Advertisement

Research Libraries in the Twenty-First Century

  • Yvonna S. Lincoln
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research book series (HATR, volume 25)

Abstract

Libraries are a key resource in maintaining research, funding and teaching capabilities of research extensive universities today, but they rarely receive significant research attention, treated instead as a kind of “add-on” to other considerations. Yet research libraries and their search and linking capabilities are changing the way in which faculty and students alike work, and some suggest, the way in which we even think, about knowledge, knowledge production, and our relationships with the world. Libraries—and librarians—are undertaking roles which go far beyond collecting, cataloguing, storing and retrieving information, and are now working as knowledge producers themselves. As well, librarians in research extensive universities are now key to organizing new information and knowledge, creating new accessibility paths for faculty and students. This chapter also considers the role of major research libraries in teaching in the knowledge economy; contributing to the development of new metrics for evaluating libraries, their collections and their services; the economics of collections and collection development, including space and space renovation which meets new teaching needs and modes; the role of funding and development; the creation and expansion of digital libraries and archives; and libraries’ contributions to the creation of research collaboratives across time and space.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Digital Library Reference Librarian Research Library Unique Collection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ARL: A Bimonthly Report. (2002). Collections and access for the 21st-century scholar; Changing roles of research libraries, 225 (December). Retrieved 3/2/09, from http://www.arl.org/newsltr/225/
  2. Arms, W. (2000). Digital libraries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baden, D. (2005, October). Dialogue: Let 2,000 petabytes bloom. Discover, 26(10), 50.Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett, T. (2007). Archive fever. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(46), A8–13.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Battin, P. (1982). Libraries, computers and scholarship. Wilson Library Bulletin, 56, 580–583.Google Scholar
  7. Bement, A. L. (2007, January 5). Cyberinfrastructure: The second revolution. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, B5–6Google Scholar
  8. Berners-Lee, J. H., & Lassila, O. (2001, May). The semantic Web. Scientific American, 284, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, L. L. (1995). On great service: A framework for action. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Borgman, C. (2000). From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: Access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Borgman, C. (2003, Spring). The invisible library: Paradox of the global information infrastructure. Library Trends, 51(4), 652–674.Google Scholar
  12. Brandt, D. S. (2001, Summer). Information technology literacy: Task knowledge and mental models. Library Trends, 50(1), 73–86.Google Scholar
  13. Branin, J. J. (1998). Shifting boundaries: Managing research library collections at the beginning of the Twenty-first century. Collection Management, 23(4), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Branin, J., Groen, F., & Thorin, S. (1999, November 12–14). The changing nature of collection management in research libraries. Paper presented at the Creating New Strategies for Cooperative Collection Development Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  15. Breakstone, E. (2005, September 30). Librarians can look forward to an exhilarating future. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B20.Google Scholar
  16. Breivik, P. S., & Gee, E. G. (2006). Higher education in the internet age: Creating a strategic edge. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. Byrne, R. (2007). 20 years of archival ambition. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(48), A10–11.Google Scholar
  18. Carlson, S. (2002). Students and faculty members turn first to online library materials, study finds. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(8). Retrieved on February 2, 2005, from http://weblinks3.epnet.com/ citation.asp?tb+1&_ua=bo+B%5F+shn+1+db+aphjnh
  19. Carlson, S. (2003). Libraries’ consortium conundrum. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, 7, October 10. Retrieved 2/11/2005, from http://weblinks3.epnet.com/citation/asp?tb+1&_us+bt+ID++CRN+shn+1+db+aphj
  20. Carlson, S. (2005a). Special effects: College librarians highlight rare collections to help build support for their institutions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(41), A23–24.Google Scholar
  21. Carlson, S. (2005b, September 30). Thoughtful design keeps new libraries relevant: Not everything students want and need is online. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B1–5.Google Scholar
  22. Carlson, S. (2005c). Not-yet-rare collections: Libraries preserve pop culture. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(41), A25.Google Scholar
  23. Carlson, S. (2007). Young librarians, talking ‘bout their generation. Chronicle of Higher Education, LIV, 8, A28–30.Google Scholar
  24. Cloonan, M. V., & Harvey, R. (2007). Preserving cultural heritage: Introduction. Library Trends, 56(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
  25. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Cook, C. C. (2001). A mixed-methods approach to the identification and measurement of academic library service quality constructs: LibQUAL+™. Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
  27. Coombe, R. J. (1998). The cultural life of intellectual properties: Authorship, appropriation, and the law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Covi, L., & Kling, R. (1996). Organizational dimensions of effective digital library use: Closed rational and open natural systems models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(9), 672–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. De Gennaro, R. (1982). Libraries, technology and the information marketplace. Library Journal, 107, 1045–1054.Google Scholar
  30. Destefano, P. and Walters, T.O. (2007) A Natural Collaboration: Preservation for Archival Collections in ARL Libraries. Library Trends, 56(1), 230–258.Google Scholar
  31. Fallows, J. (2006). Artificial intelligentsia. The Atlantic Monthly, 298(3), 146–149.Google Scholar
  32. Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R. K., & Shuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in transition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fox, E. A., Akscyn, R. J., Furuta, R. K., & Leggett, J. J. (Eds.) (1995). Editors’ introduction: Digital libraries. Communication of the ACM, 38(4), 23–28.Google Scholar
  34. Galvin, T. J., & Lynch, B. P. (Eds.) (1982). Priorities for academic libraries. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Greenstein, D., Tiedt, D., & Smith, A., (2007, January 5). Interview: The library as search engine. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, B24–25.Google Scholar
  36. Heath, F., Cook, C., Lincoln, Y. S., Thompson, B., and Kyrillidoo, M. (2000). Service effectiveness in academic research libraries. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), Department of Education, $321,214. Proposal for funding in response to a Request for Proposal, FIPSE.Google Scholar
  37. Herring, M. Y. (2005, March 11). Don’t get goggle-eyed over Google’s plan to digitize. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B20.Google Scholar
  38. Hisle, W. L. (2005, September 30). Reference questions in the library of the future. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, B6–8.Google Scholar
  39. Holton, B., Hardesty, L., & O’Shea, P. (2008). Academic Libraries: 2006 (NCES 2008-337). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://necs.ed.gov/pubsearch
  40. Holton, B., Vaden, K., & O’Shea, P. (2006). Academic libraries: 2004 (NCES 2007-301). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
  41. Jacoby, R. (1987). The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Kenney, A., & Rieger, O. (2000). Moving theory into practice: Digital imaging for libraries and archives. Mountain View, CA: Research Libraries Group.Google Scholar
  43. Krafft, D. B. (2002). A model for simple metadata-based services. National Science Digital Library (NSDL) Communications, April 11. Retrieved July 19, 2003, from http://comm.nsdlib.org/projects/citi/document/SMBS/en/1/SMBS.html
  44. Kyrillidou, M., Cook, C., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008, March 3–6). Digital library service quality: What does it look like? Paper presented at the annual meeting, Digital Libraries Association, Corfu, Greece.Google Scholar
  45. Kyrillidou, M. Heath, F., Cook, C., Thompson, B., Lincoln, Y. S., & Webster, D. (2007, August 13–16). DigiQUAL™: A digital library evaluation service. Paper presented at the 7th annual Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services (PM7), Stellenbosch University, South Africa.Google Scholar
  46. Liddy, E. D., Sutton, S., Paik, W, Allen, E., Harwell, S., Monsour, M., et al. (2001, June 24–28). Breaking the metadata generation bottleneck: Preliminary findings. Journal of the Committee on Digital Libraries, 1, 464.Google Scholar
  47. Lincoln, Y. S., & Lechuga, V. (2006, October 18–19). Research libraries as knowledge producers: A shifting context for policy and funding: Final technical report to the Task Force on New Ways of Measuring Collections, Association of Research Libraries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Lougee, W. P. (2002). Diffuse libraries: Emergent roles for the research library in the digital age. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.Google Scholar
  49. Mangan, K. S. (2005). Packing up the books. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(43), A27–28.Google Scholar
  50. Marcus, G. E. (Ed.) (1999). Critical anthropology now: Unexpected contexts, shifting constituencies, changing agendas. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  51. Marlino, M., Sumner, T., Fulker, D., Manduca, C., & Mogk, D. (2001). The digital library for earth system education: Building community, building the library. Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 80–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCray, A. T., & Gallagher, M. E. (2001). Principles for digital library development. Communication of the ACM, 44(5), 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McLeod, K. (2007). Owning culture: Authorship, ownership & intellectual property law. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  54. Moran, B. B. (1984). Academic libraries: The changing knowledge centers of colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  55. National Inquiry into Scholarly Communication. (1979). Scholarly communication: The report of the National Enquiry. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–40.Google Scholar
  57. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420–450.Google Scholar
  58. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). Research note: More on improving quality measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69, 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Research Libraries Group. (1996). Preserving digital information: Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information. The Commission on Preservation and Access and The Research Libraries Group, Inc. Washington, DC; The Commission on Preservation and Access (printed version) and Mountain View, CA: The Research Libraries Group (Web-based version).Google Scholar
  60. Sherman, C., & Price, G. (2003). The invisible web: Uncovering sources search engines can’t see. Library Trends, 52(2), 282–298.Google Scholar
  61. Shuster, J. H. (1998). Reconfiguring the professoriate. Academe, 84(1), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, M. S., & Casserly, C. M. (2006, September/October). The promise of open educational resources. Change, 38, 8–17.Google Scholar
  63. Suplee, C. (with N. Holmes) (2005). Information takes shape. Discover, 26(10), 50–51.Google Scholar
  64. Torgovnick, M. (2008). File under fleeting: Archives are more ephemeral than they seem. The Chronicle Review, 55(2), B14–16.Google Scholar
  65. Wilder, S. (2007, February 23). The new library professional. Chronicle of Higher Education, LIII, 25, C1, C4.Google Scholar
  66. Young, J. R. (2005). From Gutenberg to Google: Five views on the search-engine company’s project to digitize library books. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(39), A24–27.Google Scholar
  67. Zerner, C., (Ed.) (2003). Culture and the question of rights: Forests, coasts, and seas in Southeast Asia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Distinguished Professor of Higher Education and Ruth Harrington Chair of Educational LeadershipTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations