subsidies may be required when equity needs to be assured. • Cooperative Programs. Universities will have to work together to create a series of regional and national resources cen- ters to assure that scholarly resources are acquired and preserved. Printed materials need to be given first priority because of the great needs for preserva- tion and because they will be the first thing given up by individual institu- tions. In addition, many electronic re- sources, such as remote sensing data or large text files, will require cooperative support. The resulting interdepen- dence will not easily coexist with insti- tutional pride. Finally, we need to recognize that though technological developments will force changes, we can shape the way tech- nology is used. People, not machines, cre- ate institutions. We, not the machines, will invent the electronic university. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Many of the papers presented at the Purple Sage Conference were reprinted in the November 1986 of College & Research Libraries . The Wingspread Conference is reported in Campus of the Future: Con- ference on Information Resources, Wingspread Conference Center, June 22-24, 1986 (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, 1987) . 2. Patricia Battin, "The Library: Center of the Restructured University," College & Research Libraries 45:176 (May 1984). 3. Patricia Battin, "Research Libraries in the Network Environment: The Case for Cooperation," Journal of Academic Librarianship 6:69 (May 1980). Inventing the Electronic University 303 4. Hugh Kenner, "Libraries and Glow lamps: A Strategy of Reassurance, " Scholarly Publishing 18:17 (Oct. 1986). 5. Wilfred Lancaster, Toward Paperless Information Systems (New York: Academic Pr ., 1978}, p .166. 6. Richard M. Cyert, "Why I Believe There Is a Revolution Under Way in Higher Education," in Campus of the Future, p.13-21. 7. Derek Bok, "Looking into Education's High-Tech Future," EDUCOM Bulletin 20:17 (Fall1985). 8. Gregory A . Jackson, "Technology and Pedagogy: Making the Right Match Is Vital," Change 18:52-57 (May/June 1986). 9. Kenneth A. Bruffee, "The Art of Collaborative Learning: Making the Most of Knowledgeable Peers," Change 19:44 (Mar./Apr. 1987). 10. Maurice Glicksman, ''Computer Technology and the Three Cs of Higher Education,'' in Campus of the Future, p.28-29. 11. Judith Axler Turner, "Software for Teaching Given Little Credit in Tenure Reviews," Chronicle of Higher Education 33:1,20 (Mar. 18, 1987). . 12. Richard L. Van Horn, "How Significant Is Computing for Higher Education?" EDUCOM Bulletin 20:8 (Spring 1985). 13. "Grolier Licenses On-Site-Storage of Encyclopedia," Information Today 4:26 (Feb. 1987). 14. Miriam A . Drake, "Library 2000-Georgia Tech: A Glimpse of Information Delivery Now and in the Year 2000," Online 11:45-48 (Nov. 1987). 15. John Sack, "Converging Technologies: The Library" (A panel discussion at the 1986 proceedings of the Snowmass Seminar on academic computing). 16. Vannevar Bush, "As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly 176:106-7 Uuly 1945). 17. Quoted in William D . Garvey, Communication: The Essence of Science, (New York: Pergamon Pr., 1979}, p.ix. 18. Kenner, "Libraries and Glowlamps," p.17-18. 19. Ibid., p.18. 20. See for example, John W. Senders, "I Have Seen the Future, and It Doesn't Work: The Electronic Journal Experiment," in Scholarly Publishing in an Era of Change: Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting Society for Scholarly Publishing, Minneapolis, Minnesota June 2-4, 1980, p.8-9 . 21. See: Priscilla Oakeshott, "The 'BLEND' Experiment in Electronic Publishing," Scholarly Publish- ing 17:28-29 (Oct. 1985}, or D.J. Pullinger, "Chit-Chat to Electronic Journals : Computer Con- ferencing Supports Scientific Communication,'' IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC 29:23-29 (Mar. 1986). 22. Donald Case, "The Personal Computer: Missing Link to the Electronic Journal?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science 36:311 (Sept. 1985). 23 . Herbert C. Morton and Anne Jamieson Price, "The ACLS Survey of Scholars: Views on Publish- ing, Computers, Libraries," Scholarly Communication no.5:7 (Summer 1986). 24 . Oakeshott, "The 'BLEND' Experiment," p.34. 25. Bryan Pfaffenberger, "Research Networks, Scientific Communication, and the Personal Com- puter," IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications PC 29:32 (Mar. 1986). 26. Michael Spitzer, "Writing Style in Computer Conferences," IEEE Transactions on Professional Com- munications PC 29:19-22 (Mar. 1986). 27. Kenner, "Libraries and Glowlamps," p.21. 28. Alan Singleton, "The Electronic Journal and Its Relatives," Scholarly Publishing 13:5 (Oct. 1981). 29. Douglas E. Van Houweling, "The Information Technology Environment of Higher Education," in Campus of the Future, p.70. 30. Duncan Neuhauser and Kathleen Smith, "Editorial: Accessible Microcomputer Programs as Scholarly Publications, " Medical Care 25:581 Uuly 1987). 31. Morton and Price, "The ACLS Survey of Scholars," p.6. 32. Gordon B. Neavill, "Electronic Publishing, Libraries, and the Survival of Information," Library Resources and Technical Services 28:77 Uan./Mar. 1984). 33. Timothy C. Weiskel, "Libraries as Life-Systems: Information, Entropy, and Coevolution on Cam- pus," College & Research Libraries 47:546-49 (Nov. 1986). 34. David Hessler and Jerry Miller, "Print: A New Medium for Distributing Machine-Readable Infor- mation," Library Hi Tech News 28:1,7-10 (June 1986). 35. D.l. Raitt, "Electronic Publishing-A View from the Library," Electronic Publishing Review 5:209 (Sept. 1985). 36. Van Houweling, "The Information Technology Environment in Higher Education," p.100. 37. Patricia Battin, "The Electronic Library-A Vision of the Future," EDUCOM Bulletin 19:13 (Sum- mer 1984). 304 College & Research Libraries July 1988 38. See for example: Battin, "The Electronic Library"; Van Horn, "How Significant is Computing for Higher Education"; Pat Molholt, "On Converging Paths: The Computing Center and the Li- brary," Journal of Academic Librarianship 11:284-88 (Nov. 1985); C. Lee Jones, "Academic Libraries and Computing: A Time of Change," EDUCOM Bulletin 20:9-12 (Spring 1985); Raymond K. Neff, "Merging Libraries and Computer Centers: Manifest Destiny or Manifestly Deranged?" EDU- COM Bulletin 20:8-12,16 (Winter 1985), or Richard M. Dougherty, "Libraries and Computer Cen- ters: A Blueprint for Collaboration," College & Research Libraries 48:289-96 (July 1987). 39. Weiskel, "Libraries as Life-Systems," p.S62. 40. Barbara B. Moran, Thomas T. Suprenant, and Merrily E. Taylor, "The Electronic Campus: Impact of the Scholar's Workstation Project on the Libraries at Brown,'' College & Research Libraries 48:10-11 (Jan. 1987). 41. John R. Sack, "Open Systems for Open Minds: Building the Library without Walls," College & Research Libraries, 47:544 (Nov. 1986). 42. Ibid., p.S36. 43. Richard W . McCoy, "The Electronic Scholar: Essential Tasks for the Scholarly Community," Li- brary Journal110:41 (Oct. 1, 1985). 44. T.R. Featheringham, "Paperless Publishing and Potential Institutional Change, " Scholarly Pub- lishing 13:27 (Oct. 1981) . 45. Evelyn Daniel, "An Examination of Faculty and Administrative Knowledge Workers and Their Major Information Support Units," in Campus of the Future, p.52. 46. See Charles R. Martell, Jr., The Client-Centered Academic Library: An Organizational Model (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1983), especially chapter 3, "Restructuring the Academic Research Li- brary," p.66-89. 47. Diane J. Cimbala, ''The Scholarly Information Center: An Organizational Model,'' College & Re- search Libraries 48:393-98 (Sept . 1987) . . 48. Nancy C. Kranich, "Find the Right Criteria, Then Decide about Fees," Collection Building 8:21 (1986). 49. Battin, "The Electronic Library," p.17. SO . Michael D. Cooper, "Charging Users for Library Service," Information Processing & Management 14:422 (1978).