Benjamin Carlson
March 18, 2008
INFO 520 – Alison Lewis
The Importance of Adapting to Digitization of Information
and Widespread Internet Access in Libraries
In Thomas Mann’s article “The Importance of Books, Free Access, and Libraries as
Places—and the Dangerous Inadequacy of the Information Science Paradigm,” Mann shows
considerable skepticism of the trend (which was still just beginning to grow in 2001) towards
digitization of information resources and increasing availability of internet access in libraries.
Mann expresses a specific concern that the potential marginalization of books as a print medium
would ultimately be counterproductive for libraries, arguing that digital media are inherently less
readable, more prone to be read in short bursts than as a whole, and generally do not meet the
standards of quality to which we hold print media. In addition, Mann casts doubts upon the idea
that widespread internet access will eventually lead to free access to all information. Mann’s
arguments in this article are representative of a significant group of people within the
information science field who distrust the effects the digital age will have on libraries and
information presentation in general.
In this paper, I will discuss many flaws in Mann’s
reasoning, along with technological developments since the publication of Mann’s article that
have weakened some of his bleak predictions for the future of digital books and internet resource
availability. Although I do not mean to suggest in this paper that printed text resources are
outmoded or that they should be made obsolete, I worry that Mann’s resistance to changes in
1
media is a poor foundation upon which to base the shaping of library policy and development for
the future.
The Central Importance of the “Book” in Libraries
Much of Mann’s concern throughout his article stems from his statement that the
(printed) book is the primary tool for societal development (cite). He reasons that in order for us
to continue to develop technology, and progress as a society, individuals must have access to
materials that are made available in a cohesive order, and that true understanding can only come
when one has read and absorbed all sequential parts of a book. Digital materials, however, with
their increased keyword searchability, erode this central function of the book and cause people to
read in pieces, possibly not understanding the foundational knowledge upon which those pieces
are based. Although this may be a consequence of increased digital and online content, this
concern is really with the people consuming the information, not the state of the information
made available to them. As librarians, it is primarily our job to promote open and equal access
of information in available forms, not to ensure that the information is being consumed correctly
or efficiently. A quick glance at the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights shows a great deal of concern
for availability of information and equal access, but is largely silent regarding any responsibility
to supervise the reading habits of patrons. Although there is good reason to be concerned about
the state of research and learning in a world of increasingly digitized information, this alone
should not lead us to resist the tide of changes in media, as a more prudent course would be to
accept newer established technologies and learn how best to work with them and educate our
patrons about their use. If properly catalogued and presented, libraries can minimize the amount
of “unintegrated data and information” that Mann seems so concerned about.
2
Another of Mann’s arguments is directed specifically at the emerging digital technologies
themselves as replacements for printed books, i.e. readability. Specifically, Mann points out
that, as of 2001, very few people were reading entire books through electronic means. Although
that number has surely gone up over the past few years, it is certainly true that e-books and other
digital media are still not widely accepted alternatives to print, mostly due to the fact that
technology has not discovered a suitable and acceptable replacement for ink on paper. Mann,
however, goes too far in suggesting that because readability had not been significantly improved
in 2001, that equivalent (or comparable) quality and readability is not possible at all. Although
one cannot predict with certainty when, if ever, e-book readers and computer screens will present
such an acceptable alternative, progress is surely being made. Many scholars now predict that
the technology in the next five years will progress to a point where it will be much more feasible
to expect patrons to request e-books and electronic materials. (Rao, 2005) Recent devices by
Amazon and Sony are being hailed as much more readable than technology from a few years
ago, and there is no reason to assume that this progress will stop now. (Hannon, 2008)
Of course, pure readability is not the only reason why some patrons prefer printed words
to their digital counterparts. Digital media are still generally much less browsable then physical
books, which currently lend themselves much more readily to grouping by subject on a shelf,
where a patron can see at a glance what related materials are available to them. This too,
however, can be improved in the digital realm with time, as interfaces are developed that
replicate the experience of finding an e-book surrounded by others in its field. In fact, one can
imagine how this process could be ultimately improved over the current system in time, possibly
showing patrons not only what would be on the same shelf, but which resources other patrons
have consulted along with a given digital book, and then make those related works immediately
3
available (similar to amazon.com’s “Customers who bought this item also bought…” feature).
In a consumer-driven economy, the companies developing these digital media will certainly have
to keep pace with user input and needs in order to stay afloat in the market, and thus over time
these companies will be forced to demonstrate how these new media are preferable to printed
sources.
Mann fails to demonstrate exactly what it is about printed books that would give them an
inherent advantage over digital media in the long run. Understandably, many people today will
always choose physical books for emotional and nostalgic reasons, e.g. that they are pleasing to
hold, fun to page through, and remind us of our experiences with books from our younger days.
It would be naïve to assert that this deep connection will disappear anytime soon, if at all, and it
is this kind of concern that will shape the markets for print and digital books in the coming
generations. Mann is quick to point out that the market for print books was still growing in
2001, as it still is today, with more titles being published and distributed every year. From this
he argues that libraries need to make a commitment to larger facilities to store these resources
and make them available. As one commenter has noted, however, “the maintenance and upkeep
of legacy book stacks in many ways prevents the further extension of what libraries are trying to
do with electronic resources.” (Storey, 2005). In the future, if e-books were to emerge as a
viable alternative to print, Mann’s argument that more books require more storage space would
be somewhat akin to arguing that our increasing production of waste requires us to build more
landfills, rather than pushing towards a more innovative solution such as more aggressive
recycling.1
1
To be clear, I am not saying that printed books are equivalent to trash, but rather that in light of the many costand-space-efficiency concerns of libraries, we should be prepared for the eventuality that large-scale adoption of
4
The Persistence of Copyright Restrictions
In such a fiercely capitalist society as the United States, only an idealist could really
expect that all collected and produced information will be truly free and openly available over
the internet. American copyright has its roots in the Constitution, and the recent legislative trend
of lengthening the duration of copyright protection shows that it is not going away any time
soon. Mann points to this as a major flaw in the idea of internet or digital-based libraries, as this
information will never be truly free for everyone to access whenever they want. Here Mann
misstates the issue, though, because he seems to be saying that the internet and digitization is not
worth libraries’ effort if they will not allow free access and ownership of all information to
whomever wants it, free of all restrictions. In fact, this would be a significant change in the way
libraries operate, for they have always provided free access to information with the caveat that
patrons must return the materials or are otherwise restricted in how they can use the information.
The true goal of providing more internet access and more electronic options to patrons is not to
give out free ownership of copyrighted material, but rather to increase convenience and
availability of access to these resources within the bounds of the law.
Indeed, there are many ways in which libraries can provide far superior access to
materials through digital means, while still only giving patrons access limited by time and place.
The first option is something that many academic libraries already provide, i.e. access to
databases licensing agreements.
(Lawson & Lawson, 2002)
Although these licenses are
generally not free, much of the potential cost can be offset by a corresponding decline in costs
for maintenance of print materials and other administrative and facilities costs that would not be
digital media could someday be preferable to an ever-growing collection of physical books. The mere production
and availability of physical books should not, in itself, justify bending over backwards to accommodate and house
them.
5
necessary as the need for printed books wanes.
Another way to accommodate copyright
concerns in a digitized library is to encode e-books with Digital Rights Management (DRM), a
strategy that has become very popular in the music industry to limit the copying and use of music
files distributed by certain sources. Finally, libraries are becoming increasingly networked, in
such a way that membership in one can allow access to the resources of many others. In light of
any or all of these technologies, libraries focused on electronic content should be able to achieve
the same degree of freedom of access to information as is currently found in print collections.
Availability and Digital Divide Issues
Probably the single greatest concern facing libraries that may consider transitioning from
print to electronic media are issues of equal access to materials, specifically with regard to the
so-called “digital divide”. It is certainly true now that public and school libraries provide a
much-needed venue for free information, provided equally to all patrons. If we are to commit
these libraries to new technologies, however, we must be aware of two specific issues: not to
sacrifice any materials in the transition, and more importantly not to allow technology to move
faster than the patrons. Specifically, a wholesale change to electronic formats would be uncalled
for and unethical if done without complete assurance that all of the patrons can access and
understand these new forms of information. “If future generations cannot access the multiple
copies of digital information, then all the efforts to digitize it have actually done more harm than
good.” (Balas, 2007). Thus, depending on how important we feel it is to speed along the process
of transitioning to e-books and other digital media, libraries will also likely have to dedicate
some of their resources to education and other programs to bring their patrons up to speed and to
ensure equal access. Although unequal access may be one of the biggest obstacles to full-scale
6
digitization, patron demand, and not the concerns of librarians, will ultimately decide how this
conflict will play out.
The Future of Libraries and Librarians
Throughout the article, much of Mann’s concern stems from what he sees to be a
troublesome future for the library as a space, and for the librarian as a “navigator” of that space.
It is an understatement to say that this transition will take considerable adjustment throughout the
profession, as the layout, policies, and procedures of all libraries will have to change quite a bit.
As e-books and digital media become more standard, money once spent on collection
development can be transferred to servers, IT staff, computers and e-readers, and database
subscriptions. In fact, significant sections of the information science profession have already
anticipated the beginnings of this transition and some have embraced it. In the ACRL’s “Top ten
assumptions for the future of academic libraries and librarians” from 2007, the highest-ranked
assumptions counsel strongly for adapting to new technologies and striving to improve
preservation and storage of digital media (Mullins et al., 2007). Librarians as a whole must keep
in mind that modern librarianship is almost totally patron-driven, and as a result we cannot resist
these oncoming changes merely because of the difficult adaptation process or due to our own
nostalgia.
When will this Actually Happen?
Despite the optimistic tone of this paper, it is clearly not feasible to expect any of the
large-scale changes described here to happen anytime soon. In fact, if we are to see a conversion
to electronic media in libraries, it will likely happen so gradually that few will notice until the
transition is nearly complete. Simply put, readability, availability, cost, and many other factors
7
continue to weigh against digitization of collections, and it is not until all of these factors are
diminished, and patrons truly feel comfortable with these media, that libraries will make the most
aggressive steps toward change. At the same time, however, the overwhelming trend towards
faster and more convenient information should cause librarians to seriously consider how to
begin the process of transition and adaptation now so that it is not uncomfortably jarring later on.
We are past the point of Mann’s suggestion that the internet and digital media are merely fads,
and to decide at this point not to follow the tide of electronic information would essentially be to
reject the needs of our patrons. Although electronic media will always be subject to certain
pitfalls that were not a concern with print resources, the time to learn how to understand and
work around these issues is now, rather than after the transition has already occurred. Indeed,
“[p]rint unquestionably preserves information for future generations, but if libraries do not
master and understand the media that their users prefer, the current generation may devalue the
library to the point where it does not survive to serve future users.” (Wu, 2005) Mann’s
argument that printed books are and will always be of central importance to library collections
has been weakened considerably by new technologies and developments over the last decade. In
fact, the few benefits that remain for print resources are far outweighed by the benefits of
digitization in the long run, most notably increased accessibility, portability, more focus on
patron needs rather than book maintenance, and the positive environmental impact of a reduction
in physical book consumption. In light of these benefits, it is our duty to keep track of patron
demand and the market for digital materials, and to update library collections accordingly to
provide the best service to our communities. Although Mann returns again and again to the idea
that we must apply “critical thinking” to popular trends in order to avoid being taken in by hype,
8
one must always ask whether “critical thinking” is merely an attempt to hold on to old ways of
doing things and to avoid truly innovative forward thinking.
Bibliography
Balas, J.L. (2007). By digitizing, are we trading future accessibility for current availability?
Computers in Libraries, 27(3), 30-32.
Hannon, C. (2008). E-texts in the classroom. Educause Quarterly, 31(1), 12-13.
Mann, T. (2001). The importance of books, free access, and libraries as places—and the
dangerous inadequacy of the information science paradigm. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 27(4), 268-281.
Lawson, R. & Lawson, P. (2002). Libraries in a bind: Ownership versus access. The Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 36(2), 295-298.
Mullins, J.L., Allen, F.R., & Hufford, J.R. (2007). Top ten assumptions for the future of
academic libraries and librarians. College & Research Libraries News, 68(4), 240-1, 246.
Rao, S.S. (2005). Electronic books: their integration into library and information centers. The
Electronic Library, 23(1), 116-140.
Storey, T. (2005). The long tail and libraries. OCLC Newsletter, 268. Retrieved March 15,
2008 from http://www.oclc.org/news/publications/newsletters/oclc/2005/268/thelongtail.htm.
Wu, M.M. (2005). Why print and electronic resources are essential to the academic law library.
Law Library Journal, 97(2), 233-256.
9