forum at ala annual
The forum Strategic Future of Print Collections attracted over 300 librarians. The forum was sponsored by the Preservation and Reformatting sub group and the Rare Books and Manuscripts sub group of the American Library Association. The program featured three presentations offering three perspectives on print delivery in a context of digital technologies.
Walt Crawford, commentator on role of libraries in society, offered an overview of the current dynamic use of print and screen resources in research libraries. He suggested that libraries promote “inclusionary” or “multiplatform” reading that combines use of print and screen resources. He also projects such interplay into the future; “We don’t know how interdependence (of print and screen) will play out – but can guess that all-digital is an inherently unlikely future except as an ideological assertion.”
Shannon Zachary, preservation librarian at the University of Michigan, described the intensive interaction of print and screen resources caused by Google Print reformatting. This processing has features of selection and de-selection that indicate a continuing role for print in a context of digital delivery. While Google reformatting of print books exponentially improves access there is more conflicted appraisal of the preservation implications. As with microfilm conversion, digital conversion progresses in context with a continuing role for print.
Doug Nishimura, senior researcher at IPI, continued a theme of interplay between print and digital technologies. He discussed how print on demand books enabled by digital sources and electrostatic printing promises to project the role of print far into the future. Research at the Image Permanence Institute is assessing the digital printing technologies and evolving diagnostic tools for performance and permanence of print on demand books.
The program proved very cohesive and conveyed a consensus across the wide perspectives presented. This consensus was that there is a digital future for print in libraries collections as screen access, digital book manufacturing technologies and print reading all invigorate the future of books.
library conservation/preservation training
Resources for library conservation training are regrouping in the aftermath of the Kilgarlin Center training program. In one response the Delaware conservation program will team up with Simmons library school but there is a mood against embedding the program in a library school and that indicates that the degree or certificate may be from Delaware. The shift from a library school hosting not only reflects the death star experiences at Columbia and UT, but also reflects a shift from LIS focus in the current retooling of preservation.
What is disconcerting here is not a shift from LIS focus but a return to a museum training paradigm. Modern library and archive training began as a mimic of art conservation. Another syndrome preserved here is the simple binary of bench and administration training. A whole new sector of practice, driven by digital preservation and oversight services for digital reformatting, is now wedged in between bench and administration components.
predicting the past
College and University faculty enthusiasm for digital research and screen based learning continues to grow. This is well elaborated in surveys conducted by ITHAKA S+R. These results were presented again at an ALCTS Forum.
The analysis of the surveys certainly has predictive capacity but the researchers should glance not only at the future, but should also extend their trend lines to the past. Doing so they could see that their trend lines are zero based; it was not that long ago that there was no digital research or screen based learning. The data is looking at growth rate, such as the growth rate of e-books, but not looking necessarily at the destiny of print and screen resources in libraries.
I mentioned this in the discussion period and suggested that the trend lines could as well suggest an emergent interdependence between print and screen. The report author said that the data do not indicate any such interdependence. How true; they never asked that question.