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
1
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.”
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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 precursor 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
6
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)
7
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
8
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 interlibrary 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
9
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.
10
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,
11
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
12
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).
13
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
14
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.
15
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
16
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.
17
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)
18
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
19
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
20
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.
21
Greenstein, Daniel (2004) Library Stewardship in a Networked Age
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub126/green.html
Hey, T. and Trefethen, A. (2003) The Data Deluge http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ajgh/
Houghton, John, Steele, Colin, Henty, Margaret (2003) Changing Research Practices in
the Digital Information and Communication Environment. Canberra: Department of
Education, Science and Training.
http://www.cfses.com/documents/Changing_Research_Practices.pdf
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
22
Molyneux, R.E. (1996) Fremont Rider’s Legacy ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of
Research Library Issues and Actions, October 1996, 188, p6
http://arl.cni.org/newsltr/188/fremont.html.
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
http://www.arl.org/arl/plus.ca.html
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 http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc2004/
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.
23