Well, it appears that its a little of both. Blair Kauffman, Professor and Law Library Director at Yale Law School, did an informal survey of law libraries user statistics. The results are fascinating, as Prof Kauffman points out:
"About half the libraries increased and half decreased initial check-outs and total circulation over the past two years. A few libraries, like Georgetown, provided data going back five years, and in at least Georgetown's case, the drop last year may be a blip, as they've bounced up and down over the five-year period. Also, some libraries, like Michigan, provided a wealth of related data, such as number of people entering the library, books reshelved and so on. In Michigan's case, most of these numbers (library entries and books reshelved) increased over the past three years (although check-outs dropped last year). If we all kept data like this in the same manner, the comparison might be a lot more useful. Do we want yet more ABA questionnaire categories? I'm not sure about the usefulness of what we've got here, but it seems to indicate that the use of libraries as measured by circulation is up this year over last at about as many of the reporting libraries as where usage might be down.
The next question is why is it up at some and down at others? Do coffee bars encourage the use of library materials? Pittsburgh (with it's well known coffee lounge) didn't report, but I believe William & Mary has a coffee cart, and they're numbers are off the chart."
A couple of other things should be kept in mind when thinking about and looking over the chart. First, as a rule, law libraries actually circulate very little material. In fact, the vast majority of many libraries only circulate Reserve Materials. Second, it would be helpful to note how such things as seating space, new building projects, full-time/part-time programs, etc., relates to library usage.
You can look at a PDF version of Prof. Kauffman's Excel chart here on my "Irregular Page". (So named for its irregular contents..... Wipe that smirk off your face!)
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Are Librarians Dodo Birds?
Professor Roy Mersky thinks not! Read his insightful comment, written with the assistance of Ronda Haskins, "In the Age of Google, will libraries become extinct?" published last year in the Austin American-Statesman. A true gem, the article makes some very good observations about the future. For one thing, without saying it explicitly, he observes that virtually the sole area where the web has displaced traditional library materials is in the area of ready reference. I agree. Perhaps the only types of materials that have met their match with the web are encyclopedias, almanacs and dictionaries. Although the jury is still out about how well they supplant these things. Just try to look up online the spelling of a word you can't remember how to spell!
Sunday, January 16, 2005
"Access by Google," Comment on Library Journal - Almost insightful
Library Journal's Editorial for this month attempts to address the "Google" phenomenon. But clearly the editor, Francine Fialkoff, misses the point. She frets about copyright issues, damage to print materials, and sees sales of books as a major concern for Google's project.
The point she misses is that while Amazon's Search Inside the Book feature has resulted in increased sales for Amazon, the analogy for libraries is that the Google service will likely result in patrons coming to the library to read the books that aren't readily available in the marketplace! It is my firm belief that a patron that finds Blackstone on Google, won't download the full text to his/her computer or handheld and read it in electronic format; rather, they will most likely either print it out or go the library and check it out. Printing the classic work will take reams of paper, and purchasing it will cost more than most consumers want to pay for an academic read.
I think that the time is ripe for libraries to begin thinking about expanding reading rooms. Particularly in their rare book rooms!
The point she misses is that while Amazon's Search Inside the Book feature has resulted in increased sales for Amazon, the analogy for libraries is that the Google service will likely result in patrons coming to the library to read the books that aren't readily available in the marketplace! It is my firm belief that a patron that finds Blackstone on Google, won't download the full text to his/her computer or handheld and read it in electronic format; rather, they will most likely either print it out or go the library and check it out. Printing the classic work will take reams of paper, and purchasing it will cost more than most consumers want to pay for an academic read.
I think that the time is ripe for libraries to begin thinking about expanding reading rooms. Particularly in their rare book rooms!
Friday, December 17, 2004
Yet Another Article Praising Google's Digital Library Initiative
This article warns academic libraries to "prepare for the digitization"
of online collections. It seems to be typical of the paranoid take on
the future of libraries: that somehow we're going to be marginalized
by technology. On the contrary, I firmly believe that the library
Renaissance is coming!
Check it out, from Gartner Research:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=125469
of online collections. It seems to be typical of the paranoid take on
the future of libraries: that somehow we're going to be marginalized
by technology. On the contrary, I firmly believe that the library
Renaissance is coming!
Check it out, from Gartner Research:
http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=125469
Carol Brey-Casiano (ALA President) on NPR Commenting on Google's Project Ocean
ALA’s president does a fine job fielding questions from relatively clueless NPR reporter.
Click http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4227895 to listen to the story.
RLeiter
Click http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4227895 to listen to the story.
RLeiter
Thursday, December 16, 2004
A Good Article about Google's Project Ocean from TechNewsWorld
Click here for good description of the Google project.
RLeiter
RLeiter
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The Irony of the Digital Age
Think about it: When the publishers discovered the possibility that by converting them to an electronic format they could charge per use of their “books,” what incentive was left for them to still publish books at all?
I firmly believe that if there was a way that publishers could have mounted some sort of tracking and timing device on books so as to make us pay for the amount that a book, or a set of books is used, they would have done it. Obviously, though, there would have been no way that libraries, attorneys, or any book owner for that matter, would agree to buy something like that, or agree to have their current collections retro-fitted for this type of arrangement. The development of the internet and full text online searching presented them with a powerful motivation to shift the way they sell their “books.” By converting them to electronic format, they can now sell them to us as subscriptions and make us pay premiums for volume of usage!
That shifting of the paradigm for them has created an interesting dilemma for us. We, as consumers and researchers, want things that are better and new; and computers are both of those things. But since we see them as additional tools in the research arsenal, publishers are seeing them as an entirely new reality: a cheap way of selling, and a lucrative way of converting the “ownership” of information into a fee, or a lease of it. Essentially, the end result will be that we will re-purchase everything that we already own in hard copy (and more) all over again! Now that’s a good deal for publishers.....
RLeiter
I firmly believe that if there was a way that publishers could have mounted some sort of tracking and timing device on books so as to make us pay for the amount that a book, or a set of books is used, they would have done it. Obviously, though, there would have been no way that libraries, attorneys, or any book owner for that matter, would agree to buy something like that, or agree to have their current collections retro-fitted for this type of arrangement. The development of the internet and full text online searching presented them with a powerful motivation to shift the way they sell their “books.” By converting them to electronic format, they can now sell them to us as subscriptions and make us pay premiums for volume of usage!
That shifting of the paradigm for them has created an interesting dilemma for us. We, as consumers and researchers, want things that are better and new; and computers are both of those things. But since we see them as additional tools in the research arsenal, publishers are seeing them as an entirely new reality: a cheap way of selling, and a lucrative way of converting the “ownership” of information into a fee, or a lease of it. Essentially, the end result will be that we will re-purchase everything that we already own in hard copy (and more) all over again! Now that’s a good deal for publishers.....
RLeiter
Google Bets Big on Bringing Libraries to Web (From NYTimes)
Google Bets Big on Bringing Libraries to Web
December 15, 2004
By REUTERS
Filed at 9:04 a.m. ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc. said on Tuesday it
would digitize some of the world's most important libraries
in a bold effort that could profit the company by
attracting more viewers to its site -- and its ads.
[If you are a subscriber, you can find the full text of the story below:]
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-libraries-google.html
December 15, 2004
By REUTERS
Filed at 9:04 a.m. ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc. said on Tuesday it
would digitize some of the world's most important libraries
in a bold effort that could profit the company by
attracting more viewers to its site -- and its ads.
[If you are a subscriber, you can find the full text of the story below:]
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-libraries-google.html
Searchblog's announcement about Project Ocean
John Battelle's Searrchblog carried an announcement and good discussion of Project Ocean. Comments from Harvard's librarian (at the end of the article) are telling: His defensiveness about his commitment to continue collecting books is sad.
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001124.php
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001124.php
Books Are Dead?
The thing that gets me about the whole notion that books are dead is the underlying presupposition that somehow books are "old fashioned" and, therefore, obsolete.
In my opinion, this is a crock of whoey. It is true that books are old technology; but just because a technology is old, doesn't necessarily mean that its obsolete. Look at the wheel: its been around for centuries, and just about the only thing that's changed are the way the wheel is made. It is a "terminal technology," that is, one that has evolved to the end of it's logical development. It can't really be improved upon.
So, too, with the book. It is a technology that is perfectly adapted to contain, preserve and distribute information. Books that were printed 400 years ago, providing they haven't been burned, soaked or otherwise abused, are just as fresh and usable as they were on the day they were printed. The bindings usually go before the pages. A book preserves the information that the author has created in the order s/he created it, and nothing short of mutilation will disturb that order. A book requires no intervening technology for operation. You simply open it up in proper light and it works. The only upgrade that may need to be performed on it may be re-binding. It is easy to read and a snap to transfer. It may take a few days to get a book from one coast to the other, but not much more than that!
Am I saying that computers aren't useful? By no means. I simply mean to say that computers aren't replacing books. They can't because they really aren't a competing technology. Just because computers can display letters and words, there is no reason to make the logical leap that "books are dead." Computers can display paintings, yet no one (that I'm aware of anyway) is proposing that "art is dead." Computers can certainly do many wonderful things that books can't, but the reverse is also true.
The main thing that computers can do that books can't is that they can index and sort the content of books in ways that formerly were unfathomable. But once a computer is used to identify books, articles, etc., users usually aren't content to end there: they will usually look for a hard copy of the item. They'll either print it out or go to the library or bookstore and obtain a copy of it.
In my opinion, this is a crock of whoey. It is true that books are old technology; but just because a technology is old, doesn't necessarily mean that its obsolete. Look at the wheel: its been around for centuries, and just about the only thing that's changed are the way the wheel is made. It is a "terminal technology," that is, one that has evolved to the end of it's logical development. It can't really be improved upon.
So, too, with the book. It is a technology that is perfectly adapted to contain, preserve and distribute information. Books that were printed 400 years ago, providing they haven't been burned, soaked or otherwise abused, are just as fresh and usable as they were on the day they were printed. The bindings usually go before the pages. A book preserves the information that the author has created in the order s/he created it, and nothing short of mutilation will disturb that order. A book requires no intervening technology for operation. You simply open it up in proper light and it works. The only upgrade that may need to be performed on it may be re-binding. It is easy to read and a snap to transfer. It may take a few days to get a book from one coast to the other, but not much more than that!
Am I saying that computers aren't useful? By no means. I simply mean to say that computers aren't replacing books. They can't because they really aren't a competing technology. Just because computers can display letters and words, there is no reason to make the logical leap that "books are dead." Computers can display paintings, yet no one (that I'm aware of anyway) is proposing that "art is dead." Computers can certainly do many wonderful things that books can't, but the reverse is also true.
The main thing that computers can do that books can't is that they can index and sort the content of books in ways that formerly were unfathomable. But once a computer is used to identify books, articles, etc., users usually aren't content to end there: they will usually look for a hard copy of the item. They'll either print it out or go to the library or bookstore and obtain a copy of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
