Today's "Room for Debate" continues the discussion with "The Library, Through Students’ Eyes
One student wrote "Books are very expensive and schools could put that money toward many other investments such as charities, fund raisers, proms, etc." This chestnut probably requires little comment, although one is left wondering about this student's concept of schooling in general. The same student went on to state that "Students, such as [the writer] do use the Internet for nearly every assignment because of online encyclopedias/databases, online texts, blogs and other Web sites and search engines." Another extolled the currency of the electronic, stating that "Online research ... typically yields more up-to-date and accurate information than books," contrasting books with "online journal databases, JSTOR, etc., [which] are invaluable."
As a librarian in a library catering to scholarly researchers, I have a perspective that some of these students might lack. First of all, my researchers use both electronic and traditional print resources extensively. For example, about 19% of my book collection circulates annually, and interlibrary borrowing of books adds an effective 10% on top of that -- that's heavy usage. My online journals aren't accessed nearly as often (and aren't expected to be). Serious scholars continue to rely on books to a very significant degree. Perhaps surprisingly, many of the books my researchers use are comparatively old, too, although they're also interested in my new books.
Second, books aren't library budget busters. My annual book acquisition budget is far, far lower than my electronic journal and database budget. Any one of our more extensive online journal services and commercial databases (e.g., Academic OneFile, LexisNexis, SCOPUS) cost more than my entire book budget. And yes, those services, too, come from the library and its budget; they're not the product of the school administration waving a magic wand. Where the old library only acquired paper books and journals, the contemporary libary needs to do not only that, but subscribe to a host of expensive electronic resoruces.
Third, some of these students' comments undermine their own arguments. For instance, one cited JSTOR as an example of an up-to-date resource ... and I've heard the very same assumption from many of my own library's patrons. Wrong! JSTOR is a wonderful resource, but it is archival and not current. Nor is it meant to be; for most journals covered by JSTOR, there's a five year moratorium; for almost all of the rest it's a three year moratorium. Even many of the journals covered by more current journal services, such as Academic OneFile and Academic Search Premier, are embargoed for several months or even a year. Woe to the researchers who assume that by searching JSTOR or other online services that they've located the current literature on a topic!
Moreover, some of these students' comments echo a common failing which most librarians (and faculty) must confront: students have great difficulty separating quality research material from the chaff freely available on the Internet. A simple question illustrates the problem: which source is more trustworthy and presents material which is more effectively vetted: a blog written by an unknown writer (such as me!) or a book or journal published by a major academic press? There is an enormous literature on this topic, but it all comes done to a single point: most students cannot effectively separate the wheat from the chaff on the Internet, and by relying on it instead of more traditional information sources make their research weaker, not stronger.
Lurking behind this entire debate is the issue of funding, and the frequent desire of administrators to pare back their budgets. Libraries look like easy targets, but the reality is that the advent of electronic resources is the principal engine driving up library costs, not books. Libraries need both if they are to serve the information needs of their patrons, and administrators ill serve their researchers by trying to skimp.
