http://repositorio.febab.org.br/files/original/26/3525/SNBU1987_011.pdf 2eb736171ea0e6c5abb8b60c3e0de21d PDF Text Text NETWORKING AND COOPERATION AMONG ACADEMIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED STATES JOAN S. In"t,-oducti on SEGAL ACRL / ALA Mc)t i vat i on Academic libraries in the U. S. have engaged in cooperative 2c:tivities fo!~ as long as they have e:{is·ted~ The question is, why do they do i t . Ttlree important reasons =.pring to mind: 1. American academic librarians cooperate because they place a value on coo~Jerative activities il-j themselves. "fhey believe sharing resources is a good thing. They hold that i t is selfist1 f10t to do 50. I t is simply tlle expr"ession of their- institL!tionalized system Df belief. l"lley aJ.so believe cooperation can save money for their irlstitlJtions, and tha"t i t i5 inc:umbent on them to help thej.l~ illstitutions in this manner. Perhaps they a150 believe t~Jat if they S2ve money in this way, they will be abJ.E to ll~5e i t fQI~ some other pUl-pose. Str"etclling a doI lar i5 2 librar-ian's pleastJre. Fruqalitv 0+ some sort is a150 a part of the librarians' cultural traditian. Librar-ians 21so wish to provide access to a broader VE.l,I·-iE:·t·'t' o·f m·~.tf?r-ia.ls ·for thE,ir- u~-~er=-·~ This is-, ~15o a ~~jnd Df +~uqality, but i t goes fur·therw By means Df resc)urce stlarj.ng~ libr-ar'ians wiStl to ma~~e avaj.lable to their clients 2 range arld affiount of material W~lictl would not be p05sible Wi·ttl01_lt SL!ch sharing arrangements. ~" a,'"ld rilJfnL,~:?( 4. The introdLtction Df computers into ttlE 1ibrary world has 2],E;O provideci an impetus for increaseci cooperatiorl, ir) tt12·t i t has pr-ovided 2 m~ans fo~ accomplishirlg coopej~ative erlds whicJl had beej"j impossible befclre 2u·toffiatiofl carne a1011g. {-1ccDrdi n r] of to SI DCI.n (1986), thE'r'e a.r-E? thrE'e ma.jor gOd.l phy~3:i.ca.] fourth: bibliographic access, 2"r.CCE'SS, 2i.nd collE'ction developmeni:. I would r-1.dd professiorlal development. s litlrary cCJoperative activities: <:-:'r. 1. Bj,bliographic access. Librariarls' cooperative activities have reSlllted in many valuabl.E dl"llj sllccessfLII pr-(~jects to provide bibliographic access to n12terials. Begjr'lniflQ wi·th effor-ts at standardizatiorl (a~; ear'ly as 1901~ WI""tF':-f··1 thp L..ibr-é;I.r·y Df" Lon(Jr-ess iSSU.E~d :i.t.!::, fir"'=.-L 1-.1r ~1!:':.t:0d ce.. . j-d~;;) and corltinl.ling ttlr{)ug~! ti-iR InDr'e sop~listicatec! a'ltonl~ted projects of the 197()'s and 1980's, c[Jopel~a·tion has given us: tl'le MAI~C comlDunication forlnat; the CONSER database o~: se~i~l records; the biblicJgraphic utilities~ MAF~C-based ar'ld al1 177 �cooperative in one way or another; microform collection projects such as the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Microform Projeet and the Microform Cataloging Clearinghouse; cooperative retrospeetive conversion projeets, sueh as those of ARL, the Researeh Libraries Group (RLG),and the Center for Research Libraries (CRL); and the Linked Systems Projeet, which will link the disparate systems of the Library of Congress (LC), the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN>, and the Western Library Network (WLN), as well as OCLC, the Online Library Computer Center. The existenee of large bibliographie databases in standardized format is a preeondition for large seale sharing of eataloging, interlibrary loan information, pre-Qrder information for acquisitions work, and the building of databases of individual libraries. 2. Physical access. From the first Interlibrary Loan Code, created in 1917 by the American Library Assoeiation Committee on Coordination of College Libraries (and whieh suggested the supplying of photocopies in plaee of originais!) provision of access to actual physical materiais was an important goal of cooperative activities. (Trezza, 1986). The mails were used to transmit messages for many years; they were supplanted by teletype (TWX) machines, and later by eomputers, large and small. Large networks of computerized bibliographic informatior together with software to allow the tran5mission of ILL messages, combined with truck delivery systems run by cooperatives, have revolutionized the document delivery system already. But the hope af today's librarian is that easy digitization of materiais will lead t~e instantaneou~ transmission of documents at high speed and low cost in the near future. Cooperative conservation and preservation projects also falI under the goal of providing physical aecess. MateriaIs which are in such poor condition that they cannot be eireulated are of little use to researehers. Programs in whieh several libraries cooperate in funding a preservation laboratory, a preservation mierofilming faeility, or a restoration workshop have been established. The Northea5t DoeLlment Conserva.tion Center (NEDCC) i5 an example. Assignment of responsibility to a particular library'for the preservation of a certain subjec~ area is another mode of cooperative venture. Recording of preservation activities on the bibliographic record in the database allows others to know that an item is in good, restored condition. RLG carried out a cooperative preservation microfilming project in 1983, with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Mellon Foundation. The Council on Library Resources (CLR) produced a paper which formed the basis for discussions at meetings Df ARL, the American Council of Learned Societies' (AL:LS), and the Ameriean Association of Universities (AAU) in 1984. The establishment of a separate -,.reservation program by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is a landmark step in cooperative preservation activitles. 3. Cooperative ColJection Development. Beginning with the Post-World War 11 projects designed t~ garner the products Df pre-war and wartime scholarship for Ameriean libraries, SUCM as the Farmington Plan, programs Df eooperative 178 �hEIVt bE:. . en 2.n irrrpc)rt~'.nt pClr-t of tf1e act.ivi-J:ll?-:; CJ+ cl.cr.:l.dE'rnic libr-2.rjes. E>:empl..::.:..ry p!'-oqt".~'.m5 h2IVF' incJu.(:fj:~:,cf thiê.? LD.tin P,mer·l.Cdn CDOper2.tive Picqt'.isitj /:"ns F'roql'-':'.fT1 (l_{-~Cr4.F'), th<-2 I\fr!i.tiona.l ~:'r-r.::jgrc"'!TJ f 01-{4C{:I,).j~::;itjDI-I~:::' 2.nd Cc,l.:,c·'.loginçJ'1 2nd the Center for- Pesea.rch Libr-aries (CR!_). 'Tt1e latter was four1ded ir1 1949 as 2 cooperative cer1·tral stor0ge f2Cillty, and has become an invaluable adjunc:t tD t.~·1 cD11E'ctions C)f its mpmbe~-s. L.imiting itself to ~-3peci·fic S~I lE'Ct concentl'''~J.tiDns and geDgr'c~phic21 ar-E?aS, agr-eed UpOf1 by tt1E memlJers, tt1e Cer1ter- enab1es its member-s to avoid buying li~tle-used materiaIs, but to borro~ them i n~:;t.ed.d. clpv!~lc'f.1rnent c()lJt::,1 i:1C,n CDCiPC'l' ·'.+":i\/G:~ AnnthE:'t~· mDdf.·~,l pr-o{Jt'··a.m consi ~~t.5 i 11 mutuêI.l consul têl.t i on For instance, the Univer-sity of ~lUI'~(:h2S~S. regar-dir1g C21ifornia 5)/stem libraries are reqllired to se·t êlside pel. . · cent of t lv:·~ rn,~.:'J.tE'r~i i::I.l~; Represer1tative!3 Df gt(i(j(~,linE's i::I.nd bud fJt'7.·t for" Sh";~.l"'·ed thr-~e purcha.sesu the libraries participate in developing Il"IE,k.inc] Df an selE:-ctiDns" The I:::':LG Conspt::~ctu.s Df the c,::,llE'ction stl'wenoths of the RL_G lit)rar'ies~ with a c:Dmmitnlent to a certain leveI of co11ection intensity (MDstle~, 1986). l-he online version of CDnS~)ectLls i5 adding r1ew libraries to ttle original 5m21l number-. lhis migh·t be expanded jnto a national database for c(~Qpel~2tiYe collectiof1 development based ori planried coIlectiorl ar0d strengths. prwCJj~?ct cJ.:)r·,!:;~i:::,+:~? in'v'ent:C:H~y the 4" F'Y-Cif(::?s5ic:.n<::-'.1 r.JevE;~lc(pmF:r-ltu Althnugh not ofter1 considered as a gOB1 Df cooperative activlty, for-mal and in·formal education programs 2nd activities in support of the library ~11~ofesslon itself are a sigrlificAl,t focus of much cooper2tive activity. One of the primary purpc)ses Df marly library c:ooperatives is provision of selninars, courses, or training of some kirld. Joint undertakings on behalf Df legislative ini·tiatives, volurlteer- activities irl ttie collection Df statistics, the carrying Ollt of research projects, the develc~pnler1t of standar-ds, the pubIishing of materiaIs, and the presentation Df programs are typical Df the voluntary associations librarians have traditionally formed. Voluntar-y A5sociations Among American Librarians A uni que aspect of the organization Df cooperative activities among librari2r~s in ttle U. SQ is i t s voluntary natuIP·e. Ir1 the ear'1y 19th Centur-y, Alexis de Tocqueville remar'ked on the pr-oclivity of Amer~icar1s to form voluntal~y associationsu Librarians are no different, nor have the hLlndr"ed year-s bl . . ·ought much change in this respect. In this ~ecticm, I have deliberately omitted dealing with the professional schools of law and medicine, wtlose librarians e.lso have .t:-::<. t.r·;;;.dit:inn Df vn]I.I.I,t.dt"-y cooper-2"'.tive activity. Their associations and activities ir1clude the MedicaI Libl-ary Associaticjn (f-!l_A) and the Americ~n Association Df l_2W Librar-ies (AAUL), the Regional MedicaI Library MedicaI System, and I"IEDLINE. In 1876, American librarians cre2ted the American Library A~sDcia.tion (AL(;).. In 110 yei~.r-s, it. has growr. 179 t.o lnclude. �43,1)()O alI dedicated to promoting libraries, anci librarianshipQ In 1890, delegates representing academic librarians formed the College Library Section of ALA" This evolved into the Association cf College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of ALA, which now has a].most 10,000 members, close to one third of alI academic Iibrarians in the U. S. Representing the interests Df urliversity, college, and community colleges in the larger association, and providing special services to these members, ACRL enjoys popularity with academic l.ibrarians and i5 a vehicle for many Df their cooperative proje!:ts, particularly in the area of professional development~ members~ librarians~ The Special Libraries Association, founded in 1909, now serves not Oll]Y libraries in businesses, but those in goverllmental agencies and many academic librarians, especially those in department librariesn Tt10 AS50ciation Df Research Libraries is a urlique organizaticln. Founded in 1932, i t consists of 118 large research libraries, seeking to address the problems commor·} anci unique to the needs of large research libraries (Daval, 1986) = The valuable cooperative activities undertaken by this group include the regular collection of statistical data, massive contributiorls to the CONSER project (mentioned above), professional ed'lcation activities dir·ected at the management of research libraries~ extensive preservation activities~ and a recent ffiassi\'e cooperative retrospective conversion proJect wtlich is designed to add six to seven million records Df previously uncatalogued materiaIs to the databases now availab].e to lj.braries fOI~ coope~ative cataloglAirlg. The Resear-ch l_ibraries Group (RLG), a 5mall group Df very large r-esearch libral~ie5~ was formed in the 1970's but carne to 11ational prominence in 1978 when they adopted the Stanford University BALLOTS system as the basis for cooperative activities of many kinds, including a shared cataloguing database, a SOlArce of interlibrary loan infor-n\ation and data trarlsmission, a r·ecord of preservation activities, 2nd an online ordering system~ giving the system the nalne RLIN, the Research Libraries Infor/nation Network. Growttl Df the ~;ysten} has justified the libraries' extraordinary expenses in set·ting it up; i t flOW serves not (Jnly the 29 memberowners, but m~ny smaller libraries who choose to l l s e its services on a fee-for-servic~ basis (Segal, 1985). State library associations provi de librarians~ including academics, with ar' opportunity to interact with their peers, attend pr·ograms for their professional development, and influence state legislation regarding libraries. Environment Academic libraries do not exist in a vacuumQ They grew and developed within the framework of the higher education system~ At e~c~ stage of development, certain cooperativa activi~i~s occurFed ar assumed prominence. Wiegand (.1985) summ0rized these litlrary trends recently. 180 �The lq·th CentlJ~y saw the fi~st se~ious growth in the system of highe~ edlAcatiofl in the U. S. Small colleges, based on the English model~ 2nd often church-related, flourished. A fe~l la~ge universities emerged, particularly after" a gener'2tion of scholars had been exposed to the Germarl resea~ch university tradition. Pr"ofessioflal sctlools developed as a cohort Df doctors 2nd lawyers began to demand that plr'ofessional educatiofl be s·tandar·dize(j and that entr'ance into t~)eir professions be controlledn r"ale in these emerging institutions was shaky at libraries in 2cademic institutions had no real staff~ collectiorlS, or service. Stuclents anej faculty r·esor·ted to founding literary society libraries, more accessible, with mOI~e bOClks, broader- scope, and greater comfort thar1 their institutional counterparts. T~ie lj.tJ~ar··y best. Ea~ly B/ 19()O, these literary society libr-aries had been absorbed into the institutions' academj.c libraries~ As new trends developed in higher ec1llcation: sElninars, graduate education, honors programs, 2nd independent study programs; librarj.es resporlded with the establistlment of reserve collections to better serve students, special subject collections, and the introcjuction of non-print formats. In the early 2()·ttl Century, cornpetition developed among acadeAlj.c irlstjtlltions for studel1ts and resources, but librar-y cooperative ventures were initiated~ For instance, t.tlE~ E'i::<.r··lie5t Union List. o·f :-3E-?r"ia.ls W2S publishE:-d in 1885 and it was in 1917 that the fi~st Interlib~ary Loan Code was writtenn Association activities grew, with ttle fourlding of thf? fc:.rQr·t'.I··fr·ll::::r· contEmp(Jr'a~y of r4CF,L. and the::- beginning of technology was the post and cDHlnfu.rf:lCi:il.i.:"Íorl; the tYPE:\Ir..trii.:".E·/," fGI"- o'fficE' SLA. t~le ThE.~ tel~phone for wor-k As World War 11 carne to a close, millions Df !J. ~. Ar"med For'ces veterans returned home with the promise Df a college E:·~du.c:at.ion (und.z::,r· th,~~ IIGI Di 11 ri to·ta.l revolution orcurr'ed in the U. S. system of higher educationn Access to hig!~er' educatiorl was rio longer limited to ttle upper' classes. Expanded enrollments made new demands on litJraries to pr-u·.'ic1e collectior1s arl(j services sllitable for 2 new cl.ierltele" New fie:lds 0+ study carne into being; research r)rc,jects 'Found SUfJpC)rt in large government funding I~perations. Standards for collectlons were developed, as ~)llblishing grew geometr·j.cally~ 11 Cooppr~(tive )" activities at ttlis time involved academic lj.brarles· bandjrlg togett1er" with the Library Df Congress to acqui,'-e;.' the purJlishing DutpLrt 0+ t.tlE' EUI'""CJped.n cou.nt.ries foI'"" Amel~i!:2n libraries. A modelo was F>stablished in the Cooperative ACCju.i-=. .i.Li.llI1 F'('C,jE'ct ~J.nc:J thl.'-:' F~'.!···ri"!i.r·tgtDn r·'ls.i""r_ f:y thE' 1\/~7C's f!.Ands fOI~ ttlE5ie pl~ojects had disappeared as tt'IE balance Df pC.f.ymE:'("ft:S shi fted ~ rhE' t.f.-?cf·ir101 Dgy +C1t' i nt~f2rl i br~E,.r·y 1 D.::\n moved to ttle te!etype -rWX) mactlj.nes, blJt ttl~ mails carried the physical tDaterials, 181 �During the middle years Df the Twentieth Century, institutions Df higher education in the U. S. were undergoing drastic changes. Unaccustomed growth had caught them unawares; they were unprepared to deal with nontraditional students; their facilities, including their libraries, were inadequate; and they desperately needed some guidance. The model they began to emulate was that of American business. Over time, they have modified the design, but the academy is no longer the same as it once was. Once a bastion Df traditional values, controlled by faculty, the university of the mid-20th Century began to develop a managerial class. Running an academic institution was seen as a task requiring administrators, rather than scholars. It was certainly true that -- as they moved into new areas -- universities needed a new kind of manager to deal with the solicitation of grant and other funding; the management of larger amounts of money than ever before; requirements for federal and state reporting; the monitoring of conformance with federal and state requirements of ali kinds; complicated personnel issues; public relations; recruitment; extension activities; and the host of unprecedented problems which presented themselves. Competition among institutions during this period took the form Df vying for students, prestigious faculty members, endowments, facilities, and research grants. In the libraries, the question was: who will be the first with automation? Some innovators began to introduce computerization of library activities. By the end Df the 1960's, cooperative database bUilding, a sine qua non for cooperative àctivities of ali kinds, was well underway. The MARC format had been developed at the Library of Congress and was "harnessed" by OCLC for the use of its members (Reynolds, 1985). The decade of the 1970's witnessed a slowing of growth in the higher education "industry". Conflicts between faculty and administrators became more bitter and entrenched. Unionization efforts by faculty members emerged as a reaction to these conflicts. In many states, the management of public institutions of higher education came under closer scrutiny by the state legislatur"es, which demanded greater accountability and more business-like management practices. Legislators, typically overburdened with a need to understand a wide range Df political and financiai issues, and therefore rarely possessing a good grasp Df academic matters, have increased their pressure on academic administrators to maintain tighter financiai controls. In their desire to do so, administrators often see libraries as a "bottomless pit" into which money disappears; a hole which can never be filled, no matter how much is poured into it. The development of library automation, at first perceived as a money saver, only added to the financiai demands af academic libraries. The competitive u~ge to be in the avantgarde in computer develapment expressed itself in the quest for integrated library systems and anline public access catalogs. 182 �In ttlis enviFonment, Iib~a~'ians SOUgtlt every opportllnit; to cut costs, ancj in line with ttleir" belief tha-l cooper"atiorl s(;~_ve5 rnonE:'Y _.~.- t.hey engagE-:-?d in fíi2.ny new coopera.ti Vi::.':' proje<:ts. Par-·ticipatj.on in networks for shared cataloging, acquisitions, and interlibrary loan increased massively. DeLe, whictl had begun in Ohio as a consortium of academic libraries, grew to include libraries outside the state. Still, the nlajori·ty Df the members continued to be academic libraries. Consortial arrangements among academic librar"ies began which involved a variety of automation elements, including microcompLlter-based interlibrary loan networks, uniarl lists of seriaIs in an online environment, and the sharing Df exper·tise in automation itself. The decade saw initi.3.t.ion of t~hf? "tWD new major clat:a.base ~::.y!::;t~E'ms: RLIN a.fld UTLAS. RLIN had begun at Stanford University in the 1960's, as BAt_.L01·S~ an integrated system fC)F' cataloguing and acqtAisitions. In 1978, i t W2S adopted by the Resea~ch Libr"aries Group and rellanled the Research Libr-aries Irlfornlation Network~ Growth of the size of the database and tlle services provided W2S rapid~ Support o-f the member libraries paF·ent institutions was the financiaI basis. This rationale was extremely important in the higher education commLtnity 2nd a key factor in the SLtCcess Df the verlture. UTLAS on the other hand, aIthough i t began as a system for one institution, the University of Toronto, became an indepencjerlt operation in the l.ate 197()'s and wes later purchased by a for-profit corporation, Interrlational ThomsorJ (Jr-ç]E!.ni~~a.t.ion (S;::?~::.ra.l, 19t.1~.~.;). With €d.l Df t.h€~s€'",:. II!:Jiblioqr"aphic u_t.ilitit-"?=:.!! aVCi.ilable, lj_brar-ies had many o~Jt:ions for shared catalQguirlg~ and they tC)O~~ advantage ()f tl,em. They bL(ilt ever larger databases forshal irlg, ar1d ttley 21so extracted from those databases theirOWfl holdings records, which they LIsed to prepare circLllation systelns 2nd online catalogsH l"he alltonlatic)fl Df inter-libr"ary 10an throLlgh ·lhe utilities proliferated. Reference d~t2bases cO!ltinue(j to ej:~J2fld in flunlber 2nd size; ttley remained in the hands of the large broker/vendors~ with acceS5 vi a. p2. . cl:E.·i":-·St.....Ii. t.ched nf:?:tl.vOI""k5~ r The techflDl(~gy tlad moved to a largely computerized ellvirOflment, with the empt13sis on ffiairlframe computers a·t ttle begirlning Df the decade, moving to minicOfi!puters by its end. MovefIlent Df physical materiaIs W2S largely by mail, but librar-ians carried out research on telef~csimile use. Over the past few years, the r·ise !~f computing on campLtSes h.2;'.S con"tinu.E·d. ·rhE: pOI,!o..lerful cornptttirlg centE-:-r manages administrative and academic uses Df autc)ffiatioll. Some institutions now have 2 high-r2n~~ing administrator overseeing 211 j_nfoF·matio!, sel-vices, wtlich often includes the library~ Irl a few cases, a librariarl has beerl chosen to t·lold ttli.S post~ Thc most r-sc:erlt technological advanc:e i5 the opticRl/dj,gital disk. The potential VallJe o'f CD-ROI1 is very <:":;Ir-e.::"t for- the ~:::.1::c)r-<J,qE.' o-f ':..r"c:hi va.] m3t_E~ri .:o_J. 5 anel ot.hPl.... ir'-tfC:'l'---iTlc,_tion lrJh.icl·-J dOI:?s (Iut EI.n upcl{:"~.t.<;~.blE;:· rJlsk is t'~.'I::-:Li Lc) I:JE-'~' I...t.pdi::t.tf:::!d freqt.J.f.-::'ntly" th!:? SI .. ',bst.ituti'--:.,n of CO-RUM for orlJ.ine activities is not 25 Val\_10tlle to libr-ar'ians as i t nlight be~ or as tl-ley have bee'-j 1ed to beJ.ieve. T~lere is 2n j,m~Jlicj.t threa·t to cooperation in tho UntiJ ma.elE' r.'.v~?:o_J.lê,.ble, 183 �marketing of the MARC database on disk as a substitute for participation in shared cataloguing activities through a utility. Perhaps a period of disaffiliation from the bibliographic utilities will be followed by a reaffirmation of the need to continue to build and maintain a shared database. As academic administrators consider the outlays for libraries, they increasingly come to the conclusion that it must be possible to stem their growth. The concept of the "steady-state" library is emerging, not only from the state legislatures overseeing public institutions, but from more enlightened university governing bodies. This would mean looking at the library in an entirely new way. No more would the biggest library be the best. The prized rankings; the publicity at adding the milli~nth, 5-millionth, or 10millionth volume to a collection; and the prestige of meeting the criteria for belonging to the Assoeiation of Research Libraries; ali would fade in importance if this concept were changed. An interesting change i~ the environment of late has been a reconceptualization of the term "preservation." Long considered an isolated aetivity, carried out by speeial teehnical staff and devoted mainly to rare books, preservation is increasingly being looked at as an integral part of collection management and aecess. If an item is damaged too badly to be circulated, this denies access to it to the researeher. Careful maintenance of a collection is an intrinsic part of the collection development policy of the institution. Necessary repairs must be made in a timely manner and appropriate techniques used whieh contribute to the lrn,g life of materiais. Replaeement in alternative formats, sueh as microform, may be neeessary. The provision of microform copies in place of originais will depend on the maintenance of archival and printing masters. In 'a society based on waste, U. S. aeademie librarians are learning to preserve and conserve their precious resourees, after realizing they cannot be replaeed. Cooperative aetivities of note in recent years are shared online catalogs, with projects ranging from eonsortia of small colleges to that of the Golorado Alliance of Research Libraries, whose six members make a shared database of their holdings available to ali users at their institutions (Culkin and Shaw, 1985). Cooperative preservation projects are spreading; a recent conference brought together Wiseonsin librarians to discuss a statewide projeet to preserve library resources in the state. With the emphasis on no-growth libraries, mentioned above, the byword is "aecess", rather than "eolleetion." Improvement of document delivery through cooperative projects is the academic librarians' g081 as the eentury draws to a close. The new technology i s the mi er·ecomputel~, or p"Tsonal eomputer. Whether it stands alone, or -- as is inereasingly the case -- is part of a network (albeit invisible) to databases at the institution, at other institutions, at the utilities, or at vendors' sites, the PC is what academie 184 �Some libr2r-ie~; are 1986 S!:lme inlportant 8r'lvirol~mental fac·tors affect the world of ttle ~:',C~':7tCI'-:?fnic libt'-a,t""i(':3.n ir-1 th-=.' Uu ;::o. In :l9l;6" I.A.thile 5I"1a.r-in~:j ê'.nd !:oopcI'-a·tiofl refnairl basic to their value systems, and they hCllej (je~tr- ttle cOflcept o{: fr'eeejom Df irlfor'mati 01"1 , they face a mi:lit0nt in-For"matiorl industry which views information as a comrnodity anc:J ~;ees coopeF"atiofl amoflg libraries~ particuIarly +c)r" tl'-,e s!--,al"'inq o·f, pl"..I.bli~:::.hF~c1 rnatEr-ic\lS~ 8.S ç'.n economic thr~ea·t to ttle ir1(justry~ Despite~ or per-~laps because Df, years oi cooperative activities, 2c:aderJ1ic librar:ians s t i I l fear Iass of autonomy ir'j lal~ge caoper·a·tive ven'lures. I t canr~o·t be denied that ~;UC:t1 verl~u~e~; reqL!ir-~ standardization; the question always ]5: is i't wo~th it'? Another inte~-lib~ary reality is the corl·f:lic:t betweefl ttle (jesire to be the biggest 2nd therefore the best libr'ary, and the ~equirenlent for no-growth which is being imposed by many institutions. ~Io matter" how much y-pSOI.lrce sharing is espoused as being of higl"l valLle, tt1e fact r-elnains that i t places a dispr-opol~tion2te bur-den on the large research libraries. 5clme leve:Ling of t~je load has res,~lted from the automated lnt~?rlibr-2ry loan systems Df [lCLC and RLIN and from the tliel-af'c:hica] networ~~ str'uctures established in many states~ but ttl0 gerlerc:lsity Df ttlese large libraries is ·ta>:ed to the 1.:i ,Tri t 1'·'\-:::'.(,\; r.)-~ t~hE~/"n h.:3.VE:' i mpcrsed c:hi;'l'--gE'~:- ·for thei rSEI·-vices. EY~n if these are only at a cost-recovery level, R (:h8,r-qL:s t'I-lf? f:'.\l'-e Cir-IE'r~c!u~:;:. to ~::,ma.ll invoicir'lQ 2nd Df paying 2 small ~~Dlu.tiC:rn rrn t.h€.::' PI·-obJ.I?;·i CJcc:urr-ir'lç] si irl I'ligher r'etl~el,ctlln~nt r}"t jUSit r The cCrsts Df trivial; the r-E.\f(JCc.ins to be fou.nd" the:' E'cc=,rlDl'nl c: i t"'Dny 0+ ti'la~ i 5 te: libl ·a.ri0?s. bill are not ·tu..::~ti nn i fi educatior~ tIl€.::: moment ~,l"'li2rj a.cademi c and in 1 i bri~f'i p~:. i s library fLlflding t.echnologic2.1 (jev01opnlent is at j.t~~ ~)ea~( 2nd when librariarls are most mc)t~,vatEd to see proje(~ts ttlrougtl to completiofl. We h0pe j-112·t success irl CO(JrJe~2tive aLltomatiorl projects will lead us "("') r--!f?I-.1 ] t?vel~::, 0+ 5r:~:y"'vi,_-~F~ provj ~;iQI""'r '?".nd i::.o t.hf~ percE'pticrn J'j tJr·";=J.r-j,E'~~, as bf5.~ing r'E~'::;pon~;ivE' t.O instit.uticJna.l neE"i''ds 2.nd chC:i.I-lqe~~;? a.~~ wel] i'?'.~':' to tl'''I!:,:? d€'si r-es Df u.SE~r=:,. of ~~. pl'-!3.S~F? Df d{-?~'cE·ni::r~i:3.1i2i~.tiol-iq thE' belie·f 0+ the administr-atiDn is that most 2ctivity o\Jght to be car'r'ied out ti); the private 5ecto~ arld that there 1s s!:lmething intr'insic011y w~orlg with gDve~n/nent'5 providir1g t-~.rl,/ k:lncls:, c. f pl'··C)(ju.r::ts C'i~ se~viC:E-?~; v..thic:h cc-'uld be pr'ovidl-:.?,j by pro- 'i. y,:="t.e i nc-Ju.~~.tl"'Y ~ TI-I i_ ~3 3.tt i tU.dE':' i ~~, bU~-·cJE':ll~;Dm~.:- ·to tho~~r::'· 1,..lJhn str'ongly believe i'-j ~i"o~!'iding s0r-vices to tti0se who fleed 'iht;~ IJ" f.:.~·IPm, i~ in f2der-al ;::)" pf~sent ~·,.rhc.:,i.:.hc:r ar" nc. ,_' ~.:hr:,~y c,:(r, rJ.+fDt-d to are livir1Q in a SDCj~ty wtler-e the r"ich, ~,nf=-I"'oLl~" pCll,'\!el'n TI'''re tTitJst E',l;-I::~:' .o;9"d2"~pt tc! ir"1 thai:: u"niVE\r!::;itif:::~3 er-',vi: 'onm(;"!nt in r.jl'-der- 185 p,;:,,">'-~ 3,nd Lu 1'1DY-.;E:"..j2!'··, consider WllO the sr'I'~vi ~vE taxatiol"j libl"'2\ries~ V€?-. �They will survive; but they will also change. As they do, they will probably pull away from some of the cooperativa activities in which they have been engaged, as they seek to save money through independent use of CD-ROM or other alternatives to sharing databases. The largest research libraries will probably not succomb to this temptation, but will continue to contribute to their shared database building effort. Alternative forms of document delivery wil1 be the result of research efforts at improved digitization and transmission. Perhaps the barriers to international cooperation will be reduced, but current governmental attitudes will continue for some time to hinder international exchanges of information. Preservation activities wil1 increase and will be carried out in a cooperative mode. Growth will be limited, and libraries will learn to live with those limits. Most important, institut~ons of higher education in the United 5tates wil1 more clearly define their mission and goals and in doing so will define the role of the library within the institution. Academic librarians will be leaders in this processo Instead of cooperation between academic librarians proceeding without the explicit understanding of academic administrators, librarians will spearhead interinstitutional cooperation through their modeling of cooperative behavior. A Note on Brazil 's National Plan for University Libraries Trezza (1986) identifies three factors necessary to the SLtCCess of any cooperative plan: o adequate technology o adequate financing o organization to support the project. Brazil 's PNBu has ali three. The likelihood of success of the plan is extremely high. There are some interesting contrasts with what is happening in the U. 5., which I think are worth pointing out. Because of the history of volunteer activity, the U. 5. effort has fallen largely outside the government sector. While from time to time American librarians h.ve askad for help from Washington, again and again they have come down on the side of voluntary association, rather than governmental "intervention." However, the coordination of volunteer efforts is always problematic. Even the hint of loss of autonomy through the efforts of some kind of coordination usually meets with ~istrust. An example cf this is the controversy over the praposed National Periodi.cals Center in 1979. 50 we combine the strengths of cooperation with the weaknesses of "rugged individualismO! The advantage to Brazil of adopting a National Plan •. t this time is that the framers of the Plan have clearly had the advantage of observing what has happened at home and abroad _.- in the U. 5. and in Europe -- and selecting the best aspects for implementation. They have done a wonderful job, 186 �0r1d 2~ the 2ccoJacle~: I:Jf Brazil:iall academi!: libra~ians as Lhose Df tt1ei~ international counterparts. des'~r-ve well twelve guidellnes seem to me to pr-ovide an exc:el.lent withirl which to summarlze the state of cooperation among aC3(jeillic libl~a~·iall~ in the U. Sn l·h~ fr2nlewo~l( Structure. Ger1sral:ly speaking, academic libraries o. have nc) conlmon structure. There is rIo governlnerltal agency which oversees ar coordinates academic libr·ary pr·ograms or policies. Standard practices exist, due to information sharing among librarians, but these are cJptional and orlly ac(:epted at the decision o·f the librarian. in t~le 11. Performance Standards~ There are no such starldards for academic libr-aries in the U. 5. An ACRL Comnlittee 1s developing definitions o·f output meaSLtreS, with the intent to produce a manual w~lic~} will advise librariarls tlOW to collect SLlCh measures. As yet, no plan exists for ~;e·tting acceptable leveIs of performance, 2nd there is great resistance to suggestions that this be done~ The collection of statistics atlout academic lit,raries, which has been an 2ctivity Df the Center for Statistics in the Department of Education, has proven unsatisfactory to most academic librarians. In response, several other organizations have urldertaken statistics projects. Among thenl are the projects of the Association of Research Libraries and of the state libraries. Recently ACRL has begun to pl.ay a role in this area; i t wilI increase its collection and dissemination activities and will attempt to influence the collection Df data at a national level. III. Finances. The notion that the federal government would play any role in assuring the adequacy of financing for academic libraries would be astounding to Amer"ican librarians. Although the ACRL Standards for College Libraries suggest a percentage in institutional budgets for libraries, these standards are only voluntarily honored. Permitting university Iibrarians to manage their research funds is very far from the usual practice in U. 5. institutions; most sue h institutions extract ratt1er large overhead costs from such grants. Help with fundraising would be greatly appreciated by academic libl-arians in the U.5. At ACRL, we have established a Task Force on Fundr-aising and expect to offer" one ar more workshops to help acadefnic librarians successfully raise money from e~ctern21 SOIJrc:es. IV. Human Resollrces. Academic librarians have qreat difficulty in finding money to support staff development. TraveI funds are severely limited at most institl1tions and are gU2rded jealou51y~ Librar·ians frequently pay for thelr own attendance at professional meetings, sEmirlsrs, and cOLtrSeSM They usua]ly pay for their own traveI to suc:t) events. Sometimes they must take vacation time for these activities, rath~r than being allowed release time. Career- ladde~s and lattices, 2 much-needed constrlJct, simply do not exist within academic ins·titutions or their .187 �libraries. And professional library education is a bone Df eontention, with total laek Df agreement as to what should be taught. The laek Df research leading to the improvement Df praetiee is.legendary. ACRL's national eonferences are designed to eneourage researeh by librarians, but they oeeur only every three years and attraet papers whieh are far more praetieal than theoretieal. V. Physieal Resourees. Only voluntary assoeiations, notably the Library Administration and Management Assoeiation, a division of ALA, eoneern themselves with library buildings and faeilities. Although the Ameriean National Standards Institute (ANSI) has established some standards, sueh as those for barrier-free aeeess, they are voluntary in nature, and do not h.ve to be observed. In the absenee of mandatory standards, and although there are many beautiful buildings, the librarian typieally faces eonfliet with the arehiteet over funetionality vs. beauty, and usually loses the battle when the administrator m.kes the decision. VI. Colleetion Development. The standards for aeademie library eolleetions are those developed by ACRL, and these are purely voluntary. Books for College Libraries (third edition now in preparation) is another voluntary tool for libraries to use in eolleetion development, as is Choiee magazine. These are ali ACRL projeets. The Referenee and Technieal Serviees Division of ALA publishes Guidelines for Colleetion Development, again on a voluntary basis. Use studies in aeademie libraries are not commen. The Office Df Management Studies of the ARL has helped many academie librarians to earry out self-study programs; these programs are voluntary and libraries pay to partieipate. VII. Cooperative Aequisitions. Voluntary proJeets have been deseribed in the body of this paper. Those Df CARL in Colorado and the Researeh Triangle in North Carolina are noteworthy (Byrd, 1985). Steps in this direetion have been give" impetus by the RLG Censpeetus ProJeet, ARL's enhaneement of that projeet, and by the Center for Researeh Libraries. Funding from the Council on Library Resourees has helped move these efforts alongo VIII. Standards. Largely beeause Df the existence of the National lnformation Standards Organization (NISO), there are a few impertant standards in effeet in the U. S. Df eourse, we have been using the MARC communieations format, the AACR2, and standard interlibrary loan forms. AACR2 was developed by voluntary association among the library assoeiations Df three countries, and ILL forms were also an ALA-developed standard. Only MARC had government involvement, and even that was the werk Df a greup whieh included both LC and non-LC people. IX. Library Automation. Again, it was voluntary eooperation whieh lea to the aevelopment of the large databases and teleeommunieation systems used in the exehange of bibliographic data by academie libraries in the US, sueh as OCLC and RLIN. Centers providing information about automation, training, and assistanee exist as regional or 188 �statewide " ne two,.-ks. ENarnples are AI"IIGOS, a cooperative in the Southwestern part Df the US; SCR, the Sibliographical Center for Research, in the West; NELINET, the New England Library Network. There are 19 such organizations in the U. S. 1I X. User Services. This is an area almost totally undeveloped in the U. S., as far as cooperative activities are concerned. The ACRL Performance MeaslJres Committee will include some kind of referenee measures in their manual, but we will still be far from the kind Df standardization which Brazil is planning. ACRL also has cooperative activities in bibliographic instruction, which its members share. lhe LOEX Clearinghouse, located at the Eastern Michigan University, is a natioflal exchange for the collection, organization and dissemination of libr-ary inst,.-uction materiaIs and data in sehoal, special, public and academic libraries. It i5 paid for by annuai in5titutional and personal membership subscriptions. XI. In'Form2'ttion Services. Online reference data,base searching at academic libraries in the U. S. has been on the increase, tJut the problem of firlancing searches tIas been a serious one~ Wishing to provide free access to information for users, some librar'ians would pr-efer- not to use online saurces rather than to charge fees. The absorbing Df online search fees into the acquisitions bL(dget is not always an o~tion for library adn~inist"-ators. Group contracts with vendors tlave reduced the costs somewhat, arld tectlnical assistance is frequently available from vendors Dr networks, but this is the only leve] at wtlich cooperation has been used. XII. Cooperative ActivitiesM By 2nd large, groups which plan cooperatj,ve progran\s are sellsitive to the need to include acadelnic librarians, and e}~clusion Df academic librar'iarlS fr'om cooper'ative endeavors has not c2Llsed problenl5 in the U. <:C'. Conclu,sion In sum, tlle Inajor diffe~ence between 2cademic lib~2~y cooper'ation in the U. On 211d ill 81-azil seems to be ttlat yourfleigllbors to the no~th have relied on VOIU!ltary (2nd sometimes hapha2a~d) effol~ts, wllile 8raziJ, has adopted 2 centralized approach which holds much prDmise~ The elements of cooper-ation are pl~'eserlt in both gr-oups 21'ld coincide almost completely. Please accept my cong~atulations on yOLlr fine work and my that your future will be coopel-ative! hope 189 �BIBLIOGRAPHV Baker, John P. 1986. Conservation and Preservation of Library Materiais. ALA World Eneyelopedia of Library and Information Serviees. 2d ed. Chicago: Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 19~6. p. 219-223. Byrd, Gary O.; Oavis, Jennie V.; Gosling, William A.; and Herman, L. Russell, Jr. 1985. The EvolLltion of a Cooperative Online Ne'twork. Library Journal. 110(2): 71-77. Culkin, Patricia and Shaw, Ward. Journal. 110(2): 68-70. 1985. The CARL System. Oaval, Nieola. 1986. Assoeiation of Researeh Libraries. Eneyelopedia of Library and Infor-mation Serviees. 2d ed. Chicago: Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 67-72. Library ALA World OeToequeville, Alexis. 1981. Oemoeraey in Ameriea, ed. by Thomas Bender et ai. NV: Random House, 1981. (Modern Library College Edition.) Lynden, Frederiek C. 1986. Colleetion Management. ALA Vearbook of Library and Information Serviees, 1986. Chicago: Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 118-125. Moran, Barbara B. 1984. Aeademie Libraries; The Changing Knowledge Centers of Colleges and Universities. Washington, OC: Assoeiation for the Study of Higher Edueatiion, 1984. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Edueatiion ~eseareh Report no. 8) Mosher, Paul H. 1986. Aeademie libraries -- Colleetions. ALA World Eneyelopedia of Library and Information Serviees. 2d ed. Chicago: Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 12-15. Reynolds, Oennis. 1985. Library Automation. NV: Bowker, 1985. Segal, JoAn S. 1985. Networking and Oeeentralization. Annual Review of Informatioin Seienee and Teehnology (ARIST), 20: 203-2311985. Sloan, Elaine. 1986.' Aeademie Libraries -- Library Cooperation. ALA World Eneyelopedia of Library and Information Serviees. 2d ed. Chicago: Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 20-23 Smith, Maleolm. 1986. Resource Sharing. ALA World Encyclopedia of Library and Information Services. 2d ed. Chicago: Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 704-707. Stone, Elizabeth W. 1986. Library Edueatiion: Continuing Profps~ionAl Edueatiion. ALA World Encyelopedia of Library and Information Services. 2d ed. Chicago: American Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 476-484. Trezza, Alphonse F. 1986. Library Coopera,tive Systems. ALA World Eneyelopedia of Library and Information Services. 2d ed. Chieagol Ameriean Library Assoeiation, 1986. p. 472-475. 190 �Wagman, Frederick H. 1986. Clapp, Verner W. ALA Wcrld Encyclopedia of Library and Information Services. 2d ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1986. p. 197-199. Wiegand, Wayne A. 1986. United States. ALA Wcrld Encyclopedia of Library and Information Services. 2d ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1986. p. 830-838. 191 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource SNBU - Edição: 05 - Ano: 1987 (UFRGS - Porto Alegre/RS) Subject The topic of the resource Biblioteconomia Documentação Ciência da Informação Bibliotecas Universitárias Description An account of the resource Tema: Plano Nacional de Bibliotecas Universitárias. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource SNBU - Seminário Nacional de Bibliotecas Universitárias Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available UFRGS Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 Language A language of the resource Português Type The nature or genre of the resource Evento Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul) Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Networking and cooperation among academic libraries in the United States. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Segal, Jona S Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available UFRGS Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987 Type The nature or genre of the resource Evento Description An account of the resource Apresenta uma comparação sobre o engajamento das Bibliotecas Universitárias americanas, mencionando a associação voluntária dos bibliotecários às Associações como ALA. Medical Library Association, American Association of Law Libraries e outras, com as bibliotecas e biblitoecários nop Brasil. Conclui que a principal diferença entre a cooperação entre bibliotecas acadêmicas nos EUA e no Brasil parece ser que seus vizinhos do norte confiaram em esforços voluntários (e às vezes aleatórios), enquanto o Brasil adotou uma abordagem centralizada que parece muito promissora. Os elementos de cooperação estão presentes em ambos os grupos e coincidem quase completamente. Language A language of the resource en snbu1987