http://www5.oclc.org/downloads/community/2004infotrends_content.pdf
The link to the 12 page report is above and there are a few parts I will paste below to make comments and hope others have comments too.
In the 18 months since we wrote the previous Format report, the rapid “unbundling” of content from traditional containers such as books, journals and CDs has had a significant impact on the self- search/find/obtain process. Digital content is often syndicated instead of being prepackaged and distributed, and access is provided on an as-needed basis to the information consumer by providers outside the library space.
The paragraph above from page 1 of the report provides a summary of what the report writers see as a trend. As a library student, I wonder how this trend is playing out in libraries with their collection development policies and practices. One area I've been exposed to that seems to relate to this trend where content is no longer solely found in books and other print formats is in the government documents area. The U.S. Government is the largest producer of information and historically has provided the information they generate to libraries around the country that are designated as depository libraries (http://www.fdlp.gov/). These depository libraries maintain the print collection and provide access to this collection to anyone who has a need for government published information. Increasingly, government publications are no longer offered in print formats and are being born as digital documents. Why? Cost and access. Thus, the implication of this trend is that any library can offer a government documents collection without participating in the formal depository library program. In addition, patrons can access the information when they need it and anywhere they are, thus eliminating the need to visit the library physically. Rather, they can access the library resources remotely in order to view the links to the government information.
On a similar note, the Gov Docs librarian mentioned above has stopped the print copies of most items that are also available in digital formats. The cost of maintaining a large print collection is high and access is limited as compared to the cost and access to the same items digitally.
The report also cites trends where libraries are collecting more electronic journals over traditional print journals and similar trends with books. I wonder how much trouble a library will have in the future when it attempts to justify its existence to those who need to see a large physical collection in order to feel a library is worth the investment. It seems that libraries will be reinventing themselves in order to remain relevant and also reinventing how they measure success. The challenge may lie in how they communicate these changes to the communities they serve.
Page 13 in the report mentions how the role of libraries may be changing. I've copied that section below.
Historically, libraries have been the unparalleled collectors of content, and for many reasons: their mandate to protect collections that reflect local communities; the necessity of a single place to find and obtain information; and because, frankly, no one did it better. Today, however, none of these statements is exclusively true. The “just-in-case” community collection is no longer adequate and consumers of content expect a great deal more personalization and dynamism in their content experiences.
Library content was, and still is, the gold standard: the best content money can buy on behalf of an identifiable audience. But it is no longer enough to present a warehouse of content and expect community members to create their own personalized meaningful context, post hoc, out of the raw materials. Others in the content market have read the oracle’s tea leaves and so provide syndicated and scoped content with personalization features that make perhaps inferior content very attractive to an ever more demanding, format-agnostic information producer and consumer.
What seems clear is that libraries should move beyond the role of collector and organizer of content, print and digital, to one that establishes the authenticity and provenance of content and provides the imprimatur of quality in an information- rich but context-poor world. The challenge is how to do this. The best way to adapt is to understand what’s forcing the change.
Research suggests that end users see the most important role for their libraries as making content available in the user’s digital workspace, regardless of what devices are in that space. The networked ambient environment will support “tasks...on the appropriate computing devices and will be available anywhere, anytime. The sources of information and tools will be abstracted, much as the power plants that provide electricity and the reservoirs that provide water are invisible to the consumer. Web Services, XML and WiFi and other such technologies form the foundation for this virtualized environment. While it is not yet clear how this marriage of technology and content will play out, it is clear that those that have not moved to XML and Web Services will be locked out of a key channel of distribution. XML and Web Services are not options—they are imperative.”
The “library’s role as archive or steward of information goods is being transformed as a collaborator and, potentially, a catalyst within interest-based communities.” We are at a crossroads. Technology and culture have come together to foster a transformation in the world of content. This new world is abundant and unstructured, but contextual mechanisms for navigating and synthesizing the information commons are scarce, even in—perhaps especially in—libraries. “We are drowning in information but are starving for knowledge. Information is only useful when it can be located and synthesized into knowledge.”
My last comment deals with the interesting aspect of looking at a 2004 report in order to see if the predictions come true. In this respect, reading a 6 year old report can be a worthwhile experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment