21
20
responsibilities in the face of rampant shared and open re-
sources. How does the library respond to these revolution-
ary trends through our shifting geography, our fundamental
expertise, and our advocacy and support for the work of the
researcher?
The library has evolved a complex relationship with the re-
searcher, and a taxonomy on that interdependence can be
outlined. Is the library a servant to the researcher, or have we
evolved parallel patterns of work, where we are increasingly
strangers? Are researchers now customers? Do we speak of
our friendship and mutual support out of tradition rather
than necessity? How do we build library and researcher as
partner and team? That is our fundamental challenge.
What do researchers tell us about their expectations? They
are interested in personal advancement and recognition.
They want to make signifcant contributions to the research
literature and conversations in their felds. They want to
work on innovative projects, to collaborate with interesting
colleagues, and to advance successful students. They need
excellent laboratory, information and technology support.
How does the library respond to these needs?
What do researchers tell us about technology and informa-
tion resources? They want access to more and better content
and functionality. They want convenience, based on indi-
vidual and organizational productivity, and cost controls.
They want the latest technology so they can exploit new
capabilities and push the borders of their disciplines. They
want to participate in and control their information envi-
ronments through personalization and customization. How
does the library respond to these expectations?
Researchers sustain an urge to share the results of their
research. This is the way they communicate with scholars
around the world. It is part of the academic culture in which
they have been raised. It is the way their ideas and contribu-
tions are preserved for future generations. It is a source of
prestige, recognition and remuneration. At all stages of the
scholarly communication process, the library has and can
continue to play a central role. Scholarly communication
embraces creation, evaluation, distribution, use and preser-
vation of research information, both the research data and
the research product. Researchers are telling us that they
need expanded support in critical areas. They are seeking
assistance in navigating, analyzing and synthesizing the liter-
ature. They want guidance on working in an open research
environment with scholarly exchange that is continuous.
They recognize the need to make the transition from the
scholarly product, the research paper or the monograph, to
the scholarly process. They require more robust expertise
databases, subject ontologies, and researcher information
systems. They expect more consultation and support with
e-data management. They want help with awareness and in-
tegration of disparate sources and grey literature. They argue
for an informationalist model for library support. How does
the library respond to the refreshed requirements?
Researchers remind us that they live in tribal settings, and
that it is important for libraries to embrace the discipline
diversity. The researcher community sustains a focus on
the importance of trust, credibility, and meritocracy in the
scholarly process. They recognize that there is a new eco-
nomics governing research, what is important and what is
supported. They see the power of digital and networked to
produce wider vertical integration in research, new modes
of discourse, expanded readership of research results, and
a democratization of the research process more reliant on
open and free exchange. How can the library support these
shifting research conditions?
The library must be a part of the research and development
enterprise. R&D is focused on new knowledge creation, on
experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of
facts, on the practical application of new theories and laws.
R&D creates a laboratory for experimentation, a magnet for
new skills and capabilities, a venue for deep collaboration.
It helps us to solve information and technology problems,
and to ask new research questions. It enables the potential
for capitalization and technology transfer, and for expanded
government and private funding. R&D creates a culture of
credibility and visibility, support for decision making, and
a spirit of organizational risk taking. Libraries need to be
partnered with researchers in the R&D process.
These researcher expectations challenge the library to build
new support for the research cyber-infrastructure so essential
to scholarship today. It means aggressive digital library pro-
grams: licensed electronic content, the capture and organiza-
tion of open web content, the conversion of analog resources
to digital collections, web-based services, on-demand docu-
ment delivery, customized literature update services, textual
and statistical and spatial data services, and the technology
Libraries must prepare
for more rigorous account-
ability and assessment,
new institutional expecta-
tions and government and
funder mandates.
and policy and economic framework that allows researchers
to be productive and successful. It means new thinking and
investment in the preservation and archiving of the con-
tent and the functionality. Libraries working together in new
collaborations can address the requirements for repository,
persistence, curation and stewardship. It means supporting
in new ways e-science and the digital humanities, that is re-
search with extensive reliance on the technology framework
and digital archiving of data. Will libraries provide the soft-
ware, hardware, expertise, processes, training, security, stan-
dards, policies, and capabilities for these essential needs of
big science? Researchers want help with the management of
research data sets, assistance with curation and discovery,
the ability to extract and apply, the need to distribute and
collaborate on a global scale, the potential for visualization
and simulation, and permanent storage and availability.
Libraries in this shifting research environment must prepare for
more rigorous accountability and assessment, new institutional
expectations and government and funder mandates. Can we
put in place reliable and efective measures of researcher satis-
faction, market penetration, success, impact, cost efectiveness,
and system and service design for usability? Can libraries more
efectively match their capabilities with the needs and wants of
the researcher, with enhanced market penetration, that is exis-
ting services to existing markets, with market extension, that is
existing products to new markets, with product development,
that is new services for existing markets, and with diversifca-
tion, that is new products for new markets?
All of these trends and issues raise important questions about
the role of the information professional in supporting the
changing needs of the researcher. It means that libraries will
need professionals with more diverse academic backgrounds
with deeper subject expertise. It means a wider range of pro-
fessional assignments and credentials. It means more fuid
and maverick organizational environments. What will be the
impact on library values, outlooks, styles and cultures? What
will be the impact on researcher understanding, recognition,
respect, support and engagement?
Library stafng will be characterized by new: composition,
characteristics, credentials, careers, character, coherence, cul-
ture, chutzpah, compass and capabilities. The expectations for
the new information professional will expand: deep subject
and technical expertise, a commitment to rigor, a commitment
to research and development, a commitment to assessment
and evaluation, communication and marketing skills, political
engagement, project development and management skills, an
entrepreneurial spirit, a commitment to deep collaboration,
resource development skills, a leadership and inspirational
capacity, a deep service commitment, and a professional voice.
Will the library in the eyes of the researcher mean legacy?
Will library be something handed down from the past, a her-
itage? Will library be an outdated technology that while still
functional really does not work well with up-to-date systems?
Will library be expendable, that is something which is still
used although no longer the most modern or advanced, and
for a bit longer too expensive or difcult to replace? Will the
library be fungible, that is something that has existed and
thrived in the past and can now be used and developed in
new and diferent ways?
Will the library in the eyes of the researcher mean innova-
tion? Can library advance new methods, new ideas, and new
products and services? Can library think diferently about
market, about value, and about solutions? Will the library
change in composition and structure, that is what we are
and what we do? Will the library change in outward form
or appearance, that is how we are viewed and understood?
Will the library change in character and condition, that is
how we support the work of the researcher? And more fun-
damentally, will library survive, or sufer the fate of terminal
extinction, with no descendants and no future, or achieve
the goal of phyletic extinction, a species that evolves into a
new and stronger organism?
JAMES G. NEAL is the Vice President for Information Services and
University Librarian at Columbia University, providing leadership for
university academic computing and a system of twenty-two libraries.
He is also member of the OCLC Board of Trustees and serves on the
Council and Executive Board of the American Library Association.