The origins of the Distributed National Collection can be traced to a meeting of the Australian Humanities Research Council held on 4 November 1965. While the idea was refined at the 1988 Libraries Summit, in many respects there has been little conceptual development over the past three decades. There remains a fixation with print materials and with self-sufficiency, if not within institutions, then certainly at a national level. The continuing focus on print collections indicates a reluctance to grapple with the more substantial issue - how can we ensure that the problems of print publications are not duplicated or magnified in the new environment of digital and networked information?
When it met in 1965 for its tenth annual general meeting, the Australian Humanities Research Council discussed the rationalisation of library resources in Australia. Papers were read by Noel Stockdale, Librarian of Flinders University, and J. J. Graneek, Librarian of the Australian National University. The symposium was held at a time when higher education was experiencing unprecedented growth and this was reflected in the development of library collections. Indeed, over the preceding decade, library collections in universities had doubled. During the same period, the number of academic staff increased by 114% and the number of higher degree students rose by more than 200%. As Stockdale observed, the growth in demand cancelled improvements in library collections and required rationalisation within, as well as between, libraries and universities.
Three decades after the Humanities Research Council meeting, the discussion continues at a time when Australian higher education is faced with increased student demand, reduced government funding relative to total income and demands for greater public accountability. Not only is more knowledge produced but improved means of identifying its existence places greater pressure on scholars to access it. Knowledge, its ownership, access and use have become international commodities which affect the way in which libraries operate and the ways in which research is undertaken and evaluated.
Traditionally, academic institutions expected their library collections to meet all but the most esoteric information needs of their staff and students. While this may have been valid for course work purposes, rarely has it been true for research. Certainly during the past half century, academic libraries have experienced increasing difficulty maintaining their collections and supporting institutional research. Not only has there been an increase in the amount of material published but the cost of many serial titles has grown at a rate which makes little sense even in the most rampant market economy.
The cost of subscriptions to most journals in the science, technology and medical disciplines have tended to rise at rates greater than the cost of other commodities and certainly well above the supplementation of library budgets. An extreme example has been Tetrahedron Letters the subscription to which has increased by more than 3,000% over the two decades since 1974. There is at least one journal, Surface Science, which costs in excess of US$10,000 and others will doubtlessly emerge.
The scholarly publications marketplace is unlike most other areas of the economy. There is often little connection between either the cost of a journal, or the value of the information it contains or the real publication costs. Most of the expensive titles are purchased almost exclusively by organisations and libraries rather than by personal subscribers. When serial budgets come under strain, libraries often target the most expensive subscriptions for cancellation. The effect is frequently a further rise in subscription costs as publishers seek to maintain their income albeit from a smaller customer basis.
The situation is unlikely to be ameliorated by the adoption of electronic publishing. While ever the same companies control the publishing process, they will attempt to maintain their profitability. The situation is worsened by an academic tradition which seemingly values quantity of publication as a major criteria for career advancement. This encourages the proliferation of publications, some of which are of dubious quality, and increases pressure on libraries to acquire them. In such an environment, libraries have found it difficult to meet the expectations of many researchers within their institutions.
Only radical change is likely to alter the situation. While librarians can, and should, be part of the change process, the main impetuous must be taken by the academic community. The process must include a total re-evaluation of issues such as the ways in which knowledge is valued and recorded, the criteria used to assess the performance of academic staff, the role and function of libraries, and the implications which the Internet has for internationalising the scholarly communication process.
The basic print-related components of the Distributed National Collection are in place. Australia has a national bibliographic facility and interlibrary loan system which enable print materials to be located and accessed. Various reciprocal borrowing schemes exist, there is increasing collaboration on the purchase of expensive items and several joint ventures exist for the storage of collections.
What has not been achieved is the rationalisation of collections so as to ensure that at least one copy of all relevant publications is located in an Australian library. This goal is antiquated and uncritical in that it assumes that all publications are worth keeping. Fortunately, the National Library of Australia was never expected to collect on the scale of the Library of Congress or the British Library. Both these organisations are now beleaguered with enormous problems associated with preservation and access, and are having to reduce their activities due to financial restrictions.
As J. J. Graneek observed in 1965:
To state, as I have heard it stated, that we can by rationalisation achieve, in ten years, national self-sufficiency in terms of book resources and become quite independent of libraries overseas is arrant and dangerous nonsense. Even it were possible I doubt if it would be desirable. There is, of course, a minimum standard of book provision which is necessary before any research can be undertaken, but it would be a mixed blessing for Australian scholarship if we aimed at such a degree of exhaustiveness as to make it unnecessary for individual scholars to visit libraries and research centres overseas.
The concept of all-encompassing library collections has persisted and is at the core of the current misguided criticism of the National Library of Australia. There lurks in the psyche of most academics a vision of a library which contains everything they currently need, may have needed in the past and will need in the future. At an individual level, this dream may be achievable if the field of research inquiry is highly specialised. It is neither an achievable nor perhaps a desirable aspiration for a university which has wide-ranging research interests. Increasingly, research in most disciplines requires access to collections and resources located locally, elsewhere within Australia and throughout the world.
Unless this interdependence is recognised, there will be a continuing tendency for Australian academic libraries to develop collections and services which seek self-sufficiency yet fail to achieve it. They will continue to spread their resources thinly in an attempt to please everyone yet fail to satisfy any but the most superficial enquirer. All universities have an obligation to meet the majority of the information requirements of their course work students. If an institution is unable to provide this level of support, its continued existence will be precarious especially in an environment which is increasingly market driven.
The satisfaction of research requirements is the most difficult part of the equation. Thirty years ago, Noel Stockdale called on the academic community to be realistic and recognise that some research cannot be pursued satisfactorily in Australia. Although many universities have begun to concentrate research effort, there persists an expectation that individuals have a right to receive institutional support in order to pursue topics which are of personal interest. University libraries throughout the world contain piecemeal collections gathered to support individuals and left as memorials more to their intended endeavour than to their actual achievements.
It is doubtful whether universities can continue to support this kind of investment. Conversely, what will be the effect if libraries cease to speculate on the future need for knowledge? Research libraries are in the difficult situation of having to satisfy both immediate and long-term needs. They operate, however, within a financial milieu influenced by the rising cost and volume of scholarly information. These difficulties are compounded by the inappropriate duplication of teaching and research programmes and by the pursuit of research activities which cannot be supported easily.
Since the 1965 symposium, there have been considerable changes in scholarly communication, in the relationships between universities and in the funding of higher education. Competition between institutions has increased partly as a consequence of the establishment of the Unified National System but also due to the greater influence of market forces on enrolments and research.
Increasingly, universities are forced to take account of the financial return from their activities. This affects the type of courses offered and the research activities undertaken. The possibility of profit can lead to the proliferation of similar activities with the attendant duplication of library resources. In many universities, elective subjects continue to relate to the research interests of individual academic staff. This leads to demands for the development of library collections which often cease to be utilised once the staff member adopts new research interests or leaves the institution.
Government initiatives to provide collaborative funding for research and infrastructure have not been outstandingly successful in reducing duplication. The need to submit funding applications in collaboration with other institutions is easily satisfied and there appears to be active trading in nominal support and silent partnerships. While there is much worthwhile collaborative activity, when all cards are on the table, most universities would prefer unilateral rather than collaborative action.
Offsetting this is the emerging trend for Australian universities to seek international partners. This allows them to collaborate yet maintain their competitiveness in the domestic market. Several libraries have developed strategic alliances with overseas partners to increase access to collections and services. Alliances which are in place, or in the process of development, include those between the Australian National University and other universities collecting material relating to the Pacific Rim, and Griffith University which has an alliance with Stanford University for document delivery.
These initiatives are laudatory but they remain piecemeal in terms of improving access to information by the entire Australian scholarly community. The questions which remain unanswered are:
In considering responses to these questions, we may need to cast aside conventional concepts of libraries, universities and scholars. As a consequence of the Joint Funding Councils' Libraries Review, considerable attention has been given to such issues in the United Kingdom. North American organisations such as EDUCOM and the Coalition for Networked Information are also reviewing options.
With the exception of the ill-fated House of Representatives Standing Committee for Long Term Strategies, there has been little national government attention given to the issues in Australia. Round tables hosted by the National Scholarly Communications Forum have failed to attract major decision-makers and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee has been occupied more with the present survival of higher education than its long-term future.
Coordinated national attention needs to be devoted to ensuring that the limitations of the print environment are not duplicated as more scholarly communication occurs electronically. The National Library of Australia has been thwarted in its initial attempt to redevelop the national bibliographic network. Although it has recommenced the project, there is a real possibility that changes in technology and in the information marketplace will supersede the solution adopted.
In 1993, the Council of University Librarians developed an Australian Scholarly Information Strategy to promote the coordinated development of a national infrastructure which would provide access to databases, promote electronic publishing and encourage the creation of facilities, such as directories and standards, which would facilitate access to scholarly information. The strategy was supported by the Department of Employment, Education and Training through the National Priority (Reserve) Fund and has been administered by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee through its Standing Committee on Information Resources.
CAUL was prompted by the activities of the Joint Information Systems Committee in the United Kingdom which has had substantial government support for national solutions including digital library projects. Since its establishment, JISC has sponsored studies on the development of a national information strategy for the United Kingdom.
In 1996, the Council of Australian University Librarians and the National Library of Australia published a short paper outlining issues for the development of an Australian scholarly information infrastructure. This document complemented an issues paper published by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee on the technical infrastructure. Neither paper had great effect in prompting decision-making.
The concepts, however, were reconsidered in February 1997 by university librarians and directors of information technology from universities in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. This meeting identified the importance of a national information infrastructure which addresses both technical and content issues. While not discounting the continued use of print publishing and the value of historical library collections, the meeting concentrated on electronic publication and the use of networks as the most likely dominant publishing mechanism in the future.
Issues which will be important to scholarly communication in the future include:
There are a number of planning issues which need to be considered in relation to the development of a national scholarly information infrastructure:
In the United Kingdom, significant funding has been provided centrally to develop the national infrastructure. While there has been some central funding provided in Australia through the National Priority (Reserve) Fund and the Australian Research Council, it has not been coherent. With the abolition of the National Priority (Reserve) Fund, the Government has signalled that future activities will need to be funded collaboratively. Given that in 1995, Australian universities spent over $120 million on the purchase of information resources, this attitude is perhaps not without logic.
It will be difficult, however, to convince all stakeholders of the importance of having a national strategy. Even more difficult will be attaining their agreement to commit funding. Many will argue that expenditure on libraries and education is already insufficient to meet recurrent needs without diverting funds to future projects. Others will see opportunities to gain institutional advantage by preventing national action.
Politics aside, Australia is in danger of becoming a third-world nation in the information stakes. As a nation we have an opportunity now to act decisively to plan for the future. Failure to do so will leave us mendicants to the international information monopolists. We need to put aside the time-wasting discussion of issues such as the Distributed National Collection and library collection policies and totally re-assess the scholarly process including what information services and facilities Australian scholars will need in the future.
It is likely that the future will be best served by coordinated action which is funded centrally, recognises national priorities and strategies and involves all key stakeholders. The success of the Joint Information Systems Committee in the United Kingdom proves the benefits of central funding. The difficulty will be attaining such funding in Australia.
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee is unlikely to agree to a top-slicing of institutional grants as it would affect their autonomy. Voluntary contributions to a development fund would be possible but would require an astute and persuasive champion. The process is likely to become mired in a bogland of discussion and dispute over details such as how contributions are determined and the processes of decision-making.
There may be some opportunity for additional government funding but this is unlikely in the current climate which appears more focussed on reducing government involvement in social issues. The most probable source of funds will be an existing mechanism such as the Australian Research Council perhaps in conjunction with agencies in other federal government departments.
Whatever funding mechanism is adopted, it will not obviate the need for a clear national strategy which deals with technical as well as content issues and is focussed on meeting the needs of scholars. To develop the strategy, a national body will be essential. It must be comprised of the widest possible membership which should include at least university administrators, scholars, librarians, information technologists and representatives of the community and industry.
Presented by John Shipp, University of Wollongong, at National Scholarly Communications Forum - Round Table No7 - The Distributed National Collection on 17 July 1997.