Provost Forum: Karen Hanson's Remarks Could we begin to draw ...

awfulcorrieΤεχνίτη Νοημοσύνη και Ρομποτική

29 Οκτ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

299 εμφανίσεις

Provost Forum: Karen Hanson’s Remarks

Could we begin to draw people down to the discussion? I don’t know if people are still arriving, but we
don’t want
to
lose too much time here, and people have to come and go for a variety of reasons, so,
might be good for us to start close to on time.

I wan
ted to thank you all for coming.

I think this is a very encouraging turnout. We need to have a
d
iscussion on the c
ampus about the future of scholarly communication and the future of the Libraries,
both things at the core of our enterprise, and the faculty have to be deeply involved in this, and there
has to be an exchange of information between faculty members from di
fferent disciplines and the
faculty and the faculty librarians, and this is the start of what I hope will be continuing conversations of
which I won’t be a part, but you’ll continue.

I met with Brenda this summer on the usual year
-
end meetings that I hav
e with the deans of the
campus, and we began to think it would be nice to have a discussion of this sort that

draws in a variety
of people. I
had
also come from a meeting in Washington with other provosts, assisted by a group
called T
he Advisory Board. T
he slides you’re going to see in the short introduction I’m giving here are
from this group, it’s a consulting group called The Advisory Board. They are essentially a kind of think
tank that works both for health care organizations but also for academia,
and this was one of the issues
that the provosts had put on their agenda, and I think they came back with an interesting report, and so
I wanted to share it with some of you, whatever faculty would be available. And, actually, I’d
want

to
say at the outse
t that if anyone
wants these slides at the end, I’ll be happy to send them around. Some
of them
are going to be
a little diffic
ult to read from where you are, but
they have information on them
that might be worth your time if you get them in an e
-
mail att
achment.

So, let me just start
,

then. The first one
was
the

part I thought
would be

the most memorable: the four
horsemen of the library
apoca
lypse,

g
et your attention at the outset.
W
e’ll talk about some of the
things that are important for the
changes

we’re seeing in libraries

and in scholarly communication, and
then hint at some things about how collections and services might change in the future, but again, I will
whip through this ve
ry quickly so that we can move

to Brenda and to the faculty panel.

The fact that there are these

changes taking place as seen by library professionals themselves, that’s
one of the things
that
I want to say at the outset,
this isn’t the digital people against the librarians, it’s
coming from a sense that the mission of th
e libraries and the role of

librarians

is changing as our
technological capabilities are chang
ing. These are quotes that come from library professionals, a
professional organization, making

a number of

provocative statements that “patrons are going
elsewh
ere for information.” Very provocative statement: “There’s no need for traditional librarians.”
There’s certainly a need for librarians, but that what librarians do is changing, and
that
the library itself
is becoming a space for more than just books.
Some of the problems we’re facing are fiscal problems,
and if the immediate response of an institution is to think, “well, what we’ll do is just put more
resources in the direction of,

say, journal acquisitions, or building our collections so that we can s
tay on
top of the increasing prices,” one of the things
that the survey und
ertaken by the consulting group

suggested is that no matter what, the changes we’re seeing are going to be fiscally unmanageable even
for the deepest pockets, as they put it, and th
ey used the example of Harvard, and we all think of
Harvard as having an extraordinary library system and devotion to libraries, but the library task force
report from Harvard in 2009 said “Harvard Libraries can no longer harbor delusions of being complete
ly
comprehensive collections.” Instead, they have to develop their holdings strategically, and in particular,
there may be a need for a different mindset, that it’s not necessarily ownership of scholarly materials,
but access to scholarly materials that’s

truly important for people. Nonetheless, that may seem a small
matter, but it makes a difference in how we think about libraries and the role some library organizations
play in thinking about quality in libraries, and faculty have to define what it means

for them to have
appropriate access.

These are the four horsemen, and if nothing else, I want you to remember this, as we always say in
classes. We are facing unsustainable costs. There are now viable alternatives for collections or modes
of access, o
r there soon will be. There is declining usage of the traditional sorts in libraries
,

and patrons
are making new demands. Some demands are fading away and new demands are surfacing for the
libraries.

First, unsustainable costs.
Again, this may be too
small for many of you to read, but you can see one line
going way up and the other one staying sort of steady. The steady line is monograph expenditures over
time from 1986 to 2008, and it’s roughly, with inflation, maybe even a little less. But what’s r
eally gone
up is the annual growth rate in the costs of serials. The other costs that are relevant here, you can see
things going down for libraries in salaries, in operating costs, in monograph expenditures, but going way
up in serials, that’s what the b
ar graph is indicating. So why are journals’ costs rising so quickly? You’ll
have different accounts if you’re talking to the publishers or if you’re talking to the librarians. Librarians

are concerned about the prices;

think many of the publishers are
scoundrels or have predatory pricing.
They may be facing bargaining that is different from the bargaining they’ve done in the past.

They think,
often, that serial costs could

be lower but publishers may be
-

kind of a last ditch effort to raise as much
m
oney as they can, though they know the models for serials will be changing. And there is a worry that
all of our institutions have, I mentioned this yesterday at faculty council,
tha
t we are the producers of
the material that goes into the journals, we ar
e

often

the referees, we are
the editorial board
s
, and then
we buy the stuff back. I mean, we’re paying for it over and over and over again.

On the other hand, now I remind you that we are also an institution that has a wonderful press, and in
many
fields we take the scholarly monograph as the coin of the realm for a marker of quality and for
research productivity. And publishers see a crisis here too, but they think we need to find new models
of funding. In some ways, some of their costs have gone

down, but they are not sure what the
acceptable model will be for scholarly communication in the future. So they’re facing a kind of crisis,
too, and I think no university press

right now
, well, maybe the exception of Oxford and Cambridge, are
exempt fro
m the
pressures that
university presses are feeling because of the other changes in publishing
and
consumption.

So, the scale of other alternatives to the traditional collections is a huge scale difference. This thing
presents Google as a library to end

all libraries. There are all kinds of problems now, and of course we
know Google is

involved

in a lawsuit that hasn’t been settled and
now
we’ve been drawn into another
lawsuit ourselves because of our connection to Google’s digitizing, but there are via
ble alternatives on
the horizons for coll
ections, and one way or another

this is

going to happen
, and if you


this bar graph, I
think, is extraordinary if you see how many volumes are held by sort of a middle
-
level doctoral
institution compared to e
-
book
titles out there, amazon.com available titles, and Google titles. It’s just
extraordinary, and if you think of those, again, in terms of new ways of thinking about collections, you
begin to see that the model is changing rapidly, whether or not we’re cont
rolling it.

This is a telling slide as well. The co
-
founder of Google, Larry Page, is a
University of
Michigan alum
, and
he went back and asked them how long it would take to digitize, to scan, to have digital copies of the
entire University of Michigan h
oldings, and
they estimated



the librarians estimated it would be about a
thousand years
. He said he thought he could do it in six, and they did do it in six. They have a plan to
digitize every volume, every book ever written. That’s sort of an unoffic
ial plan, but it is the plan. About
130 million books, by last count. Now, many people of course included the little boxed statement about
the devil’s bargain. People can be rightly suspicious about Google, I think. Google has not played the
role that
librarians have played in preservation and access and curating scholarly materials. It’s a
corporation;

it’s interested in a profit. It may gather all these materials, but then if we
think, “well, we’ll
just rely on Google,” they may suddenly price us ou
t of access. So, there are issues there about whether
or not their aims are the same as our aims, and there will be those issues, but somehow we’re going to
have to come to grips with the fact that this change is taking place in any case. This slide is t
o remind
you that that change is taking place all over the landscape of our consumption of media. The Borders
here has

closed, Blockbuster has closed, we never had a Tower Records, but the access people have to
books on Amazon, films through things like N
etflix and other access, iTunes has changed the music
industry, and Google may be changing how we think about libraries. The last era was going down to the
idea that, in the end, Netflix m
ay

not use the mailing
the
DVD

model to
o

much longer, it’s using ot
her
things right now, but cloud services for a lot of these access to media will make a huge difference in how
we think about getting first access to media.

This is an interesting slide because it suggests that our behavior, both the behavior of our stud
ents and
faculty behavior, has changed radically over a five
-
year period of time. This is only going up to

200
0



no, I guess it’
s a six
-
year period of time, 2009, but there’s every reason to think the trend has continued
in this direction. You see where

students start a search for a research project, and how many go to a
library website? None. They use various search engines and social networking site
s, e
-
mail. But you
look at what faculty are doing, too, and fewer and fewer are going
to the

library b
uilding itself to begin a
research project.
They’re going to a specific electronic resource, and again, I think these trends are
accelerating over time. Now, one thing one should say about this at the outset is, it doesn’t mean
students know how to do se
arches productively without the assist
ance of librarians and faculty.
I mean,
they may not at all.
This is what they’re doing, but they may not be doing it in a way that’
s useful. They
may not be getting information that’s reliable, they may not be look
ing at sources that are worth looking
at, so they still need help in learning how to do research in these ways, but this is the behavior. And the
behavioral changes in the libraries we’re thinking about
is
-

we think about how we maintain the
collections
we have, how we allocate our budget for the libraries to different activities that the libraries
might engage in. Circulation is declining particularly


those are types of institutions. Doctoral
institutions are the ones where the usage has declined in
that 10 year period up to 2008 by 34%. And
yet, libraries are more heavily used
than
ever before. They’re being used as learning spaces in a variety
of ways
. Our library has changed and has a number of other options; it’s certainly a hub for our
student
s. This is a slide of the library at Seattle University that has a learning commons: a 24/7 lounge,
a reading room, and a lot of media labs. So, there are uncertainties ahead about what the library should
think of itself as doing. How many functions
it

should

undertake, and
how it should undertake them.
I’m going to start going pretty quickly here because I want to move
to

other people on the panel.
We
are in the middle of what one would think of as the bend of those curves.
Digital services are not
fully
mature for all of the things we need to use our scholarly resources for, but the traditional library is not
being used in traditional ways. So, at some point, we’
re going to have
to think about how
we

manage
the transitions.

So, the second set of slides here that I’m really
just
going to rush through so I can turn to Brenda
,
suggests a variety of new models. Some of them involve acquiring e
-
books instead of acquiring books
that sit on the shelves that would allow for browsing

in different ways. Not all of the

models out there
are ones I think people would be happy with; they often amount to not really acquiring, but renting, and
that’s something to be wary of. But we have already reached a kind of e
-
book tipping point in the

vast
landscape of

book publication, and that’s also something we can’t ignore. So, this university, and I see
Brad Wheeler is here, he played a huge role in this, the University of Michigan and Indiana University
both played a huge role in the developmen
t of the HathiTrust, which offers a collaborative digital library
that can be used by a lot of other people, and a lot of other universities have joined in. It, too, is now
the subject of a lawsuit by the publishers, but that’s a separate story. We have
issues about whether or
not copyright law is keeping up with these changes in scholarly communication and scholarly
possibilities, and that’s really partly what’s being played out in the courts, but it is a difficult issue for us
right now.

In the end, I t
hink there are values that we in the academy have in common about access to this
information, the free flow of information.
How to

a
ffect that access, and at the same time, properly
protect intellectual property? That’s something that the faculty have to

think about from their own
disciplinary points of view. Many open access journals have sprung into being, and some

commercial
open access journals. Some of you probably participate in some of
these;

some of you may edit some of
these. Some are more suc
cessful than others, as some journals, traditional journals, are more successful
than others. The expectation that digitization will change the landscape on journals, though, I think is a
realistic one.

It will change it completely and very rapidly, as i
t has the music industry, and I think that’s
the relevant comparison here. But the library is, as I say, still a hub for the campus

in a whole variety of
ways, and one of the things we have to think about as a university is how do we understand the value
of
the library, both for the success of our students and for the success of the faculty in research and
teaching? In this changing landscape where much of our scholarly communication will be digitized, it’s
not as if all universities are moving in the dir
ection of just having the learning commons, the media
room, and no books at all. We’ll throw in the University of Chicago
L
ibrary here as a new example, but
actually,
the
repurposing the warehouse, they mean the warehouse for books, but there are still ma
ny
other things

that
we know we want to build into a place where students and faculty meet. Librarians
have a w
hole array of tasks that are new;

again, we said that pe
ople may be using different kinds

of
mechanisms to begin their research, but they still
need guidance on how to use those productively, and
we still need to preserve and figure out modes of access to research, and that is something that the
librarians are best positioned to help us with.

So, this is a slide
which I

probably can’t read, but
I wanted
the sense of being pulled in opposite
directions
as a way of ending this. There are lots of things that lots of people want from the libraries,
and the categories into which people fall, and they may fall into several categories, may make a
diffe
rence in how they think of the library and what the library does. Undergraduates may want one
thing, graduate students may want another. Humanities and humanistic social science faculty may want
one kind of enterprise in the library, and natural scientis
ts may want something else out of the library.
For example, the management of electronic serials, but no particular physical space

in which they think
of them as located. We still have responsibilities as a public institution to provide broader access an
d to
keep a record of the culture, and so there are public demands on our university libraries as well.

Again,
if you can’t read this and you want to see these slides later, I’ll be glad to send them around to you, but I
would like to turn this over to Br
enda, Dean of the Libraries.

Dean Brenda L. Johnson’s remarks

Thank you, Karen. As tempting as it might be for me to respond to this consultants’ report and maybe
even disagree with some of the things they said, that’s not my role here today. Rather, I’
m briefly going
to set the context for what’s happening here at Indiana University and our libraries. So let me just start
out with acknowledging yes, we know this is a drastically changed environment for our libraries. Much
of what’s on this slide are t
he items that Karen has already mentioned: movement from print to
electronic; even for print collections, moving more to shared collections rather than just local. Viewing
ourselves more as a set of services, rather

than a collection, if you will,
by
c
ha
nging scholarly
communication patterns, changing student behaviors, and new technologies and scholarly tools. We
really hope and believe that we are positioning ourselves to continue to meet our mission, and we
realize that there are many more difficult d
ecisions to be made, and that the decisions that we make will
have a lasting impact on the University. That’s why I think it’s so very important that we have an
opportunity, like today, for us to engage in a discussion about what our library should become

and how
it’s moving forward. So, I will be brief so that we can get to the important part of the program, which is
to listen to our faculty panelists and also to have all of you engage with us in a discussion.

So, a quick snapshot of the IU Libraries: y
es, we still are very much involved in managing physical
collections. We have some 7 to 8 million physical volumes, yet at the same time, we’re heavily involved
in leveraging digital collections. I’m going to be mentioning in just a bit rethinking and re
shaping
scholarly publishing models, repurposing library space thoughtfully and carefully, and of course
,

there
are evolving roles for librarians and library staff.

Collections really are no longer defined by physical space; it’s really a combination of lo
cal and cloud
-
based resources. So if you even start to look at it in this manner, physical collections, again, are no
longer just local, but many of them are shared. In terms of electronic collections, we have both licensed
and those that we have locally

created here. There are the shared digital libraries Karen’s already
mentioned, Google and HathiTrust, and special collections, rare books, manuscripts, archives, film
archives, all remain extremely important, and are many ways what distinguish us as a v
ery special
research library.

Karen’s already mentioned the circulation declining across academic libraries in the United States and
we are no exception. Overall, the print collection circulation is steadily down; it’s gone down by about
27% over the last

five years. Of course, that rate of use varies by users. Grad students make up about
50% of the total of our print collection circulation, so their use really drives the total impact. If you can
see this slide, you’ll see that graduate students’ use ha
s declined in those five years by 30%. Faculty,

by

some 27%. And, believe it or not, undergraduate use has declined the least. Their use of the print
collection has declined by 22%. I think a lot of people would be surprised by that, but they actually
do
still use the books, and they do use our catalog, too, believe it or not. In terms of physical collections,
yes, we are full to the brim and we’re still continuing to grow. And, in fact, if we were to meet all
building code requirements, about half of

the collection that’s currently in the Wells Library would have
to be removed. And by that, I mean whenever we do any kind of renovation or even the slightest thing
these days, they’re telling us that we have to meet certain building code requirements, s
uch as we have
no real fire suppression system in our building, and as we attempt to make different adjustments, that
means a great deal. In this picture, you’ll see that those book stacks are up pretty high. If you put in a
fire suppression system, that

means that probably at least the top shelf, if not the two top shelves
cannot be there; they cannot be that high. The aisles would have to be wider to meet ADA
requirements, those kinds of things. So we know, as we continue to look at different uses of
the space
and do any kind of renovation to them, much of our print collection will have to move somewhere. We
have options: we can withdraw material, we can build a new library


not likely


or we can transfer
materials to ALF, the Auxiliary Library Fac
ility.

We are very lucky to have ALF. We just opened a second module of ALF. Our first one is full, so we have
about two and a half million volumes in there now; capacity for 6.3 million. The preservation advantage
is unbelievable because of the envir
onmental controls in the ALF. The average life expectancy of a book
in the Wells Library would be about 42 years before it started to deteriorate. In ALF, it’s 283 years. The
financial advantages are pretty staggering, too. There was a recent national s
tudy done by some of our
colleagues that showed that books that are shelved in the open stacks of a library cost over $4.00 a
volume a year to maintain. In something like the ALF, it’s about 86 cents. In HathiTrust, a digital copy is
about 15 cents a vol
ume. ALF, I think, is a good demonstration of how passionate we are in the library
about preservation and providing access to the scholarly record. The future of print collections at IU is
not a foregone conclusion and we need to work together to have d
iscussions about decisions that need
to be made regarding the print collection, and we absolutely realize that no one size fits all, and respect
disciplinary differences greatly. So one of the ways that libraries are trying to deal with some of our
space
issues are looking at things like creating shared print repositories. I’m proud to say that IU
Libraries is playing the leadership role for the first CIC Shared Print Repository. It will be hosted here at
the ALF. This will enable us to share the cost a
nd responsibility for access and preservation of redundant
print holdings of materials that are easily available electronically. So here we’re talking about journal
runs from scientific publishers like Elsevier and Wiley and Springer, all of which are ele
ctronically
available. So instead of all the CIC libraries retaining their print copies for these journals that are now
primarily, if not exclusively accessed electronically, we will hold one copy at ALF and that will serve as
the print copy for the CIC.

There are many of these shared print repositories cropping up around the
country; we’re going to be working closely with them.

Karen’s talked about the serials crisis; that top line is the two hundred
-
and
-
seventy
-
some percent
increase in the price of seri
als during that time frame that’s represented here; the red line being the
consumer price index at 73%. She talked a little bit about the big deal so I won’t go into depth on that.
At first, we thought it was a good deal, because the big deals really mea
nt that our annual increases
would be capped. In the past, publishers could, at a whim, increase their prices annually and we had no
control over that. With this, they were capped annual increases; we had access to far more journals
than in the past, but

then, we’re now boxed into some pretty inflexible deals. So, these are big deals
that are being highly scrutinized, and in some cases, no longer participating in them. In terms of
leveraging digital collections, we talked a lot about the decline in the
use of print, but when you think of
use of libraries, it certainly is not just print collections any longer.

In 2010, our e
-
book holdings in the library went over one million. About 57% of our total collection
dollars are spent on electronic resources,
and that’s journals and books and databases. In terms of use,
there were 3.3 million full text article requests that were filled. That’s a pretty large use of the library.
Two million logons and 5.6 million searches were conducted across our electronic
resources. Of course,
we are also fortunate to have the Digital Library Program, a collaborative effort of IU Libraries and UITS.
They’ve created high quality digitized collections in all formats: text, audio, video, data. Currently, they
have about 2
million items in digital collections, and that next number is not a mistake, this past fiscal
year 2011, there were 52 million views of the content in the DLP, and about 1.2 million searches. That’s
a lot of use. Yes, we are part of the Google Books
p
roj
ect
. W
e were the first member under the CIC
-
Google agreement to send collections to Google. Michigan and Wisconsin had separate agreements, so
they’re not included as part of this. Our folklore collection was entirely digitized and was the first
“Google

Collection of Distinction,” as it was called. As Karen already mentioned, we’re one of the
founding members and one of two host sites with Michigan of the HathiTrust Digital Library. There are
now over 60 academic libraries that are collaborating in thi
s endeavor; about 10 million volumes, of
which 2.6 million are in the public domain. So that means that you can search full
-
text of all 10 million
of those volumes, but you may also see the full text of 2.6 million of those that are in public domain.
We’
re also participating in a copyright clearance project that will open access to public domain
materials, and I hope you’ll hear from one of our panelists, at least, about our leadership role in the
HathiTrust Research Center.

In terms of rethinking scholar
ly publishing models, we’re engaged in the Libraries in a number of
different activities, including in 2006, we founded IU ScholarWorks, which was meant as an open access
publishing alternative. We now host, or you might say publish, 14 open access journa
ls in IU
ScholarWorks, and we are actively investigating data publishing services. Open Folklore is a very
successful open access partnership between American Folklore Society and IU Libraries and you might
hear a bit about that from one of our panelists
as well. We also are very much involved in a number of
digital humanities projects. So, if you think of the library again, we tend not to think of it as collections
any longer, but a series of services, some of which are obviously related to collections.

Teaching and
Learning, I’m going to just talk about that very briefly in a second. In terms of support for researching,
we’re involved in things like copyright advising and data curation and publication support, web services,
the collections we’ve alrea
dy talked about a little bit.

So in Teaching and Learning, as y
ou probably know, the new gen
-
ed

program has an information fluency
shared value. The librarians are very actively involved in that, they are offering course
-
related
instruction. On average
, we reach about 38,000 students a year in our various classes that we teach.
Involved in course and syllabus design, online

tutorials, and integrating material and resources into
Oncourse. An
d this is just meant to show you

some of the learning outcomes

that you might think of in
terms of what a librarian would hope to achieve, thin
g
s like helping students identify authoritative
information


there’s a thought


evaluate information and its sources critically, or developing a
research topic. But I reall
y do want to at least remind you that libraries are serving not
only faculty, but
also students
--
undergraduate and graduate students
--
and my guess is the gap between how
undergraduate students approach their work, how they do their research, how they use
the library, is
probably wider than it has ever been between undergraduates and faculty. Last year the Board of
Aeons, which is a twelve member undergraduate group that is sort of a think tank for the President,
studied undergraduate library use, and they

did a great job. They did focus groups and surveys
--

they
had a lot of participation. And among their recommendations, one of the key ones was they were very
concerned that faculty were not requiring the kind of research that really required them to use

the
libraries in the way they had in the past. So they were asking to have inquiry
-
based learning a standard
part of the undergraduate curriculum. They were very interested in what they would call “digital self
-
service.” They’re not so much interested
going up to a reference desk and asking a person, they want to
be able to do it all on their own. They’re not as interested in the physical books even though they are
still checking some of them out. They want more computers, more printers, more collabor
ative work
spaces. They would also like to take the East Tower of the Wells Library and have what they were calling
“thematic resource centers.” So the space is very important to the undergraduate students, and even
though we’ve talked about the print co
llection not being used as heavily, this past year we had 3.8
million physical visits into our library last year, so we’re still very heavily used. So as use of the print
collections declines, we know that this creates some opportunity to think about the
use of the libraries
and to partner with campus units to repurpose in some cases, valuable space. With those who have
their academic missions aligned with libraries, that’s the thing that I want to make sure we get in there.
As we’ve partnered with UITS,

various schools, in creating
the
Information Commons in Wells Library

and

Business/SPEA, created group and individual study spaces, cafes, tutoring opportunities, etc., and as
you’ll see up there, and I’m glad to see Sonya’s here, we’ll be soon partnering

with the Center for
Innovative Teaching and Learning as they move into the Wells Library.

And, of course, the roles for librarians and library staff have and will continue to change. Here’s just a
listing of some of th
e recent librarian positions: I
ntel
lectual
P
roperty librarian, Digital User Experience,
e
-
science librarian, etc. So, in summary, yes, as one of those slides from the consultants said,

this time
it is different
,”

but the IU Libraries, we think, have made significant strides in positioning

ourselves for
the future. But that future is still unclear, and we cannot afford, obviously, to invest in every strategic
possibility, so we need your views and your advice, and that’s why I’m so very pleased that we have this
opportunity today to discus
s it with you. Thanks.

Karen Hanson:

Thanks, Brenda. And what we had planned was a panel of folks from different
disciplines and with different perspectives on these issues, and we thought we’d go through the panel
and then open things for questions and

answers at the end. So, if we may begin with Jason Jackson,
who is a professor in the Department of Folklore and Ethnomusicology, teaching in research in cultural
anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and ethnohistory. Jason?

Jason Jackson:

Thank you.
I want to thank Dean Johnson and Provost Hanson for their kind invitation to
participate in today’s discussion. This afternoon, I wish to carefully offer three proposals while keeping
to the allotted five minutes. This context explains my pre
-
preparation of these remarks.

I am not speaking on anyone else’s behalf, but my suggestions are conditioned by my past experiences,
present commitments, and the collaborative projects on which I am working. My efforts as a curator,
teacher, researcher, jo
urnal editor, library committee member, scholarly society board member, and
collaborator working with disadvantaged communities still dealing with the legacies of colonialism, all
shape my concerns and motivate my efforts as an activist for scholarly commu
nications reform. My
knowledge of the current scholarly communications system and its prospects have been profoundly
shaped through my collaborations with librarians and technologists at the IU Libraries and I appreciate
the many ways that they have suppor
ted and taught me. I have tremendous appreciation for all that the
Libraries are doing to support my work and that of my students and colleagues.

I look forward to our discussions of the full range of topics surveyed by the Provost and the Dean, but
my pro
posals focus on the activity that we once called publishing and the changing ways that the
libraries engage with it. My hope is to provoke the faculty to take greater ownership in the work of
scholarly communication and thereby to partner more meaningfully

with our library in fostering a more
equitable, ethical, sustainable and sensible communications and learning environment for ourselves, for
the communities that need our work, for our debt
-
crushed students, and for every lifelong learner,
regardless of t
heir ability to pay to access our scholarship.

Later I will be very willing to provide needed background, but the most economical approach for me
now is to just offer my three proposals for the faculty to consider. The IU Libraries are contributing in a
nu
mber of key ways to an international effort to protect and improve the scholarly communications
system, but without broader leadership here on our campus, there are limits to what can be
accomplished. I have tremendous hope for what we might do by working
together. Here goes:

1.

I propose that the Bloomington Faculty Council, in consultation with the Dean of the Libraries,
the Office of the Provost, and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, begin formal work
towards what is known as a
green open access mandate

for faculty on the Bloomington campus. With
mandates already in place at Harvard, MIT, California, Oberlin, Kansas and
hundreds of other institutions
worldwide
, we are prepared to take advantage of the experiences of those who have preceded us on
this path. Our leadership in IT, our international commitments, the prominence of our scholarship, and
the stature of our library insure our success in such a venture. Delay wrongly suggests that we are not an
institution of the first rank.


2.

I propose that the Dean of the College and the Deans of the other Schools at IU, in coordination
with the Provost and

in consultation with the Dean of the Libraries, investigate current cash and in
-
kind
expenditures made in support of academic editors among the IU faculty. In such an inquiry, attention
should also go towards better understanding the ways that Schools pri
oritize and implement funding
decisions.
Going forward

into future decision
-
making about the support of
new
editorial offices, such an
inquiry could support policy formation and strategic choices designed to strengthen those publishers
and journals working

most actively in the interest of our students, our faculty, our libraries, and the
communities that our scholarship seeks to support. In a period of skyrocketing student debt and deep
cuts to basic academic programs, subsidizing highly profitable corporat
e publishers in the production of
journals that we already pay astronomically large licensing fees to lease (not to own) is a luxury that we
can no longer afford. Hosting journal editorial offices at IU is one profoundly important means by which
we shape t
he future of scholarship and signal IU’s stature as a major global university. Without
disinvesting in such efforts, faculty and administrators can together make smarter choices through
which we strengthen those publications most aligned with our instituti
onal circumstances and our
commitments to sustainability, diversity, equity, international outreach, human development, and
community service.


3.

In the context of both annual review and the tenure and promotion process, and in keeping with
current understan
dings of research excellence, I propose that the Bloomington Faculty Council develop
recommendations strongly urging departments and schools to understand and acknowledge efforts on
the part of librarians and faculty members who are consciously publishing
their peer
-
reviewed
scholarship in sustainable and open access ways. Such efforts are in the interest of students, of the
university and its units, of the research community, and of the global public at large. Endorsement of
such efforts would do much to e
mpower those seeking to balance the pursuit of public good with the
furthering of their individual careers.

I understand that it may not be readily apparent to everyone how these proposals articulate directly
with the future of our library and of the teach
ing and research enterprise more generally. In future
discussions, faculty and library colleagues on the panel and in the audience might wish to join in the
work of unpacking the rationales that motivate my suggestions.
It’s

not every day that a rank and file
member of the faculty has the chance to address a forum such as this one and I hope that my
suggestions for future work are not out of place. In any event, I hope to discuss them with interested
colleagues in the days ah
ead.

Thanks.

Karen Hanson:

Thank you,

Jason. Next
, Ted Striphas, Department of Communication and Culture,
whose research focuses on media in the history of popular culture.

Professor
Ted Striphas:

Well,
it’s a pleasure to be here today and thank you ag
ain to Dean Johnson and
to
Provost Hanson for
organizing this fantastic event and long overdue as far as I’m concerned.

My apologies also for being
late;
I was teaching until about 3:20,

so
if

you saw me sneak
in on the side, that’s why I
arrived the way
I
did.

I
n any case, a lot of what I want to say is simply to say

listen to Jason Jackson
,


but beyond that I will try
to give my own additional contribution here
,

and to speak a little
bit
about t
he future of libraries, and
also to imagine a library that

is even more robust than the one that we currently have
.

I
t is an
extraordinary institution already here at IU and as far as I’m concerned, we only have up to go, but
it’s a
great up and it’s great
where we already are
.

So, in any case, I am something of

a tinkerer by nature and I am a tinkerer in my professional life as well.
I do that in many capacities
,

but also with the form and content of scholarly communication. So, one of
the things
that I have

spent the last four or five years doing is to experime
nt with free open source
software tools to try to build alternative ways for engaging in scholarly comm
unication that overlap with
the

already existing norms but also in some ways try to exceed them. I created an open source audio
book project that was int
ent on creating a kind of text
-
to
-
speech version

of a book that I had published

a
few years ago called
The Late Age of Print
, a
nd I built that on top of software called
Media W
iki
,

which is
what drives the Wikipedia platform.

I run a blog called
The Late
Age of Print

which is built on top of WordPress, which is also an open source
publication tool.

And then I maintain a third site, which is
a
site that does various things
. I
t host
s

a dossier,

an

archive of
research materials that are the kind of behind the

scenes of some of my research projects
,
it has an
open source writing project on it that is freely editable by anybody who may care to contribute to it, and
it also host
s

a pre
-
print sharing site, where I share drafts of my work before it goes out for pub
lication,
for purpos
es
of

commentary and criticism. A
nd that’s

built on an open source program called

Drupal.

I’m also not only a tinker
er

but a student of experimental forms of publication and also then
communication about literature, experimental forms
of communication
,

and that’s taken me to have an
interest in plug
-
ins for various programs such as Comment
P
ress or Digress.it, which were produced by
the
Institute for the Future of the Book

w
hich allows people to comment on drafts of books and
scholarly
p
ublications

as they are being created in the form of quite extraordinary marginal
notation.

John Willinsky
’s
open journal system, he is a professor in education at Stanford University
,

and has
created, along with others, a set of tools to manage digital pu
blications, both on the front end and the
back end, and then in a more sort of commercial vein, amazon.com. I don’t know if you know this, those
of you who have Kindles, but they have this quite interesting
,

but also confounding program in some
ways called


popular highlights


which essentially makes any material that you have underlined
o
n your
Kindle public and publicly avai
lable and they have architected

a social network around that, around the
readers of
K
indle books and what they have noted.

So, the q
uestion that leads me to be interested in all this and to mention it today in this particular for
u
m
is

what is the common dominator here?


And for me, one of the common denominators is the bizarre role that academia, has not by and large
played, in
creating th
e
s
e

incredibly robust system
s
. Now, it’s not to say libraries and university presses
have not been involved substantially in efforts to create modes of scholarly expression appropriate to
the 21
st

century
,

but for the most part they have not bee
n at the forefront of creating the
p
latforms
.
T
hese are the larger systems on which we then build our publications
;

so t
he platforms on which to do
so.
Now what’s interesting to me is the kinds of experiences that I have then had
in
building on top of
thes
e various open source or commer
cial systems. S
ome have actually said that libraries and university
presses actually have no business getting into this, that they need to just kind of you know
,

pull up their
roots, close up shop, and go about their business and play to their strengths.

In terms of letting these kinds of inventions of the future of scholarly communication be left to the open
source community, much as I believe in the power of op
en source
,

I do have some misgivings. And I’ll
giv
e you just one example of this:
If any of you happen to visit my blog, or have visited my blog, you
might have discovered that a couple of weeks ago I had become an online pha
rmacy. I sold Viagra and
Prope
cia. W
ho knew
? L
ittle did I know that I had a sideline business. I actually didn’t know this. I
discovered it via Google, and the long story short is that I discovered I had been hacked precisely
because of a failure of one of
the
plug
-
ins that I had on my

blog.

And so one of the things that concerns me is how the open source community, however much they are
providing meaningful contributions for creating extraordinary publishing platforms, the lack of
centralization there does create lots of holes and als
o presents many
security issues around
these kinds
of basic questions
--
a
bout the ability to maintain the integrity of whatever publication we may choose to
share on the
W
orld
W
ide
W
eb. Others have suggested that the future of publication
,

particularly as i
t
relates to academ
e,

should be left up in the hands of private industry. And you know I think Jason has in
some ways hinted at the some of the problems with that
. I
f nothing else
,

there is a profound profit
motivation that might well impede the ability to

put forth scholarship that cuts against those kinds of
interest
s

or in some ways doesn’t necessarily support them.

So my pitch today then, and this is where I would like to end, is simply to make an argument or
an
admonition for a library that should be s
pearheading precisely these kinds of efforts
. T
o not only play
host
,

as they have already done here

in the case of IU

to very interesting forms of publication, but to
also then take that next step and to be at the forefront of creating new platforms for co
mmunicating in
a scholarly fashion
. T
o not only rely on open source communities and also private industry
,

but to
leverage the goodwill, to leverage the expertise, and the extraordinary reputation then of an institution
like IU to be able to create much mo
re meaningful modes of engagement in a scholarly fashion. And I
say this against the backdrop of a number of changes that have been taking place, and I think many of us
have felt these
, i
f we’ve not realized them directly
:


that booksellers are becoming p
ublishers, presses
are becoming
technology and multi
-
media corporations,
libraries are also taking on the vein of
publishers, readers are becoming authors, and again the point here is to begin to leverage these
strengths that

we already have, to recognize
that we are in a shifting media landscape, and to begin to
make good on those kinds of promises of scholarly

communication
that Jason spoke so el
oquently

to
already. The other thing I’d like to say here
,

though, is that I don’t think university libraries a
re also
necessarily publishers, and so one of the mandates here that I think that should also absolute
ly

come up

is to bring IU
P
ress into much closer collaboration
,

as far as any of these kinds of efforts go
,

to create a
new form of journal or any even ki
nd of journal syst
em
,

because that is what they do. T
hey make words,

they make them public and they’ve
done an extraordinary job up until this point
,

but then again they
might not be qui
te as skillful in questions of
metadata, data curation
,

and all of tho
se things that
libraries are just so incredibly adept at doing.

So ultimately then my pitch is to say

K
eep going
,


to continue doing what

we’re doing
,

but to also then
take that next step, to think about the ways in which Indiana University can begin to
take l
eadership in
terms

of not only

the fact of scholarly communication
,

but the v
e
ry means by which we engage in
scholarly communication, now and in the future. Thank you.


Karen Hanson:

Thanks, Ted. Next is Wayne Storey, who comes from the Department
of French and
Italia
n, is a professor of Italian,
teaches and writes on early Italian literature, h
istory, and manuscript,
culture,
textual editing, and the history of the book.

Professor
Wayne Storey

I should stop there.
I also chair the library committe
e of the Bloomington faculty council and in the last

year and half have come to appreciate, ever

more, the place where I go to work in terms of my research.
I’ve worked in many libraries ar
ound the world from Thailand in
Bangkok to Paris, Florence and I ha
ve to
say that working in the IU libraries is an extraordinary pleasure and I r
eally respect the work they’re
doing.

The library committee’s discussion of the difference between the individual

researchers and the
students’

relationship to the materials in

the library
,

and the notion of a collection
,

has been quite
interesting. Several sessions
we have sort of touched on this. M
any of us are certainly able
,

thanks to
digital collections and some financial resources
,

we are able to collect our own materials
that serve us
and create our own private libraries. And yet the definition of what Brenda in another situation called a
“Collective Collection” or what I might
call “Collaborative Collection;”

it seemed to me to be far more
complex and more to the point of

what we’re trying to address in today’s forum.

Is a collection defined solely by
what I need
? Or does the collection have the burden of foreseeing the
future,
or foretelling the future?

A quick anecdote: in the late 1930s, in New York City, the New York

Public Library was roundly criticized for the space that was being tak
en

up by collecting the phone books
of various cities around the world. By 1946
-
1947 those phone books were some of the primary tools in
reconstructing any number of p
eople who had been

lost to the Holocaust. We never know

what in a
collection will serve us. Consequently, the library has a profound, I think, obligation but also a profound
task. Building collections then is, I believe, a collaborative effort between specialist librarian
s

and
researchers over generations and includes every kind of medium

handwritten, print, digital, magnetic
,

and photographic
,

but the truth is we never know what is going to become important five years from
now or five centuries from now and that includes,
not so long ago, one of the earliest fragments of
Dante’s
Vita N
ova

was fo
und,
in fact
,

in the binding of a 17
th

century martyrology that was about to be
put away forever.

Every medium has its unique characteristics that contribute to a collection as well

as its defects that
require us to use it thoughtfully
.


F
rom the
fragility

of ancient papyrus to the pitfalls of human error in
transcription and coding
,

and platform stability in digital editions. Even photography can betray the
inf
ormation it purports t
o deliver
. Many materials now in electronic form come from previous
photographs shot in different decades. I can easily think of ten errors that have entered my own
scholarly information mainstream because the original photographer did not open up creases
in
parchment before shooting the frame of a slightly folded or wrinkled page. This
,

I believe
,

underscores
two simple principles: first, a thoughtful, and I would add, slow caution in the use of any kind of copy.
We seem especially to be teaching a generat
ion
of
students and future scholars that faster is better. But
doing our work faster is not always doing it better. This notion goes all the way back up the information
line to our sense of urgency about digitizing

that is
,

copying

much of what we already
have available
in other formats. There is no doubt that this kind of selective cultural archiving has made my own life as
a scholar easier
,

but without due caution it risks making it far less accurate.

We could also talk about a second principle
,

and that

is whether in di
gital, paper, or parchment form,
there is no substitute for the original. A growing interest in the field of material studies has swollen the
numbers of users of reading rooms in rare book libraries here and around the world that were once

virtually deserted when I was a graduate student. So far my examples have referred tangentially to the
prob
lem of space in our libraries. P
robably to the chagrin to the staff of the Lilly library
,

I teach these
two principles

that require that we accommo
date many more students, undergraduates and graduates,
to consult original materials
and work more slowly,
while we ask libraries to continue to expand in t
heir
development of collections,
and I mean Collaborative Collections. And I underscore this precis
ely
because we don’t know exactly what it is we will need in the future. What tools we will have at our
disposal to access those materials
,

including a
reliable electric grid or trees
.


For me, however, this final
point is equally caut
ionary. How much can
we expand, a
nd are we willing to sacrifice some of our
ongoing collections? And which ones?

When I first saw the announcement of the approval for the new
School of Public Health, I immediately thought of the profound impact not only on the libraries


abil
ity to
gear up to meet the needs of a whole new school of university researchers and practitioners but also on
the continue
d

development of existing collections, many of them of a world
-
class status. Is the faculty,
that ultimately holds the reigns of gove
rnance, willing to stop supporting the research fields of some of
its colleagues? Which ones? Are we now in a position to begin asking harder questions about where
funding for library research tools for new endeavors
will come from? I would caution

us only

against
using the language of inevitability.

Finally, I would like to call briefly upon my

own experience of years of

scholarly editing and of editorial
service to the only society in the United States, the Society
for
Textual Scholarship
,

that devotes it
self to
issues of scholarly editing
, a
nd to my recent exper
ience
--

and I have to say, extraordina
ril
y

enlightening

and pleasant experience

--

of working with
the
open journal system in IU
ScholarWorks
. The libraries
,

as
we have heard

and this ties in also with what Jason was saying

are been increasingly called upon not
just to respond to, but to take the lead in developing new editorial tools and paradigms for publishing or
disseminating scholarship. There are many ex
citing possibilities generated by these important initiatives
,

but I will mention only two. Number one, again in our eagerness to digitize an archive
,

we have not
sufficiently incorporated the scholarly apparatus of editors at any number of levels. Even if

we teach
from primary documents there is still an editor, copyist, typographer, photographer or encoder who has
prepared that document. If we use textbooks or editions in print or e
-
text, a scholarly editor has been
involved in its preparation. The same c
an be said, especially, for the production of scholarly journals
,

whether in digital or paper form. If the university’s faculty rely

and administrators as well

rely on a
system of vetting scholarly production for hiring
,

tenure
,

and promotion, the facu
lty
and administration
have the

intellectual and moral responsibility to support and expand the processes that supply the
scholarly safeguards and initiatives
,

like the open journal system. Finally, if from the university
administrat
ion

digital and electronic
scholarly publishing and communication are strongly encouraged
,

then that same administration must recognize properly and value vetted digital publication without the
imprimatur of a Cambridge or Yale university press
,

as a scholarly contribution whose mer
its will be
found in the work

s content rather than on its cover. Thank you.

Karen Hanson:

Thanks, Wayne. Now, Joan Pong Linton from the Department of English. She teaches a
vast array of courses and her research focuses on the way in which diverse lite
rary and cultural
productions
relate to history and theory.

Joan Pong Linton
:


I would like to start with a note of thanks and praise for our colleagues at the IU Bloomington Libraries
,

which have been recognized in 2010 by the
Association of College and R
esearch Libraries

as the top
university library in the country. For as long as I have been here, I have enjoyed friendly and professional
support from
our

librarians and staff. I’ve been here long enough to have gone from taking journals off
the
shelves an
d copying

articles for ten cents a page
,

to locating and printing out articles with a few
clicks of my favorite mouse. I’m still awed by electronic convenience
,

although I still bring home the
books like gifts to open up. So perhaps as a creature of habit,

I am gratified to know that physical
collections still have a place in the library of the future
,

and that the personal instructional and other
activities will continue as they are proven practices that sustain inquiry as an essential part of a living
and

learning community. This is where the library traditionally has a shared mission with academic
departments, programs
,

and centers. It is a mission that may require defending in view of the
pedagogical experiments that technology has made possible. I’m spe
aking from the perspective of a
faculty
,

but this obviously has connections with the library
,

too.

Some o
f

you may have read the op
-
ed column by Bill Keller entitled “The
U
niversity of
W
herever
,
” which
appeared on October 2, 2011 in the
New York Times
. In

it
,

Keller discusses developments at Stanford
University in response to new technology. One development is the course “Introduction to Artificial
Intelligence
,
” to be offered by Sebastian Thrun online and free of charge. At Keller’s writing,
130,000
peopl
e have enrolled from across the globe. Thrun’s ultimate mission is a virtual university in which the
best professors broadcast their lectures to tens of thousands of students. The traditional university, in
his view, serves a fortunate few inefficiently wi
th a business model built on exclusivity
,

and insanely
uneconomical. Of course, although his experiment has been supported by Stanford’s president, John
Hennessy, even T
hrun

himself realizes that much more needs to be in place to ensure the quality of
onli
ne learning. H
ennessy,

himself a passionate advocate for an actual campus
,

especially in
undergraduate education, makes clear that there is nothing qu
ite like the give and take of a

live
community to hone critical thinking, writing
,

and public speaking skills. This is still Hennessy, “
I
t is not at
all clear that online students learn the most important lesson of all, how to keep learning.” In other
words, learners learn how to learn by doing and personal interaction with experienced

professionals
whether librarians or teachers, is indispensable to the process. Increasingly
,

the issues and problems we
confront in our global 21
st

century world are complex ones and require a collective, integrative
intelligence, across disciplines and c
ultural perspectives to address. This is a

kind of coordinated
knowledge
-
making
,

by way of belonging to the world that we as faculty and, if I may, librarians also, are
still learning to do well. In our work are really, in some ways, re
-
enforcing each oth
er in our roles as
scholars and teachers and our stewardship of future generations of scholars and teachers.

In humanism and democratic criticism, Edward Said writes, “Education involves widening circles of
awareness, each of which is distinct analyticall
y while being connected to the others by virtue of worldly
reality. Said goes on t
o

say that, “The task of the humanist is to be both insider and outsider to these
circulating ideas and values that are at issue in our society
, or someone else’s society,
or

the society of
the other.” In this spirit, I hope future funding will take seriously the libraries’ and librarians’ role in
nurturing and supporting at all levels collaborative knowledge
-
making across disciplines and cultural
perspectives. Thank you.

Kar
en Hanson:

Thank you, Joan. And now, Roger Hangarter f
rom the Department of Biology, he’
s the
Chancellor’s Professor of Biology, and he studies the physiological and molecular mechanisms by which
plants perceive and respond to environmental stimu
li;

in p
articular
,

how plants use light and gravity to
regulate growth and development.

Professor
Roger Hangarter
:

Thank you very much,
I
appreciate the invitation to come here. I still don’t know why I’m here, although
I’ve very grateful because
we’re

currently
h
aving a faculty meeting, which means
I am probably the only
biologist in this room. One of the things, just listening to this, I d
idn’t prepare to give a talk and give you
my opinions

on what the library should or shouldn’t do. I think the library does ama
zing things and we
as biologist
s,

and I discussed this with my faculty at the last faculty meeting that I did attend
, w
hat
concerns they might have with regards to the library and, to be honest, the biologists are set. They feel
pretty comfortable

with wha
t the library is doing;

we ha
ve almost never
been
in that building.

I’d say
there are

many graduate students who are g
raduating from our department
who have never been in
that building.

We do have a branch in Jordan H
all
,

but that no longer has collections

in
it,
it

s sort of
a
hang
-
ou
t room
with some assistance. We always need help hanging out in
B
iology.

But, you know, one of
the
things that I was impressed with just listening to all o
f the things so far, is
there were
a lot of biological terms used:

e
v
olution, adaptation, adapt or die
, these sort

of thin
gs. And I
did actually prepare
--
I didn’t prepare a quote, I took a quote from Charles Darwin and he said, “It is not
the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives,
it’s the one that is the
most a
daptable to change.” And I think

that’s one of the things that I like about this,
is
that the library is
trying to figure out how to be adaptable. I think it’s a mistake to say,

let us go forth and do
this
particular thing
,
let’s set up an institution that’s
this way
,


because that locks you in. And I think in
looking in the future
,

it’s the adaptation that you have to be constantly prepared for. As many of the
slides showed
,

it’s a constantly changing field out there. The wh
ole field of information knowledge,
how
it’
s even being generated to some extent, the extent at which it

s being generated is just ridiculous
.

N
one of us can comprehend all of this, it’s going to take huge efforts
,

and I think the only way to deal
with thi
s is to just constantly be on
the
alert, to constantly be changing, to be adaptive, to do what
Darwin saw life was doing and, you know, we often mistake the fact th
at

we are living things ourselves
,

and we follow those rules without maybe believing it in
some cases, but we certainly follow those

rules
,
there’s no question about it, and I think that’s one of the things I loved about just listening to these
things.

But I do have a nit to pick, and that
starts with our first speaker, w
ho suggested we have an

open access
mandate.

Again, that speaks against

adaptation;

that’s a mandate locks you in. And I think
o
pen access,
even though it

s having a huge impact, I’m not sure all the impact is positive. And I’ve brought this up
with the library before at some t
alk I gave there a few years ago. The professional societies, the
scholarly societies, like the ones
that
I’ve been involved with, rely on publications, and they are often
the ones that publish, the ones that are the top publications in the field, they are

the

journals that do
the vetting, they have, in many cases, the best editorial systems, in terms of peer
-
review systems in
place, to make sure that the best work is being published, and to get your work published in those
journals is a big step. Open acce
ss is hurting many
of those professional societies.


T
hey are losing their
income because their subscri
ption base is falling rapidly. M
embership is even dropping rapidly, because
people can get the stuff they normally got as a perk by being a member for f
ree now through their
libraries. So there are negative impacts here and a lot of our scholarship

probably many of you in th
e

room are members of a professional society of some sort, certainly
I
know most faculty I know are. And
you rely on that for a lot
of different aspects of the development of your scholarship and I don’t think
it’s possible for our library to fulfill that role in all the different disciplines. We still need those societies
out there, and their organizations and

their infrastructure, a
n
d I’m really worried that open access is
harming them. I saw the revenue for the society I was president of drop precipitously when we started
trying to adjust to the open access mandates that were being imposed by NIH and the terms of the
biologist. It’s

not been a positive thing. Nowa
days, you know, we used to be able to pu
blish in many
journals for free. W
e would submit our papers, it would go through the peer
-
review system, and
it’d
get
accepted, and they would publish it for free because t
hey were rip
ping off the libraries
, you know, thi
s is
Elsevier and Springer. Nowa
days if you want to publish in an open access journal, the author pays, you
know, $4000

to publish a paper.

Now if you have nice research grants you can do that, if you’re

doing
maybe so
me ecology or fi
e
l
d work or something that doesn’t require that you have a larger research
grant to do that, you’re handcuffed on where you can publish your work. It’s starting to have an impact.

And that gets to the
third

point of our
first

speaker, whic
h is open access consideration
in
promotion
and tenure. There is a resolution that was put forth by a former dean of the library that’s on record with
the faculty counsel that says we should be considering whether people are publishing open access when
we
look at tenure and that to me is
really a

bad thing. People should be publishing their best work in the
best places, not simply getting it out there for dissemination. And I think, you know, when we look at
tenure cases, we always say, “Well
,

they publishe
d in this journal
,

that’s got an impact factor of such and
such, that’s really important.” Very few open access journals have significant impact factors right
now,
there are a couple of them;

those are the ones that are the mostly costly to publish in
in
many cases,
they’re the ones that started out by having huge endowments from like the Howard Hughes Institute
who started Plaus 1, secretly having an 8 million dollar endowment under their belts while they’re
making it look like they were being very succes
sful at doing thi
s, and they were doing it with
charging
$1000 to $1500 per article, currently it’s about $3000 to $4000 per article because the Howard Hughes
money is completely gone. They are now profitable and they do have large impact factors, but I do
n’t
think a good open access can do it without that kind of backing. Libraries are already strapped; I don’t
think libraries are going to be able to back this sort of thing.

S
o, I worry about the open
access
;
, I worry about any kind of mandates that we s
ay the library has to do
this or has to do that. I think our libraries should be doing
what they are doing
right now
,

and that is
exploring the best ways to adapt to the changes as they are occurring. Trying to anticipate where they
are going, you have to
do a little bit of that, but that’s not something we can do, not very easily
especially right now, things are just changing so fast. The enormous amount of data is killing people. So
that’s all I have to say. I think the library is good.

Karen Hanson:

Th
ank you, Roger. Next, Beth Plale, who comes from the School

of Informatics and
Computing. S
he’s the director of several centers on data and search informatics
,

and the Data to Insight
Center at the Basic Technologies Institute. She has an interest in me
tadata and the prominence of
digital signed data
, particularly for the purposes of long
-
term preservation. Beth?

Beth Plale
:

Great, thank you, Kar
en, and I will have to take off

in not too long of a time, just well after my talk
, but I
do want to say that

I do have to
go to the airport, and
I’m hoping that some of the people in the
audience who are familiar with HathiTrust Research Center and some of t
he other work that we are
doing

can step in and fill in the gaps when the questions come, which, I hope th
ey come.

So, anyway, I appreciate the opportunity of being here to say a few words on behalf of the library and
on
behalf of my commitment to the library and I thin
k

modes of research are changing.
I’m in the School
of Informatics, I am a c
omputer
s
cienti
st, I have a strong dedication to data and access to data, and
access to data now and into the future, and that is where my interest
s

overlap with what the library is
doing
,

which also has a commitment to access into the future, long into the future. So mo
des of
research
are

changing, they are changing substantially, a
nd I think the library of a la
r
ge

research
unive
rsity should be leading the way.

IU, particularly
,

should be leading the way and there’s two
primary modes of change I want to talk about. One
of them is in ways of analyzing text. So traditionally
we would go to the l
ibrary, we would study a volume,

we would study that text by looking at it

that
might be

a

manuscript, it might be a microfiche
,

but it’s paper, it’s film. Those materials go to dig
ital,
well then
,

we can still look at, we can still read that on some kind of E
-
reader or Kindle that we might
have.
We’re

still analyzing the written word
, but when that volume does go to

digital it opens up the
opportunity to not only for
k
ind of
the
hum
an analysis, but for statistical analysis of that content as well.
Shakespeare
’s

play
s, for example;

there’s 37 of them, there are close to a million words across those 37
plays, and close to 30,000 unique words that are used across those 37 plays. There’s

ways to plot those
words so you can see, throughout time, the development of those plays, the frequency of some words
occurred earlier in some of the plays versus later. That’s the kind of statistical
analysis that I’m talking
about
--

that can take the fo
rm of something like an N
-
gra
m that cites the

frequen
cy of a word over
some hundreds and

hundreds of books over hundreds of years. Google offers that as a feature
;

it’s
called the Google N
-
gram. It’s available on the web.

So statistical analysis of 37 plays is one thing, but what the HathiTrust research center is trying to do is
provide an opportunity to provide statistical analysis over the full ten million volumes that makes up the
HathiTrust corpus, and this puts it in a
n entirely different space. So the HathiTrust Research Center is a
collaboration between Indiana University and University of Illinois

Urbana Champaign. I am the leader
of that, along with a colleague at the University of Illinois

Urbana Champaign. They ca
me to us and
asked us to put in a proposal for this center because, basically because we’ve got the university
resources and the university….

End of Disc 1

Beginning of Disc 2

…a proposal for this center because, basically because we’ve got the university

resources and the
university library sitting behind us that provide a wealth of infrastructure

that’s kind o
f the admiration
of certainly
my collea
gues,
and I think of a lot of universities. So we
’ve

got the capability to put together
these kinds of infra
structures that allows this research capacity to be available to faculty, and that’s
what we’re doing. So it’s a virtual space where
a
researcher would come to run analysis over 10 milli
on
volumes. So John Orwant,
he’s at Google, he’s part of the Google bo
ok project, was part of the Google
book project, we had a reception at the Digital Humanities Big Ten Symposium in June
,

and he said, he
was talking to the Digital Humanities people in the audience, of which all of them were, and he said, “No
longer can yo
u expect to do the analysis on your desktop
. T
he number of volumes and the amount of
data that’s available
--
y
our algorithms have to go to the data. It’s no longer about the data coming to
your desktop.” So that’s what we are. The HathiTrust Research Cente
r is a portal, a web portal to what
you could look at is, big compute resources that allow you to run researcher
’s

analysis algorithms over
the HatihTrust corp
us

and the governance to do that.

So where does the library come into this? And we’re early on;
we

just officially turned on the first

of
July. So there is an argument to be made that as the library provides access

or

provides information to
the student, to the researcher
,

they could similarly be familiar with the statistical methods that the
HathiTr
ust Researcher Center provides, and similarly educate the student or the researcher in those
methods as well. You know, the library is all about retaining open
-
access to scholarly information. You
know
,

our eyes only take in so much, so as more goes digita
l that open
-
access is going to be by programs
that run on our behalf, so in that sense it fits in with the library can and sees itself doing, in some sense.
And, I guess, we’re committed to trying to make that collaboration work.

So, also, one other point
there is we anticipate

d
igital humanities researchers tend to have focus
collections that they are working with. There are people in bioinformatics and medicine and in other
fields as well who are more looking at just large, large corp
uses
, doing kind of a

motion studies in
informatics, these people are going to want full access to 10 million documents and that is going to be a
slight
ly

different mode of access that we wouldn’t expect the library to give advice on. That is something
completely different.

S
o, the second

mode of change is in scientific data, and this is digital data. This is data sets coming from
instruments, coming from field studies, survey data

all in digital form

observational data, model
results

the information dumping out of gene
-
sequen
cer machines so fast no one knows what to do
with it anymore

analysis results, assimilation data. So the National Science Foundation and NIH have,
both in their own ways, asked that the researcher make this data available to other people, not only
today bu
t into the future. IU also plays a key role in letting that happen. IU has fabulous storage
resources, however

and it will make two copies so that the long
-
term access, so if something happens
at one location it will be available at the other

the
cyber
-
inf
rastructure providers at IU are data
custodian
s
. They will ensure that the bits stay safe but a data custodian is not a data collection person.
So your data collection person is key at the point where that data set

gets
describe
d
, where i
ts

license
gets as
signed, where a DOI gets assigned to it. And this is where the Digital Library has been very, very
good in curating
. S
o this is the curating step
. S
o all scientific data has to go through some level of
curation if it’s going to be found. So the Digital Lib
rary program has don
e an excellent job curating, oh,
musi
c wi
th the variations project, socio
-
ecological
data with
the
digital library of the commons
. Ve
ry
good job
;

however, it is v
ery expensive work to do, it’s
tedious work, it’s done after the fact.
If

IU is
going to be a place where scientific data is stored we’ve got to reduce that curation cost. So on my side
we are looking at ways to build tools that will do

some of that metadata and provenance

collection to
reduce that cost
.

B
ut there’s a complimen
tary commitment on the lib
rary side in order to make that
happen because I’m a researcher, so there’s effort under way because, if you don’t have the metadata
and
provenance

about your data set
, if you do have

let me put that

positively, if a person does h
ave
that
,

then you can put your

data set out there and
Google
-
like crawlers
can find it. And also other
scientist
s

can use the data set and, most importantly, and this is where
provenance

comes in, other
scientist
s

can trust what they’re getting. So these are huge barriers and there is that gap there. So the
libraries

are

in a very strong position and IU is in a very strong position as a whole
.

T
he library
,

of course
,

b
eing within the university.

So, I guess, I’ve
kind of hung my hat on the library being a player in both the HathiTrust Research Center
and our commitment to making this a success for faculty
,

and also in terms of IU being a player in the
repository for scientific data, for not only for the university
but beyond that. I think we have the
capability and I guess I’m asking the library to take some of that agile capability and put it into those two
directions. Thanks.

Provost Hanson
: Thanks, Beth. Next, Eileen Freil,
who is a Fellow of the American Associa
tion for

the
Advancement of Science
. She’s an astronomer who studies the formation and evolution of the Milky
Way by using star clusters and stellar populations as chemical and dynamic probes.

Professor
Eileen Freil

Thank you, Karen
,

and thanks for being h
ere. I’m not sure why I am here, either. I’m a newcomer to IU
so maybe that’s a useful perspective, but I’ll speak for a few moments about my view from the
perspective of astronomy and some experiences I have with data, and try give you a few more insights

that I think will resonate very well with what Beth has just said.

But when I was a graduate student it was an enormous advantage to be at an institution associated with
an old observatory. Old observatories came with very valuable collections of observa
tories


publications
that weren’t widely distributed and monographs and photographic collections that often dated back 100
years or so. Most people had access to current journals, at that time, but they didn’t have access to
these special collections that
were found in the more established institutions, and those collections gave
students and faculty, at those places, both a sense of history and a development of the field, but also
very useful material for research, observational material for research. That

was then.

Now, it doesn’t matter where you are to do astronomy. You can do it in a small college, you can do it in
a hotel room

as I often have

you can do it in a
room at an

observatory, as long as you have an
internet connection, all of these places are

basically equal. Astronomy, as a discipline, has moved very
,
very
quickly to digitizing its collections, so not only are all the scholarly publications provided digitally,
there has also been a coordinated and extensive effort to digitize historic documen
ts, observatory
publications that didn’t have wide circulation, and older observational plate material has also been
digitized. The
Astrophysical
Data Services, or as we call it the ADS, is really now the first resource a
student in Astronomy or Astrophysi
cs will learn about
. W
e all do everything through ADS, we couldn’t
function without. It’s also as a result kind of molded astronomers


perceptions of how they access
bibliographic sources as well as the data themselves. But it is, as I’ve said, it’s not ju
st a matter of
digitizing the publications and making these

available. Astronomy is a data
-
rich discipline and electronic
data collection began decades ago with digital detectors both on the ground, telescopes and space
satellites. So almost from the very
beginning these data were tied to the bibliographic sources that cited
them. So when we read a
n article in the Astrophysical J
ournal or the Astronomical Journal we have a
direct link to the primary data themselves, either through federal holdings, like NAS
A satellites or data
served by centralized data services. And these data services are global; the most important one for all of
this is actually in Strasbourg, in Europe. But because of this very close connection between the
publication process and the dat
a accessibility and in archiving, in astronomy at least, libraries and library
sciences have had, and still do, have a very, very important role to play.

Before I came to IU, I was at the National Science Foundation, where one of the projects I worked on
was funding the Virtual Astronomica
l Observatory. And the Virtual O
bservatory, which was an
international
ly

coordinated effort, worked very closely with library science to develop protocols and
standards and interfaces,
the
metadata

that would enable the f
ederation of these very diverse and
widely distributed data sources, in a global sense. The idea there was that there would be a simple and
easily accessible portal that would provide a unified entry that would point to, essentially, all the worlds


data c
ollections in astronomy and these would be linked to the bibliographic sources.

So if you wanted
to study the C
rab
N
ebula, for example, from the Virtual Observatory
,

you could automatically search all
the registered data collections, they have to be regist
ered to get to them. But you’d be presented then,
with any and all of the data that had ever been collected from any telescope in the world or satellite in
space that had ever pointed to the
Crab N
ebula. The Virtual Observatory provided tools for

the idea
was that it would provide tools for cross
-
referencing all these data archives, for searching for data sets
that satisfied certain selection criteria, and presenting you with the means to download or review,
visualize the data. This was a tool that was inte
nded not only for
the
researches but for students and for
the public. This was truly a Virtual Observatory it was not a central

repository of data themselves, b
ut it
accessed these widely distributed data sets that were established and curated at points of

origin. These
might be that data archive centers that NASA funds, the National Science Foundation funds, or could be
large survey projects or could be an individual investigator

s data collection. So, the Virtual Observatory
is still very much under devel
opment and it has a huge job to do but in an effort like it, libraries and
librarians clearly have a very, very important role to play
,

echoing what Beth has just said. I think for the
expertise that they provide in information access, in curation, and perhaps in some instances providing
physical archives for the data storage themselves.

Now, I’ll just close on another, a more local and
less disciplined specific personal note, as a newcomer to
campus a perspective on the future roles of the libraries. Every morning and evening on my way to my
office I walk by the Law Library. It’s a very appealing space; it’s always fun to look inside and

see
everybody working. But it seems to me a very comforting and welcoming place that is full of the focused
activity of learning, whether they are looking at an iPad or a huge thick book, it strikes me often that as
digital media take the place as the phy
sical book or the journal, the libraries have a very important role
as physical spaces. These spaces create an environment for study and learning and exploration, places
where expertise can be found when needed and where resources are freely available in a
ll their forms

digital, print, artifacts. These spaces where students could meet for study or collaborative works, for
projects, for discussion and, as I’ve observed, rather than overcrowding the IMU or having students
lurking for seats at Starbucks, they
could find a space that they need for this kind of work in libraries or
in spaces distributed around campus. So while there’s are no model for libraries of the future, I think
that if we look at the characteristics of what we have and value in libraries to
day and think about what
we’ll need in the future, there are very many interesting options.

Most importantly, I think of libraries as spaces where people value knowledge and create an
environment of learning and if we think of them from that perspective t
hen we have a lot to work with.
Thank you.

Provost Hanson
: Thanks, Eileen. Our last panelist today is Matt Gu
t
erl, who is the Rudy Professor of
American Studies in History. He works on Race and Race Relations in the U.S., the Americas and around
the world.

Matt Guterl
:
I haven’t been to
the
big limestone box on Jordan

in over

a year, but I use the library every
day.

Once I needed to use the Reader’s Guide to Peri
odical Literature; now I use Google. I used to check the
stacks; now I just search by keyword on Project Muse, or wait for a Google Scholar alert to arrive in my
inbox. I used to store my handwritten notes and copies in fireproof boxes or plastic crates; n
ow I have
digital reproductions of the entire archive of my current project stored on my phone.

The last time I was there, in the Wells Library, it was for coffee and donuts.

Maybe the future of the library is not the same thing as the future of that build
ing.

After all, even if I’ve been absent physically, I’ve clicked on the IU Libraries link more times than I can
count, and trolled through its rich databases with great delight. I have more need of the library
-
in
-
the
-
abstract than ever before.

The big lim
estone box


and all that it includes


is still important. But ours is not the Fitchburg State
library, and IU isn’t a second tier, branch campus. When I wonder about the short
-
term future of “real”
academic libraries with walls and windows and floors, my

thoughts race to Rutgers
-
Newark, to IU
-
East,
or Washington State
-
Tri
-
Cities, or Lincoln University, the places most likely to be first erased by budget
cutting and spatial reallocation. I think about small town libraries in places less well off than
Bloom
ington. I think about corporate libraries and law firm libraries and museum libraries. I think about
the impending extinction of the bookshelf at the old ski lodge, or the hotel lobby, where the accidental
discovery of some old Faulkner text, or some Phili
p K. Dick collection, encourages a new thought. Our
research library


the Wells Library


may be safe, for now. These other, less secure sites, are not.

I worry, after thinking about all of this, about the right now, and about short term access for the le
ss
fortunate, confronted with the boxing up of the local library stacks, however meager, or the end of the
hard copy, however scarce, and about the corresponding absence of laptops and ipads and wifi, which
we imagine as open substitutes, available to anyo
ne, in this age of receding material reality.

Yes, the Wells Library will survive for some time, much like the 42
nd

Street Branch of the New York Public
Library, or the Library Company in Philadelphia. The scale of the architecture ensures that, as does th
e
vastness of the collections and the professionalism of the research faculty. Such places, awe
-
inspiring
and beautiful, still generate new knowledge, even while they also encourage new and necessarily
generous donations, and serve as delightful backdrops
for critical fundraising campaigns. But eventually,
perhaps inevitably, as the library becomes ever more disembodied, even these historic buildings may
become repurposed reliquaries, like old Masonic temples turned into state office buildings, or old movie

theatres turned into restaurants, or old plantations turned into museums and beds and breakfasts. Or,
like abandoned factories, they will simply be emptied of content and left to fall apart, or turned into loft
apartments.

Of course, for those of us caugh
t up in the past, it is easy to get nostalgic about what is lost in this
transition. I remember the smell of my first public library, nestled in a retrofitted old fire station next to
my childhood home. I remember reading Santayana on the steps of the New
York Public Library, waiting
for the doors to open, and excited about what might be revealed within. I remember the pleasure of
waiting for something to arrive, for my call number to light up, or of finding something unexpected, and
of the pervasive smell
of glue and paper and ink. I remember discovering a letter, misfiled under the
wrong name, proving what I thought to be a powerful point. In my most troubled moments, I grow
concerned that all of this


this set of possibilities, this travail


will be los
t.

Nostalgia, though, is the conservative reflex of those confronted by rapid change. And so I push back
against it. I imagine what is possible in our future. And I think, instead, of how cool it will be when the
poorest person in the world can press a but
ton


even if the button is worn, and the screen is dingy


and call up the complete works of Toni Morrison, linked to every video interview she’s ever given, and
joined with her correspondence, archived in public and for free. As a public university now m
ore
indebted than ever to a bigger, more global “public,” we have a big role in making this future possible.

I’m not sure that this utopic vision includes the bricks
-
and
-
mortar of the Wells Library, though it surely
includes research librarians. In many wa
ys, it is the antithesis of this place, which has more in common
with the Royal Library at Alexandria than it does with Google books. And I remember that when the
College’s Strategic Planning Committee met a few years ago, we half
-
joked about creating a ro
oftop
biergarten
, with crystal slides to the ground floor. But this vision most certainly includes the library as a
liberal ideal, with a social function worth expanding, a political mission worth protecting, and a research
agenda that deserves better arti
culation.

Questions & Answers

Karen Hanson

Thanks
,

Matt. Well
,

you have heard a variety of perspectives. We’d like to open this up for questions,
comments, interactive discussion. The acoustics in this room are somewhat pro
blematic, so we have
some hand
-
held
mics that can be brought to you, if you just raise your hand someone will bring you a
mic. Or someone will bring you a mic if you don’t raise your hand. Any comments?

1
st

question:

Hi, I’ll stand up. Alex Lichtenstein from the History department. T
his is all very interesting and I guess I’ll
start actually with Matt’s very eloquent comment and I appreciated it in a lot of ways but speaking from
a historian

s perspective which I’m sure Matt shares
,
I guess I would have to disagree with you Matt that
you should go into the building, I mean that there’s a limit to, as much as I find it amazing of what you
can do on the electronic databases, and that is one of the libraries great strength


I’m a newcomer
here and I have to say one of the thrills of being

here is that I can go into the library and I find things in
the stacks that I never would have been able to find on the internet. I mean this is in the course of three
months. Just to give you one example, I was writing something about the history of Zimb
abwe in the
1980s and up there in the stacks

this isn’t indexed anywhere

is a magazine called
Moto
, published in
Harare in the 1980s and there it is, in the stacks. There’s no way I could find the articles I wanted in that
by searching through an electroni
c databases, there just not there, there just not indexed
,

but I can go
up there and find it in the stacks and go through volume by volume. This is

invaluable and one can
multiply

that experience over and over again. This is a long roundabout way of saying

I don’t think
Matt’s utopic vision
,

which in some ways I share
,

is incompatible with this nostalgia whi
ch I think is
worth preserving. T
hat is
,

that there is a physical space in which physical data resides, which at least
from a historian

s point of view
,

is something still worth preserving and ha
ving access to. Hearing, I
forge
t, maybe the Dean’s comments, on the ALF
,

I’m now convinced the expansion of ALF is a necessity
for costs, preservation, and space
--
that’s fine. I would urge you, as you start think
ing about it to make it
an open
-
stack ALF so that we can actually still go into the physical space and browse the shelves. Thank
you.

1
st

question response:

Dean Brenda Johnson
: Can I respond to that? We really need to get you out there for a tour of ALF

because the way the material is stored, and one of the beauties of these auxiliary library facilities is you
can’t scan, the
y a
re housed in boxes and specially formed containers, so

one cannot go and browse
--
they’re not by call number, they’re

by accessio
n number, so you can’t really browse but it’s a pretty cool
place anyway, so we’ll get you out there to see it.

2
nd

question:

I’m Michelle Dalmau. I’m with the digital library program and I have a few comments. One of them is on
Professor’s Hangar
t
er’s di
scussion about adaptability and I kept thinking, even though I don’t actually
agree with

a lot of

your open access, though I’m not actually going to debate that right now, but I
thought of this metaphor, the swinging library and I wanted to pitch that to B
renda as we start thinking
about strategic planning
be
cause we’ve been talking a lot about swing spaces in the collections
development and other context groups. But the question I actually have is for Ted. You had mention
ed

the library should be taking the lead and developing these sort
s

of frameworks or platforms on which
we can build on social reading, collaborative authoring and all the things you have been engaging in and
what others are doing. My area is in the digital
humanities and there is a lot of that going on

there, too.

B
ut I was wondering what if you meant more interfaces or modes of interaction to enhance that,
because I think in some ways libraries have been involved in building these core platforms and you had

mentioned OJS which has c
ome up a bunch of times, d
space which i
s what underlies IUscholarWorks,
and then big repositories like Fedora and other things
.

T
hen on top of that are interfaces that then could
extend working with the contents, so it’s not just
browsing, accessing, but doing things with it and that is
something we’ve been thinking a lot about for years

in the digital library program.

So access is the first
step,
but then it is how do we give people the tools? So I was just wondering if there was
something a
little bit more granular in terms of, instead of platforms?

2
nd

question response:

Ted Striphas
: Sure, no, I mean it’s a great question, a
nd I think a very important one. W
hat prompted
the la
rger concern of mine, I suppose
, and in some ways t
he appeal also to yoking IU Press to some of
these initiatives, is, at least in the circles that I run in, you know there is very little engagement or uptake
with all of those great things that you named and I know IUScholarWorks is a fantastic program
.

I
know,
from at least what I have heard, I don’t know this first hand. You know it has not had as much uptake as
many of the people who are kind of behind it would have liked, and so the question that arises for me is,

how do you get people on board?


Well
, you know, one of the things that has kind of come up again
and again here is the concern with, you know, the nitty gritty of the daily life of academe and that is you
know

how do people keep their jobs, achieve promotion and tenure

a
nd those kinds of thi
ngs
. T
hose are
concern that I think have militated against people of my generation of scholars. From beginning to really
kind of embrace many of these kind
s

of tools that are just absolutely fascinating and, you know, promise
to push the bounds of scholarl
y communication in ways that I don’t think we’ve really kind of seen th
e
full magnitude of the results. S
o to me I am always trying to think about the question of legitimacy and,
you know, how do you yoke these really extraordinary experiments to, you kno
w, opportunities for
people to engage in them that will then be credited towards their professional development and, you
know, I think that’s where established, old institutions like IU
Press come in,
because they have that kind
of credibility, you know, i
n a way that the library doesn’t exactly have it. You know I mean, I think
libraries are, you know, very credible institutions, no doubt about that, but in terms of thinking about
libraries as publishers, the credibility isn’t quite as there in the way tha
t we might see associated with an
established university press, for example. You know, so that’s the way I am trying to kind of triangulate
these issues. To think about, you know, the different stakeholders in the future of scholarly
communication and also

then to think about what the future of an academic university press can or
should be. You know
,

at a time when they are really being sold down the river, as far as I’m concerned,
you know
,

how do we actually make them leaders of this lifeblood of the inst
itution of scholarship? And
you know to me, I think one way to do that is to make sure that your university press is not isolated at
all. You know
,

in conversation with people from informatics and in conversation with, you know, folks of
the library and I
know that happens, I think it just has to happen more.

Karen Hanson
: Other questions or comments?

Beth
.

3
rd

comment:

Hi. I’m Beth Cate from SPEA and just to pick up on that point about the press, I think they are doing a
little bit of that right now. [She

is handed a microphone at this point] Oh, thank you very much. Hi, I’m
Beth Cate from SPEA and I know that the press is involved right now in a collaborative project with a
couple of other institutions regarding ethnomusicology and producing online new b
ooks, so to try
incentivize young scholars or, at least, newer scholars
,

to produce books that are linked with multimedia
files, so incorporating some of the technology you are talking about and then trying to make that much
more widely available and more of an open access format and way, so pulling together some of the
differ
ent threads the panels been discussing here today. So I do think, you know, it sort of resonates
with me some of your comments about the role of the press, in collaboration with what the libraries are
doing and some of the units are doing to try to really
form new models of scholarly communication,
which I do think is very important and to that point about tenure and promotion and how do these
things factor in. I mean, I think the impact factors, if you will, of institutions are in the process, as I
underst
and it, and kind of need to be reassessing

how do you measure impact?


What kind of impact
are we looking for from scholarship? And I don’t know if Johan Bollen is here from Informatics, if he’s
not
,

I know he’s been working for a while with Carnegie Mell
on funded project,
The Measure Project,

about how do you look at the impact of scholarly communications and some traditional models of that
being challenged, in terms of, you know,

how do we measure this?


Is it just people looking up
an
article

and cites
,

o
r what do they do wi
th that information after that a
nd how does it ultimately affect a
field or an endeavor that they’re a part of? So I think that that’s in some sense the b
igger picture for
universities is


what do we mean by impact?
” a
nd that will ta
ke us back into how do we measure the
value of publications and dissemination of informat
ion and data in different ways.

4
th

comment:

Katy Borner, School of Library and Information Science. Maybe two points: one is that I would have
expected to hear more
about the sema
n
tic back features

evolving out there,
which actually starts to
interlink a lot of these different data silos which have never been connected before. Not only
publication
data but also patent
data,
census data, and, ultimately,
interlinks in
via
ORCID

IDs

which

people
which actually produce and use, read, and write all these. We have here on campus
the
VIVO
National Researcher Network, which actually already starts to interlink some of those services and,
ultimately, I believe we do not only w
ant to measure people’s productivity in terms of publications and
citations to those, but also in terms of their mentorship, in terms of say
,

data sets they produce, in terms
of the software artifacts they produce, in terms of many, many other things which

we do as scholars.
Thank you.

Karen Hanson
: While there is…Oh, okay.

5
th

comment:

Hi,

I’m Rob Schneider from History. I’m

also the editor of the American Historical Review
,

and so what I
have to say is in some ways self
-
interested, but there was a graph

that was displayed that showed th
e
increase in price of journals

as compared to the price of monographs
,

and that was very telling
,
but what
it left out is I think has to be explained. And that is that
we’ve

also had an extraordinary usage, increase
in usage of journals
,

and I think this is true for all of us
,

both in our research and our pedagogy
,

that the
journals are being accessed in ways

I mean
,

this is certainly a function of digitization and the advent

o
f
JSTOR and other repositories
--

in ways that were unthinkable and impossible previously. And I think this
is just one point that ought to be raised in support of journals insofar as
their prices are increasing,

and I
think it’s mostly from the sciences
, where the journal prices are really sort of off the wall, that it’s
certainly commensurate with the usage and the way they’ve been integrated into our scholarly and
pedagogical lives. And also I’d just like to make a point, taking off from that, is that
there is

a move that
is a part of the
maybe more radical aspects of open access
, which really sees journals as a

kind of
enemy; I mean
,
the obstacle to the free dissemination and communication of research, and the view of
many is the journal
,

which is encu
mbered by old fashioned notions of vetting and editorial care and the
like
,

and this ought to be done through other means that are som
ehow to be just sort of

out there in
cloud editing or other forms of editorial work, which will be just sort of done witho
ut having a journal or
professional association behind it. And I think we ought to, in many ways
,

embrace much of what’s
behind

open access.
I think we have to be very, very careful in understanding and appreciating the
worth of journals and the editorial

process and vetting process and reviewing process that goes into it,
that this is absolutely essential to the understanding of knowledge as opposed to just information. In
some ways it has to be understood as a result of a process that is more complicated

institutionally,
personally,

and

intellectually I think than many people are aware of.

K
aren Hanson: Thank you. O
ther…

Response to 5
th

comment:

Dean Brenda Johnson:

Could I respond to that? I think a lot of the open access

journals that I am aware of do
,

in fact
,

have very
rigorous editorial boards. It’s not, you know, that component
of

publishing is not neglected in open
access journals
. And one other point to your
comments

--


it’s certainly, w
e tend to think of the Elseviers
and the Wiley
s as the bad

guys
,

but some of the societies ar
e equally egregious in terms of

their pricing.
Of course
our

favorite in libraries to complain about is the American Chemical Society, which has just
some amazing pricing strategies that I think far exceed the use argumen
t that you might want to give.

6
th

Comment:

I’m Brad Wheeler; I’ll
offer a couple of comments on this. I’ve been deeply involved with Br
enda and
Karen for a long time in

thinkin
g about this. First observation

I’ll say is that I g
o
t t
o give two talks at the
library,
roughly one
in about

‘05 and one
in about

’07
,

and I just gave the same talk, same title again but
they liked it better the second time I think. It was essentially, “What a great century to be a librarian
,”
because in some
ways
-

I think it’s
Beth

-

talks about with data and the need for a lot of these things
like
Katy’s

talked

about
,

and others. I think the future of the library is rich
,

and the notion to separate how
we evolve the building itself and its very best purposes
, and how we evolve what the librarians d
o

that
help and aid in scholarship. I think that’s
a rich, productive conversation. B
ut to the point of the
journals, in particular,
H
igher
E
d

give me just a little license, I have the precise numbers on this, but
about 150 universities spend almost 2 billion dollars a year on journals
.

2 billion dollars a year
.
So there
is a whole lot of multiple conflated issues between the good comments of Roge
r and the gentleman
here about ensuring peer
review, and that
not all
journals are the same. T
here is an A journal and an A
minus and a B, and those really matter in sorting out what we do in scholarship and the virtues of
access
,

as Jason has talked about
,

and others. We often, most recently we celebrate a lot

that

Steve J
obs
did in changing the world
,

but one of the things he often did was he looked at a whole industry, whether
it was the music industry or the mobile phone industry or whatever, and he went in and looked at new
models that really changed how that industry w
orked, rearranged the money and if you
happen to have

own
ed

any Apple stock, you’re very pleased with his work in doing that. I’d like for us to be the
shareholders in scholarly communications that rearrange that flow of
2 billion dollars a year

into forma
ts
that allow the journals,
the professional societies, the

access, the long
-
term access and preservation to
flourish, and I am more than fully convinced, after being immersed in this for five years

a business
school professor,
some of you guys may know th
at
--

that we can do this for a better value than 2 billion
dollars a year. Somewhere south of that, with only, literally, a handful of universities helping to lead and
innovate in some of the platforms you are talking about, and some of the economic model
s that are
available. I think there is a win in here, amongst all of those things for the values that I heard
described
around this room today.

Closing comments:

Karen Hanson
:

Thanks. Anyone want to have a last comment or question? We are just about at
the
hour.

Well, then I want to thank you for coming. I want to remind you that this is a discussion we hope will be
continued, among this group and among the department and disciplinary colleagues, that you might
bring the word
back to the research
librarians.


T
he subject librarians will be in touch with you, reaching
out to the departments to see if you have further thoughts.

And I want to remind you that the
discussion about scholarly communication and how it’s handled in academ
e

is something tha
t you
should continue to talk about. T
his is in your hands, the standards for evaluation are in your
hands and
the modalities may differ from discipline to discipline
,

but that’s why you have to bring your expertise
and your perspective to the discussion.

So, again, we thank you for being here. We have an opportunity
for you to chat in a more relaxed fashion by taking part in some of the refreshments that are out there
and we hope you will continue the discussion. Thank you.