Kane.p65 58 College & Research Libraries January 1997 58 Access vs. Ownership: Do We Have to Make a Choice? recent video produced by OCLC entitled Cruisin’ That Information Superhighway with Mr. Dewey and His Dot clearly illustrates a dilemma that the library pro- fession is facing today.1 The “Futurists” in the video, portrayed as menacing ro- botic monsters, represent those who firmly believe that libraries will be non- existent in the near future. In their point of view, there will be no books and no print formats. Everything will be elec- tronically accessible from home comput- ers, and librarians will no longer be needed. By contrast, the cartoon figure of Melvil Dewey and his “Dot” represent those who believe that libraries will con- tinue to exist as long as there are people who thirst for knowledge. The phrase commonly used to describe these two op- posing views is “access vs. ownership.” The question librarians must seriously face today is: Which is more important, ownership of information or provision of access to information? Which of the two will be the most likely to satisfy the in- formation needs of tomorrow’s patrons? Perhaps it is time for librarians to rec- ognize that a choice does not have to be made. It is not necessary to choose between access and ownership, because libraries of the future can be made stronger by a deli- cate balance between the two. Information owned and information accessed will be- come partners that will supplement and build on one another, transforming librar- ies as we know them into the dynamic in- formation centers of the future. Background To uncover the source of the access vs. ownership conflict, one must first look back at the early history of libraries. Since the beginning of time, “the primary ob- Laura Townsend Kane is a Catalog Librarian in Library and Information Resources at the School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, e-mail: laura@dcsmserver.med.sc.edu. Laura Townsend Kane The library profession is currently facing a dilemma that could ultimately impact the future of libraries and librarianship. In this rapidly changing age of technology, the traditional view of libraries as “warehouses of information” is being challenged by the more modern view of them as “providers of access to information.” A conflict has emerged between those in the profession who believe ownership of information is most important and those who believe access to information is most impor- tant. It would seem that every library must make a choice between the two. However, there is a third option that could possibly satisfy everyone as well as ensure that libraries continue to be viable and important infor- mation centers in the future. This is the “access and ownership” view. Access vs. Ownership 59 jective of any library has been to collect and house information of interest to the specific clientele which it serves.”2 Librar- ies have assumed responsibility for con- solidating and storing information and for serving as warehouses of knowledge. “As early as the third millennium B .C . records on clay tablets were stored in a temple in Babylon,” constituting the first known library in history.3 The library in Alexandria around 300 B.C., known as the greatest library in antiquity, housed vast collections of papyrus and vellum scrolls arranged and stored in a systematic man- ner. Even today, the word library is de- fined as “a collection of books used for reading or study, or the building or room in which such a collection is kept.”4 With the passage of time, from the era of that first library in Babylon until today, it has become common knowledge that the larger a library’s collection, the better the library. This is why emphasis is always placed on the words collection and hold- ings and the numbers or statistics associ- ated with them. In a recent article in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Nina W. Matheson makes reference to a famous picture of Paul Erhlich sitting in his office surrounded by stacks of papers and books. “Even today,” she writes, “a wall of books and stacks of paper are used as background to convey the idea of au- thority, intellectual life, possession of knowledge, scientific merit.”5 The belief that the quality of a library is determined by the quantity of materials in its collec- tion (i.e., “the bigger, the better”) has be- come the library’s “thorn in the flesh,” for it is more and more difficult for today’s libraries to meet the demands that such a belief imposes. With the information explosion in the twentieth century, it has become evident that libraries are no longer capable of pur- chasing or “collecting” the vast amount of materials that would satisfy all the in- formation needs of every patron. As we race toward the twenty-first century, it would seem that as massive quantities of information become more readily avail- able, the resources to purchase them di- minish. Not only are library budgets be- ing cut for various reasons, but the costs of library materials are increasing at an alarm- ing rate as well, far above the financial ca- pabilities of libraries today. Serial subscrip- tion costs have skyrocketed, forcing librar- ies to cut back on other budgeted areas in order to simply maintain those subscrip- tions. Figure 1 illustrates that, since 1991, the total number of serial subscriptions in medical school libraries in the United States and Canada has decreased steadily, while serial expenditures have increased. In 1993–94, medical school libraries paid $4.7 million more for serials than in 1992– 93, but had 6,056 fewer serial subscriptions among all the libraries.6 It is evident that today’s libraries are faced with the constant struggle of simply maintaining the col- lections they have, much less developing them.7 To offset the problems created by the information explosion coupled with in- sufficient budgets and increasing costs, libraries have been forced to pursue other methods of fulfilling the information needs of patrons. Although the concepts of ownership and collecting have been deeply embedded in all that we do in li- braries, the trend toward “access” began essentially as a survival mechanism. If a patron is in need of an item that is not available locally, most libraries are will- ing to find that item, no matter where it is located. To do anything less would de- crease the value of libraries in the eyes of the patron, who would then look else- where for the needed material. The rapid rate of increase of interlibrary loans (ILLs) is a solid example of this trend toward Serial subscription costs have skyrocketed, forcing libraries to cut back on other budgeted areas in order to simply maintain those subscriptions. 60 College & Research Libraries January 1997 FIGURE 1 Subscriptions vs. Expenditures (1991–94) Access vs. Ownership 61 access. Figure 2 illustrates the steady in- crease of ILLs filled among medical school libraries in the United States and Canada. It depicts an average increase of 77,102 requests filled per year. This may not ap- pear overwhelming, but as illustrated on the graph, at this rate of increase the num- ber of ILLs filled will reach nearly 2.5 million in the year 2004. This translates into an average of nearly 18,000 ILL re- quests per medical school library per year!8 ILLs are one example of accessed ma- terials. Other forms of access that librar- ies rely on at an ever-increasing rate are: document delivery, computer databases at remote sites, and materials such as CD- ROMs whose ownership is shared among a group of partners. Libraries have even begun to include “access” as a budgeted item. The pie chart in figure 3 illustrates this development. In 1992–93, medical school libraries in the United States and Canada devoted 2.7 percent of their bud- gets to access, which included interlibrary borrowing, document delivery, database access charges, and Copyright Clearing- house charges. In 1993–94, after only one FIGURE 2 ILL Requests Filled (1987–94, with projections for 2004) An average increase of 77,102 requests filled per year. 62 College & Research Libraries January 1997 FIGURE 3 Access (National Distribution of Expenditures by Class) year, this percentage jumped to 12.9 per- cent.9 The Conflict Libraries are rapidly shifting from the tra- ditional “warehouse” view, where they serve as information collectors, to the more modern view of libraries as infor- mation providers. This is where the con- flict “access vs. ownership” becomes ob- vious. There are those who believe that this shift toward emphasis on access to materials rather than ownership of mate- rials will eventually lead to the demise of t h e l i b r a r y a n d l i b r a r i a n s h i p . S o m e have claimed that as materials become Access vs. Ownership 63 increasingly available in machine-read- able format, as computer networks pro- liferate, and as the Internet begins to dominate the information industry, li- braries as buildings will no longer be needed. As more and more people be- come computer literate and have their own PCs with links to the information highway, it is predicted that librarians will no longer be needed. On the other hand, there are those who believe just as strongly that the idea of the library’s traditional role as an information storehouse, as well as the concept that the more a library owns the better, are so deeply embedded into the library psyche that they cannot be eradicated in time to “save” the library from a sure death in this age of informa- tion. These people believe that because ownership has been the primary empha- sis since that first library in Babylon so many centuries ago, the library world will not be able to change its mindset to the ideas of access in time. Patrons will become impatient and turn elsewhere for the in- formation they need, leading to the demise of libraries. It can be argued that neither view is the “right” one. The idea of a library based solely on ownership is not feasible today, yet nei- ther is the idea of a library based solely on access. “What is needed is a way to balance the two and make access a viable partner to complement ownership.”10 To rule out one option in favor of the other could potentially lead to the demise of libraries and librarian- ship because neither can survive indepen- dently. Let us examine closely the following two scenarios. Library Based Solely on Ownership Imagine a library in 1996 whose admin- istrators refuse to take part in this trendy business called “access.” Perhaps they claim that once people have had enough of technology and computers, they will quickly return to reliable print format. Libraries have survived and even flour- ished for centuries without changing radically. Why should they change now? Who are we to presume that the tradi- tional view of the library, which has nour- ished and assisted the scholarly genius throughout time, is now insufficient to meet the needs of present-day genius? “We like things the way they are,” they say. “We will survive.” This library, based on ownership, with- out any avenues of accessing materials not owned locally, would be extinct within an alarmingly short amount of time. It would soon become a fossil, a memory of times past. The problems of rapidly rising costs of library materials and insufficient budgets have already been mentioned. A library such as this one would have difficulty maintaining its col- lection, with no hope at all of developing it. With the rising costs of serial subscrip- tions, this library would have to decide which collection—monographic or serial— is most important, because the budget for one or the other would have to be drasti- cally cut. With either choice, the library would have already severed a limb. Per- haps it would simply decide to purchase fewer items than it has in the past. It would not be long before the library would be bombarded with complaints from patrons. Even if the director of this library made the concession to allow ILLs, the volume of materials needed with such a crippled col- lection would soon overwhelm the library staff, as well as the library budget. The li- brary would collapse. If this library were to remain stubborn and refuse to move toward the idea of providing rather than collecting informa- tion, it would have only two options left. The first would be to become a special li- brary, purchasing materials in only one or two subject areas and limiting the population it serves. Even this option would soon have its problems. Special li- braries must often deal with information that is dynamic, not static. Without proper communication among libraries or links to the information highway, this library’s materials would soon become out of date. The second option for this library would 64 College & Research Libraries January 1997 be to simply become an archive. Like the Vatican Library in Rome, it could opt to become a collection of historical signifi- cance. But then it could no longer be called a library. In summary, the library based solely on ownership is destined to fail. Library Based Solely on Access A library of the future that is based solely on access, not ownership, would indeed have a better chance of surviving than the library based on ownership. However, it would have its substantial share of prob- lems stemming from the fact that it owns no materials locally. A library such as this one would become more of a business, an “information broker,” cold and impersonal. Imagine what might happen if, by the year 2010, each medical library in the United States decides to do away with its collection of monographs as well as all print serial subscriptions. Logic would dictate that these libraries could obtain monographs through ILL and access to journal articles through online full-text e- journals on various networks or the In- ternet. The first major problem crops up when libraries begin to rely solely on ILLs for monographs requested by patrons. Suppose the National Library of Medicine (NLM) is one of the few libraries left in the United States with a full health sci- ences monographic collection. NLM would be bombarded with ILL requests. No single staff could ever be large enough to fill ILL requests when all other librar- ies have abandoned ownership in favor of access. If interlibrary loans were filled at all in this situation, patrons would be forced to wait months for a book they re- quested. To look at this problem from another angle, one could argue that to rely on one or two major centers for the pro- vision of ILL materials would be the same as putting power into the hands of a few. If information is knowledge and knowl- edge is power, those few libraries left who owned monographs would have com- plete control over the dissemination of the knowledge held bound in the pages of those books. Libraries would be at the mercy of those who actually owned the in- formation. A second ominous problem, related to cancelling print serial subscriptions and relying on full-text e-journals, is one of cost. Most librarians assume that cancel- ling print serial subscriptions in favor of accessing them on the Internet or through other networks is going to eliminate the problem of soaring subscription costs. This could not be further from the truth. The fact is: “there is no free service; some- one pays.”11 At the moment, there are a number of full-text e-journals available “free of charge” on the Internet. However, this is a luxury that will not last long. Publishers are struggling with the issue of how they will make money if there is basically one file that everyone can ac- cess.12 It is almost a guarantee that they will figure this out before long, and when that happens, libraries will once again be faced with outrageous serial costs. How- ever, this time it will be access costs rather than subscription costs. Another similar matter that the “access- only” library will have to face is the popu- lar “fee versus free” issue. The library will have to decide whether charges will be involved. If so, for which services will fees be collected? Today, it is common for librar- ies to charge patrons for ILLs and for data- base searching. The cost of access has fre- quently been passed on to users.13 It was reasoned that these were extra services and, therefore, it was appropriate to charge for them.14 In the library of the future where accessed materials are the only ones avail- able, will it be fair to charge library patrons for anything? Regarding the issue of ILL charges, Herbert S. White wrote: “Charg- Patrons will become impatient and turn elsewhere for the information they need, leading to the demise of libraries. Access vs. Ownership 65 ing for interlibrary loan represents, for me, a logical absurdity . . . it amounts to double penalization for the user.”15 He reasoned that patrons are not only “penalized” by having to wait for something the library does not own, but they also must face a second penalty—the ILL charge. Along these same lines, should library users be penalized for the shift from ownership to access? If not, will the library be able to ab- sorb the costs of ILL and database search- ing? It is hard enough to justify money these days when there is not a physical item to account for, so how will these ac- cess-only libraries persuade their parent organizations to grant them sufficient re- sources? Further potential pitfalls for the access- only library would be speed of access and elimination of browsing.16 With the elimi- nation of print information that is imme- diately available, the library patron will have to pay the “penalty” of waiting for an item either ordered through ILL or lo- cated in electronic format. Additionally, li- brary patrons who have become accus- tomed to browsing the book stacks will no longer be able to indulge in this activity. It would be naive to believe that library pa- trons would accept such radical changes without complaint. In short, the library based solely on access has many obstacles and problems awaiting it. It is easy to see how such a library could fail just as dismally as the library based solely on ownership. The Compromise “Most libraries of today cannot be librar- ies of the future,” stated Matheson. 17 However, by taking some significant steps toward positive change, the librar- ies of today can remain viable informa- tion centers in the twenty-first century. Changing library operations to provide access to information is the most essen- tial step in securing the success of the li- brary of the future, because “if libraries will not provide access to information, our patrons will obtain that access else- where.”18 This readjustment toward ac- cess, however, does not need to be at the expense of ownership. “It is time to put aside access versus ownership and con- centrate on access and ownership.”19 The successful library of the future will con- sist of a delicate balance between materi- als that are owned and those that are ac- cessed. The quality of these future libraries will not be determined by size but, rather, by how effectively they fulfill the needs of the patron. To achieve success, the future library should begin with a well-defined collec- tion development policy. Each library’s specific policy will vary, but some compo- nents should be common to all. First of all, the library should maintain a core collec- tion based on the standard “20 percent” rule, which is that 20 percent of the collec- tion that will satisfy 80 percent of the in- formation needs of patrons.20 This core col- lection of high-demand materials can be established through careful consideration of circulation statistics. The library should then maintain in its collection material that is tailored to the library’s unique clientele. In other words, the library should continue to purchase items that are frequently used by its patrons, but cannot be obtained ex- cept by owning them. For materials that are in moderate to low demand, libraries should purchase access to the information rather than the information itself. This “ac- cessed” information will originate from either ILLs and document delivery or elec- tronic sources such as full-text database ser- vices, CD-ROM products, and Internet re- sources. It is essential that electronic access be incorporated into the library’s collection development policies. Finally, the library of the future should strive to establish shared collection agreements and to work cooperatively with other libraries. By fol- lowing these guidelines, “access strategies will continue to be enhancements of or supplements to ownership.”21 The perfectly balanced access and own- ership library will not appear overnight. It will require continual, extensive studies 66 College & Research Libraries January 1997 on the use of materials owned, as well as the demand for accessed materials in or- der to ensure that user needs are being met in a sufficient and timely manner. The balance between the two must be carefully monitored and constantly modified to keep up with the fast pace of the infor- mation industry. Most definitely, it is a challenge that we as librarians must face with determination, but once the library of the future is established, it will un- doubtedly be recognized by all as an in- valuable service in the information age. “It is the demand for information and the need for specific knowledge that causes libraries.”22 This demand will never dis- appear. Humankind will never quench its thirst for knowledge. Ensuring that librar- ies continue to meet this demand for infor- mation secures the future of librarianship forever. If the choice “access and owner- ship” can be made instead of “access vs. ownership,” librarians will have delivered libraries from certain extinction. By com- bining the best features of both the tradi- tional warehouse idea and the electronic library idea, libraries in the future will not only survive but flourish to become the hub of the information community. The library should continue to purchase items that are frequently used by its patrons, but cannot be obtained except by owning them. Notes 1. Cruisin’ That Information Superhighway with Mr. Dewey and His Dot (Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 1994), videocassette. 2. David Tyckoson, “Access vs. Ownership: Changing Roles for Librarians,” Reference Li- brarian 34 (1991): 37. 3. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993 ed., s.v. “libraries.” 4. Ibid. 5. Nina W. Matheson, “The Idea of the Library in the Twenty-First Century,” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 83, no. 1 (Jan. 1995): 3. 6. Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors, Annual Statistics of Medical School Libraries in the United States and Canada, 15th–17th eds. (Seattle, Wash.: AAHSLD, 1983– 94). 7. Thomas W. Shaughnessy, “From Ownership to Access: A Dilemma for Library Manag- ers,” Journal of Library Administration 14, no. 1 (1991): 1–7. 8. AAHSLD, Annual Statistics of Medical School Libraries. 9. Ibid. 10. Irene B. Hoadley, “Access vs. Ownership: Myth or Reality,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 17 (1993): 192. 11. Ibid., 193. 12. Ibid., 191–95. 13. Shaughnessey, “From Ownership to Access,” 1–7. 14. Hoadley, “Access vs. Ownership,” 191–95. 15. Herbert S. White, “Ownership Is Not Always Availability—Borrowing May Not Satisfy Access Needs,” in Access to Scholarly Information: Issues & Strategies, ed. Sul H. Lee (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pierian Pr., 1985), 3. 16. Anthony W. Ferguson and Kathleen Kehoe, “Access vs. Ownership: What Is Most Cost Effective in the Sciences,” Journal of Library Administration 19, no. 2 (1993): 89–99. 17. Matheson, “The Idea of the Library,” 5. 18. Tyckoson, “Access vs. Ownership,” 44. 19. Hoadley, “Access vs. Ownership,” 195. 20. Sheila S. Intner, “Differences between Access vs. Ownership,” Technicalities 9, no. 9 (Sept. 1989): 5–8. 21. Stuart James, “Ownership and Access, Database and OPAC: Present and Future Opportu- nities for Academic Libraries,” Library Review 39, no. 4 (1990): 27. 22. Matheson, “The Idea of the Library,” 5.