Smith, Jane. “The RAPIDly Changing World of Interlibrary Loan.” Technical Services Quarterly. 23.4 (2006): 17-25. Print.
I was reading this article for my online interlibrary loan class and found that while most of what the article was about was not relevant to me, I found some interesting things at the beginning I wanted to comment on.
The article begins as follows:
‘Traditionally, Interlibrary Loan (ILL) has been a largely unacknowledged service in many libraries. ILL seemed to chastise, serving as a reminder that carefully constructed, painstakingly reviewed collections were inadequate. A library’s need for ILL seemed to signal a failure of analysis resulting in a lack of material, as well as a lack of foresight in planning in future research needs. No library would ever admit a reliance on ILL to satisfy its clientele.’ (17-18)
This is an interesting observation. Although, I would like to know where Ms. Smith got this idea. Was it her original thought? Or are there several others that have brought this up in the professional discourse? I don’t think I would define interlibrary loan as something that seems to chastise the performance of a library’s collection development staff. Each library has its own unique circumstances for why it provides interlibrary loan services. These observations seem to gloss over all these circumstances. Besides, in some libraries I think the success of interlibrary loan services can be significant signal of success for the library in general.
In the next paragraph, the author writes the following:
‘It is undeniable that the importance of resource sharing has grown quickly and tremendously in the past five years. The burgeoning costs of journal subscriptions, regardless of format, have seriously affected budget-crippled libraries worldwide . . . Couple this budget crisis with users’ easy access to a growing number of online bibliographic databases and a spiraling increase in research indexing, and the result is the inability of any library to serve its patrons well without serious resource-sharing participation.’ (18)
Ok people, do we just keep regurgitating the same statements and phrases in print and in conversations with colleagues and never really doing anything about it? Hmm . . . I’m starting to wonder. I mean, seriously, this article was published in 2006, it is now 2010 and I hear the same arguments today. What made these statements unique in 2006 and what makes them unique today?
She goes on:
‘The increasing attention to ILL services highlights the drawbacks of resource sharing. Slow, expensive, and staff intensive, resource sharing is a struggle for understaffed, under-funded libraries. The premise of ILL service is that requested materials are delivered in a timely, cost-effective, and efficient manner; the reality of the service is often very different.’ (18)
What planet was she working on in 2006? Slow? Expensive? Staff intensive? Granted, not all libraries can afford to have a fast and robust ILL service, but I think it is unfair to imply the service was cumbersome in all libraries in 2006. It was not, and is not today. However, I will agree that ILL is still a service that needs improvement in some libraries because of things like lack of staff and funds.
Also, the author does not take the time to define resource sharing. From the context of the article, I get the sense she is suggesting that interlibrary loan and resource sharing are one in the same. However, today, in 2010, I think they can mean different things. Interlibrary Loan is specifically about borrowing and lending materials between libraries in ‘just in time’ fashion to supplement a user’s research with materials not at their local library. Resource sharing is much broader than that. Now, I will admit that I am still shaping my definition of resource sharing, today I see it as more of a concept/philosophy, of which, interlibrary loan is one aspect. I see resource sharing as a blanket phrase used to identify the collaborative efforts between libraries to share print and electronic materials, provide services, possibly share staff, as a way to expand upon and change the way collection development is conceived and carried out, and much more. I think it all hinges on the word ‘resource’. If you stop and think for a moment, how do you define the word resource in the context of libraries? What do you consider a resource? I think the libraries of 2010 can easily blow the roof off of what we think we mean by resource sharing. I only wish Ms. Smith had taken the time to define what she meant by the phrase.
Come on people, tell me how you define resource sharing?
Blog spammers! You are wasting your time here.
Posted by oelibrarian on February 4, 2010
So, I know I don’t really have many readers to this blog and subsequently I get even fewer comments. But I’m fine with that. I consider this blog a work in progress, it is always developing and changing. And I can understand that not every post I put up here is going to appeal to everyone. That being said . . . with the %#@&*! spammers cut it out?!?!
There are only so many ‘This blog is great! I will definitely be back here soon!’ comments I can take. And the stupid links to the stupid money-making schemes. Seriously?
Luckily for you, my two readers (Hi Dad!), you don’t have to endure them, they all get deleted. Now, at this point I think the real question is . . . how soon before someone tries to spam this post?
Posted in On the Personal Side | Tagged: blogs, amusing, spam, spammers, comments, readers, audience | Leave a Comment »