THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH LIBRARY



NO EASY RIDER? THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH LIBRARY. By Fremont Rider: A Review Article

By Colin Steele

An earlier version of this article was published in The Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol 37(1) 2005

Author Profile:

Colin Steele is Emeritus Fellow of the Australian National University. He was University Librarian, Australian National University (1980-2002) and Director Scholarly Information Strategies (2002-2003). He is the author and editor of seven books, including Major Libraries of the World (1976) and Changes in Scholarly Communication Patterns (1993) and numerous articles and reviews. Colin has been an invited keynote speaker at library and information conferences in ten countries.

Colin Steele

Emeritus Fellow

University Librarian, Australian National University (1980-2002)

and Director Scholarly Information Strategies (2002-2003)

W.K. Hancock Building (043)

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200

Australia

Tel +61 (0)2 612 58983

Fax +61 (0)2 612 55526

Email: colin.steele@anu.edu.au

Colin Steele contributed his first article, “Blanket Orders and the Bibliographer in the Large Research Library”, to the Journal of Librarianship in October 1970 when he was a staff member of the Bodleian Library in Oxford. His time at the Bodleian (1967 - 1976) allowed him to meet some of the then “giants” of the American University research library scene, such as Rutherford Rogers of Yale, Douglas Bryant of Harvard, Robert Vosper of UCLA, and Melvin Voigt of University of California, San Diego. These Librarians provided a link to the library developments in America in the 1940s and 1950s when Fremont Rider’s THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH LIBRARY (New York, Hadham Press, 1944) was so influential.

Keywords: research libraries, university library cooperation, economics of university libraries, digital libraries, scholarly publishing and Fremont Rider.

Introduction

Who was Fremont Rider? Robert Molyneux in a number of articles has succinctly outlined Fremont Rider’s career and the impact of his 1944 book, THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH LIBRARY. (Molyneux, 1986, 1994a, 1994b and 1996) Rider (1885-1962) wrote several travel books in the 1920s and was editor of The Library Journal and Publishers Weekly. He was also an avid genealogist. The American Genealogical-Biographical Index is the second edition of an index begun by Fremont Rider in 1936. It is often referred to in older literature as the “Rider Index.”

Rider subsequently became Librarian of the Wesleyan University Library in Middletown, Connecticut where he wrote THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH LIBRARY, which was subtitled, “A Problem and Its Solution”. He had begun writing a series of articles in library journals in the 1930s focussing on reducing the costs of libraries. In particular he believed the costs of acquisitions and storage could be alleviated through inter library cooperation and reductions in cataloguing costs, through changes in methodologies and technology, ideas which were to take permanent form in his 1944 book.

In the Preface to THE SCHOLAR, Rider states that these 1930’s papers helped him reach a conclusion that “no emendations in present library method alone were going to provide a sufficient solution of our growth problem. The petty savings so effected were quickly overwhelmed by its increasing magnitude. More and more over the years I became convinced that our only possible answer lay in inter-library cooperation, and cooperation much more sweeping than anything we had heretofore envisaged.” (Rider, 1944, x-xi).

Rider concluded his Preface with the words: “although this book is intended primarily for librarians, it is also intended for education administrators, teachers, and scholars; and to them some of our accepted library terminology might sound a bit blind if there were not interjected occasionally a brief phrase of elucidation.” Certainly his concerns about librarians talking to themselves and thus establishing an effective dialogue with the academic user communities has resonated through subsequent decades. I have termed this “the sound of one hand clapping” (Steele, 2004) Today we see examples of this in the debates on Open Access publishing which are still a closed shop to many of the academic community

Rider believed “research library growth has continued, without any significant change of rate, either downward or upward, for over thirty decades, and at a rate so uniform over so many years, and so uniform in so many different libraries, that it might almost seem as though some natural law were at work.” (Rider, 1944, pp. 15-16) Rider believed that given this historical pattern of growth that research libraries would face insurmountable problems in future years.

Rider stated in the Preface that “of all the problems which have, of recent years, engaged the attention of educators and librarians, none have been more puzzling than those posed by the astonishing growth of our great research libraries…it seems, as stated, to be a mathematical fact that, ever since college and university libraries started in this country, they have, on the average, doubled in size every sixteen years.” (Rider, 1944, p. 8) This statement had a profound impact, both in library and administrative circles, even though subsequently proven statistically inaccurate.

Riders’s message remained current because of its simplicity and the fact that research libraries did, in fact, continue to grow significantly in terms of stock and complexity in the subsequent decades. Libraries ever since, have continued to address many of the same generic issues posed by Rider, although in later years within different technological frameworks.

Yale University Library’s growth rate was extrapolated by Rider to reflect that within a century, Yale would contain nearly two hundred million volumes and would require a cataloguing staff of over five thousand people Understandably worrying! Rider and other library leaders suggested solutions including improved interlibrary loan practices, shared and streamlined cataloguing, selective deaccessioning, regional cooperative libraries, collection rationalisations, and the increased use of microforms, particularly microcards.

Somewhat ironically in the light of Rider’s comments on deaccessioning, the personal copy used for this review is one purchased from Richard Barnes’s Evanston bookshop in

1985. It had been deaccessioned from Northwestern University Library. Such was the fate of one of the most influential books in the history of research libraries!

Rider and microform technological change

It will be surprising to many, as it was to this author, on re-reading THE SCHOLAR, that in fact only just over one third of the text is devoted to the issue of research library, growth and the rest is devoted to the issues of micro-reproduction in general, and microcards in particular, which Rider and others saw as the major solution to the library problems outlined above problems outlined above. Rider believed that the use of microcards would be as revolutionary as the printed book was over the manuscript roll. A significant part of the collections of research libraries would be held on five by three inch micro cards which would have cataloguing data on one side and the text of up to two hundred and fifty page books on the other. Rider believed that the microcard revolution would drastically reduce what he saw as the four major costs of libraries, namely acquisition, cataloguing, storage, and binding.

Rider was aided, in this microform “madness”, as Nicholson Baker has described it, by other influential figures such as Verner W Clapp, the then Director of the Council of Library Resources (1956-1957). Baker, in his polemical book, DOUBLE FOLD, impales Rider, Clapp, and former Deputy Librarian of Congress, William Welsh, according to one reviewer on “satirical needles”. (Baker, 2001) Baker argues that the microfilming and subsequent discarding of much unique historical material has been a disservice to society and that librarian’s adoption of micro-resourcing was a dreadful mistake.

As an aside, the views and adoptions of early technologies at this time proved both anticipatory and awfully wrong. Vannevar Bush’s Memex Device in 1945, was a pre-cursor of the Web. In the mid-1950s, others like Professors Haynes McMullen had reservations. McMullen thought “It is unlikely that the typical university library staff of [the year] 2005 will employ any mechanical devices which are not already in existence.” He listed three reasons for this apparent lack of progress. “The use of transmitters, copying machines and the like may be many years away from the mass-market that libraries can afford. The new development will most likely be too expensive for most libraries. Third, faculty members may not be ready for the increased efficiency.” (McMullen, 1955)

It is clear that many of the basic issues addressed by Rider have not disappeared. While scholars and libraries have much more digital information available through the Internet, at the same time, the high cost of STM publications has accelerated in an almost Rider type fashion. The small growth of European science publishers noted by Rider in the 1930s boomed in the second half of the twentieth century so that we know have the multinational monopolies and significant profits of firms such as Reed Elsevier, Thomson and Springer, engendered by academic “Faustian bargains”.

Plus ca change

David Stam, then Librarian of Syracuse University, reviewed sixty years of the Association of Research Libraries in 1992 in an article entitled, “Plus ca change”(Stam, 1992). He notes that at the first meeting of ARL in December 1932 serial price increases were on the agenda. “In March of 1933 Secretary Gilchrist complained that the situation was so serious that Rochester had already had to cancel four Springer titles in the previous two years”. (Stam, 1992) Later that year, an ARL memo noted a Medical Library Association resolution, “that no library subscribe to any periodicals which do not have a fixed annual subscription price for the entire annual output of volumes or parts … unless definite word comes to that effect, MLA recommends cancellation except for one library in each of six to ten zones throughout American”. (Stam, 1992)

The first meeting of what is now CAUL, the Council of Australian University Librarians, in1928 had on the agenda consortial purchasing of books and serials and pooling of library resources. When I attended my first meeting of CAUL in 1977 a resolution was on the agenda to cancel all Elsevier titles in order to bring to the attention of Elsevier the impact of rising serial prices. Needless to say, like the similar suggestion by Peter Lyman, then University Librarian of the University of California Berkeley Library several years ago, this suggestion collectively came to naught.

Stam goes on to say in the context of ARL: “What strikes one most in going through some of this material is the similarity of past and present agendas. Apart from changing social issues such as gender and race, the same issues recur constantly. The forms of technology have changed, but the search for technologies to aid research libraries was certainly present. So were the topics of cooperation, serials, statistics, relationships to other organizations, membership criteria, resource sharing, serials, bibliographical control, preservation, copyright, access to public information, serial price increases, and mirabile dictu, even dues”(Stam, 1992)

Cooperative collection schemes

In relation to the 1932 ARL comment on cooperation, Rider was much taken by the work of Keyes Metcalfe, whose 1942 “Division-of-Fields” became the precursor of the American Farmington Plan, which took effective form after World War Two. This voluntary agreement by around sixty American research libraries aimed to ensure that one copy at least of each new overseas publication ...would be acquired by an American library, promptly listed in the National Union catalogue, and made available by inter-library loan or photographic reproduction. The Farmington Plan greatly enriched American research collections but had foundered by the early 1970s, as many schemes do in times of budget reductions, in that battle for individual local excellence and budget priorities versus cooperative frameworks for the general good.

In the United Kingdom cooperative schemes were developed for public libraries and for university libraries in terms of cooperative purchasing and location. In 1948, for example, the Research Committee of the Library Association undertook to examine a national plan for cooperation to ensure coverage of research material. Over the subsequent decades a number of cooperative collecting frameworks were put in place in UK universities, particularly in area studies, such as for African, Asian, Slavonic and Latin American material. Perhaps greater success was achieved in mainland Europe where the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft initiated a decentralised subject collections scheme with designated funding and the Scandia Plan linked the special and research libraries of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. An analysis of the pros and cons of cooperative collection building has a literature, however, all of its own, but again the issues raised by Rider and Metcalf resonated through the subsequent decades.

The Conspectus model of library collection cooperation, which was adopted in the US during the late 1980s and early 1990s has also foundered, not least by a lack of adoption and understanding by the academic community of the collection methodologies, Another ultimately failed version of national cooperation involving librarians, but again not the academic community, was attempted in Australia during the 1990s under the title of the “Distributed National Collection”.

This eminently worthwhile theoretical concept, supported by the National Library of Australia, was not accompanied by financial “carrots and sticks” to facilitate cooperation, nor was there any acceptance by the Australian Vice Chancellors that greater good of the whole resulted from individual cooperative actions. Australian initiatives in collection coordination, like elsewhere, moved into seeking economies through national consortia purchases of print and electronic material, although some argue that “The Big Deal” has played into the hands of the large multinational publishers at the expense of smaller learned societies and monograph publishers

Growth in university research collections in the 1960’s and 1970’s

Before the Big Deal was the Big Boom. The period of the 1950s and 1960s and part of the 1970s seems like a Golden Age in terms of expansionist resources within the context of the overall university budgets, although most writers of the time clearly did not always appreciate that fact. The 1957 of the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite sent shock waves through Cold War America and led to a rise in higher education funding in general, and scientific research in particular. It has been suggested that this boom continued until Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

How did Rider’s growth figures fit in this expansionist scenario? Keyes Metcalf had pointed out in an essay in 1954 that the rate of increase in collections as observed by Rider had dropped from four per cent to well below three per cent per annum. (Wilson and Tauber, 1958) Nonetheless Metcalf stated that given the growth in library collections and thus building requirements, that “it is not too early to be thinking about 1980”. (Metcalf, 1954).

A review in 1960 of library growth figures for the twenty-five university libraries, listing holdings of over one million volumes, revealed that only four had increased their holdings by 100% or more during the previous fifteen year period. (Axford, 1962)

A 1963 analysis of the growth rates of the twenty libraries originally studied by Rider, revealed that, collection growth rates have clearly decreased. His first group of “10 large university libraries of respectable age” had a collection doubling time of sixteen years based on the average growth rate for the period 1831-1938. However, based on their average growth rate for the period 1938-60, their average doubling time was 25.1 years. (Piternick, 1963)

The concerns on library economics highlighted by Rider had, however, not diminished In 1967 the American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Research Libraries submitted its Statement of Recommendations to the US National Advisory Commission on Libraries and published them in the book On Research Libraries. (ACLS, 1967.) In the Committee’s Preface the serious difficulties faced by research libraries in relation to staff, space and funds and the “double-challenge” of increased demand for services and increased publications were highlighted.

ACLS stated, “we offer no panaceas for the problems of the research libraries, but we have no doubt that they can be largely overcome by a carefully designed combination of measures including a substantial admixture of research and development”. (ACLS, 1967, ix) They noted early in their analysis the fact that it is “axiomatic” American research libraries “double in size every fifteen to twenty years” and noted, based on a Harvard study, that library costs would rise from 5.7 million in 1964-65 to 14.7 million in 1975-76 (ACLS, 1967, xiv, xvii). Rider lived on

ACLS concluded, “even the most sophisticated electronic circuitry will remain an aid to, not a substitute for, men's minds in contact with books”. In an era now where electronic access of a Google/scholars portal nature is rampant, and there is a female CEO of the British Library and of many US Ivy League libraries, such words seem decidedly archaic.

Current debates now focus on the quality of access to electronic information in a virtual environment rather than the sole criterion of absolute collection size

Since American Research Libraries, plus the University of Toronto in Canada, have historically set the benchmarks for quantitative collection statistics most of the examples in this article have been taken from North America. Thus when I was commenting upon blanket orders/approval plans in 1970, I noted, in relation to the Association of Research Library statistics, “Statistics are often misleading and these figures are simply quantitative but there is no doubt whatsoever that University libraries on this side of the Atlantic constantly lag behind their American counterparts … apart from Toronto there are others such as McMaster and Alberto with quite massive library expenditures and budgets by British standards”. (Steele, 1970)

Libraries which were set up in new universities the UK in the 1960’s, for example the University of Lancaster under Graham MacKenzie, placed much emphasis on the quality and accessibility of their stock, albeit small, compared to the monolithic legal deposit libraries such as Oxford and Cambridge. British university libraries, outside of the legal deposit libraries, were always poorer cousins to some extent of the big American universities. The 1967 British “Parry” UGC Report recommended that universities spend a six per cent minimum on their university libraries but few of these actually achieved that figure, and as the decades continued, the figure fell to much lower percentages, although balanced by an increasing university expenditure on computer terminals, networking, etc

The British “Atkinson” UGC Report tried to put a limit on the growth of collections within libraries because of a perceived lack of funds for capital building. (UGC ,1976) The term “steady-state library” became the watchword for curbing library growth within physical confines. (Steele, 1978). One of the contemporary British library “giants”, Dr Fred Ratcliffe pondered: “where and how, it might be asked, did the view arise that a massive growth in university library stocks was threatening efficient library services…and crippling the UGCs building program”. (Ratcliffe, 1980).

These comments were published in a 1980 article, although by this time the debate was almost played out. The Atkinson Report was subsequently abandoned as official policy. To many, open access compactus added to existing libraries, or in close by campus/regional stores, are seen to be more economical than other solutions or technology replacements such as microfilming a la Rider and Clapp.

Ironically today, many administrators again query the need for further library buildings in the era of electronic desktop access environments. The rejoinder now is to focus on efficient open access storage linked to or integrated in library buildings that focus on information commons and dynamic learning spaces as well as providing a social hub including coffee shops and book stores for the campus. In that context, the future may well see a convergence of electronic publishing between libraries and bookshops, particularly through virtual learning environments. In several university libraries, bookshops have actually become part of the library, such as at the University of Melbourne In some cases, libraries have introduced coffee shops, making them more resemble the big 24x7 bookstore chains than traditional libraries

Research libraries in the 1980’s and 1990’s

Richard de Gennaro stated in 1977 that US libraries... libraries can no longer afford to maintain the collections, staffs and service levels that librarians and users have come to expect in the last two decades” and libraries should begin to “reduce our excessive commitments and expectations to match our declining resources. (De Gennaro, 1977). The Reagan years, however, saw significant collection growth for a variety of reasons, not least the strong US dollar in terms of purchasing overseas material.

But whither cooperation? The American Council of Learned Societies had another go in 1979, just over a decade after its 1967 Report. Their Scholarly Communication Report called for a system wide strengthening of the scholarly communication system, with libraries needing to find better ways to share resources. (ACLS, 1979) It noted that library acquisition budgets continued to lag behind increases in the volume and costs of scholarly material but that resource sharing was hampered by major lending libraries being resistant to large scale lending.

At this stage of library history a number of large libraries felt that the automated access to their holdings via union catalogues such as RLG (Research Libraries Group), OCLC (Online Computer Library Centre), and ABN (Australian Bibliographic Network) was resulting in increased pressures on their resources and therefore less ability to service their own clients. Debates on the costs of inter library loans therefore raged on several continents as net lenders tried to recoup their costs and long arcane discussions on the cost basis of charges, or indeed whether to charge at all, took place. In the UK the success of the British Library Lending Division as founded by Donald Urquhart and continued by Morris Line to some extent changed the debate in the UK.

The Web and Scholarly Change

The beginnings of the Web impacted in and on libraries earlier than most sectors of society in the 1990’s. While the debates continue as to the issues of access, storage and the economics of libraries and information provision, there is no doubt that the Internet will be as revolutionary in societal change as the printing press was in the fifteenth century. The World Wide Web is undoubtedly causing major cultural shifts in terms of the access and dissemination of information at numerous levels.

Research libraries, as they become more involved in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, will see their roles changing They will need to move from passive to active players in the scholarly communication chain in ways that Rider implied with microcards. The manner in which scholarly research is changing is evidenced in the Australian Government funded study, Changing Research Practices in the Digital Information and Communication Environment (Houghton, 2003). This study revealed a need for an holistic approach to scholarly communication issues and that while many researchers were working in a mode 2 interdisciplinary environment, that their publications were still locked in a mode 1 traditional framework because of academic reward systems.

Scholars will be involved in digital scholarly communication systems that are able to capture the digital scholarly record, make it accessible, and preserve it over time. Multimedia and grid computing applications are enhancing inter disciplinary developments and changing the nature of what we might term scholarly “publishing” and thus research access by research libraries. Professor Tony Hey, Head of the UK eScience program, has noted the current ‘data deluge,’ which refers to the flood of scientific data from e-Science experiments, simulations, sensors and satellites. (Hey and Trefethen, 2003). For the exploitation of this material by relevant search engines and data mining software tools, such data needs to be archived and stored in appropriate formats with relevant metadata.

Open Access Initiatives and Scholarly Publishing

“The Berlin Declaration” of October 2003 signed by all of Germany's principal scientific and scholarly institutions argues that the Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scholarly knowledge and cultural heritage with the guarantee of worldwide access. New access models based on existing institutional infrastructures are emerging through the Open Access initiatives and institutional repository developments, although the OA debates of 2004 reflected confused and often heated. settings.

A different spin on the growth of research collections has come from the publishing industry. Several commentators such as Robert Campbell and John Cox have argued that the problem does not lie so much with the rise in prices of STM serials but rather with the inability of academic budgets to keep up with the growth of R&D expenditure in the developed world.

John Cox, a noted commentator on the publishing industry, has noted the market for database collections of full text journal content has matured in the last decades of the twentieth century. (Cox, 2004) In this context, he believes a number of factors have converged; academic library budgets from the mid-1970s have failed to keep pace with R&D output. While scientific research papers have doubled since 1975, library budgets have increased by only forty per cent. (Cox, 2004, p5)

In the 1970s library expenditure as a proportion of total university expenditure in the western world was running at four per cent of total university expenditure. Since that time, Cox argues the proportion has steadily declined and is now under three per cent, but as mentioned earlier, other proportions of the budget on ICT infrastructure have increased. Many librarians would debate Cox’s comment that “university libraries have not succeeded in selling the value of the library to the university community”. (Cox, 2004, p5) Cox notes, however, that consortia purchasing of large serial collections from publishers and aggregated databases of journal content have assisted library provision of information to the academic user communities.

Robert Campbell of Blackwell Publishing similarly believes libraries are now enjoying access to almost double the number of journal titles they had in 1993/4 in the UK, that downloads from Blackwell journals had risen from 19million in 2002 to an estimated 65 million in 2004, and academics were reading many more articles today than they did in the 1970s. (Campbell, 2004)

These issues, however, must involve more directly, than has perhaps been the case to date, the academic users even in their contradictory Jekyll and Hyde approaches as readers and writers if scholarly communication and reward systems are to change. The Berlin signatories believe that in order to realize the vision of a global and accessible representation of knowledge a number of initiatives must be put in place. These include researchers and grant recipients being encouraged to publish their work according to the principles of open access; means and ways being developed to evaluate open access contributions in electronic journals and digital repositories within the standards of quality assurance including peer review.

Two strands, now beginning to intersect, namely the ‘decline’ in university presses and the ‘rise’ of university libraries/repository centres could allow the rebirth of the scholarly book in a significant way. Digital publishing technologies, linked to global networking and international interoperability protocols and metadata standards, allow for an appropriately branded institutional output to serve as an indication of a university’s quality and also as an effective scholarly communication tool through visibility, status and public value.

David Seaman, Executive Director of the Digital Library Federation, gave the 2004 James Bennett Lecture at the Australian National University in November Entitled "Mass and Malleability: Nimble Libraries and Mutable Books". Seaman warned about "the perils of rigidity in a Jell-O landscape” and urged academic publishers and research libraries to work cooperatively to meet their central challenge: "the transformation from isolation to integration. Virtual cooperation replaces physical cooperation as the twenty first century watchword.

In some ways we now return to Rider in the context that access to electronic information is growing faster on the web than we are able to deal with it. Scholarly publishing symbolises the public/private struggles within the knowledge economy. New models will need to be developed which may not fit late twentieth century business models, ie changing to ones which will utilise and benefit from the public domain infrastructure to support access to scholarly knowledge.

Research library futures

As indicated earlier, there are likely to be profound changes in the role and function of many research libraries as user patterns change in terms of accessing information and libraries become more active partners in the scholarly communication process. (Greenstein, 2004) Research and teaching platforms will link appropriate repositories through digital asset management systems, with automated metadata harvesting. Such repositories will be linked to new universal citation processes and open source/open access philosophies.

As history in general, and Rider in particular has shown, the ability to predict knowledge access and transfer patterns is a complicated one, as Google Print and its partnerships with publishers and libraries has shown. The digital revolution has brought us to another set of information crossroads. Libraries have a choice -to understand and facilitate the changes in scholarly communications and networked knowledge, or to be filtered out of the new information environments. Libraries will have to become much more proactive in their institutional roles, in the new paradigms for the creation, distribution and access of information. We return to the question what is the future of the research library and its economics in the digital era- no easy Rider?

REFERENCES

(Internet citations are at 2 December 2004)

American Council of Learned Societies (1967) On Research Libraries. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

American Council of Learned Societies (1979) Scholarly Communication The Report of the National Enquiry. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press

Axford, H William (1962) Rider Revisited College and Research Libraries. July 1962, 23:4, pp345-347

Baker, Nicholson (2001) Doublefold: Libraries and the assault on paper. New York: Random House

Campbell, Robert (2004) Libraries: do they have a future in academia – or only a past? Serials. March 2004 17(1) pp9-14

Cox, John (2004) Aggregators and the Primary Journal. Worthing: ALPSP.

De Gennaro, Richard (1977) Copyright, Resource Sharing and Hard Times: a view from the field. American Libraries. September 1977, p435.

Greenstein, Daniel (2004) Library Stewardship in a Networked Age

Hey, T. and Trefethen, A. (2003) The Data Deluge

Houghton, John, Steele, Colin, Henty, Margaret (2003) Changing Research Practices in the Digital Information and Communication Environment. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.

McMullen, Haynes (1955) American University Libraries, 1955-2005 College and Research Libraries July 1955, 16, 288

Metcalf, Keyes (1954) Spatial Problems in University Libraries Library Trends. pp558. Quoted in Wilson and Tauber, p492.

Molyneux, R.E. (1986) Patterns, processes of growth, and the projection of library size: a critical review of the literature on academic library growth. Library & Information Science Research, January – March 1986, 8, 5-28

Molyneux, R.E. (1994a) More hortatory than factual: Fremont Rider’s exponential growth hypothesis and the context of exponentialism. In For the good of the order: essays in honor of Edward G. Holley, eds D.E. Williams et al., pp. 85-117. Greenwich: CT: Jai Press

Molyneux, R.E. (1994b) What did Rider do? An inquiry into the methodology of Fremont Rider’s The scholar and the future of the research library. Libraries & Culture, 29, 297-325

Molyneux, R.E. (1996) Fremont Rider’s Legacy ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions, October 1996, 188, p6 .

Piternick, George (1963) Library Growth and Academic Quality College and Research Libraries. May 1963,24(3), pp223-229.

Ratcliffe, F.W. (1980) The Growth of University Library Collections in the United Kingdom in University Library History. Ed by James Thompson, London: K J Saur, p8.

Rider, Fremont (1944) The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library. New York: Hadham Press.

Stam, David (1992) Plus Ca Change … Sixty Years of The Associate of Research Libraries. Association of Research Libraries Newsletter

Steele, Colin R. (1970) Blanket Orders and the Bibliographer in the Large Research Library. Journal of Librarianship. October, 1970 2(4), p273.

Steele, Colin R. Ed, (1978) Steady-State, Zero Growth and the Academic Library London: Bingley

Steele, Colin (2004) The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The Politics of Scholarly Communication

University Grants Committee. Capital Provision for University Libraries. London: HMSO. 1976

Wilson, Louis Round and Tauber, Morris F. (1958) The University Library. Second edition. New York: Columbia University Press, p492.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download