Session Number

09

Description

In 1645 Oxford's Bodleian Library denied Charles I the loan of a book.[l] It could be argued, that with the English Civil War well advanced, Charles I was a bad risk. On the other hand, Oxford was at the time a stronghold of partisans to the Crown. Whatever the case, just four years later Charles I was executed. I am not sure this is an example of cause and effect but it does serve to highlight how libraries have so frequently approached the question of access.

Three hundred and fifty years later access has not improved that much. A user is still required to come to a physical place called the library to obtain the information resources he or she may need. Granted, many places do let the user remove the materials from the library though there are many times we, as librarians, wish we could employ Cromwell's axe man to mete out justice to the patron who fails to return an item on time. Automation and the access to electronic information holds the potential for changing all of this. In particular, the development of the library information workstation holds real promise for liberating the user and, hopefully, the librarian from an outdated paradigm which has frequently provided little concern for the user.

The traditional library paradigm has emphasized the ownership of materials and the primacy of library functions. It is my contention that libraries must adopt a new paradigm which forgoes ownership for access and stresses the importance of the user as the center of library service. This is both different from and more than Martel's client-centered library in which the library is organized by librarians to improve library service to the user but does not specifically take into account the user's information needs as perceived by the user.[2] What I am advocating is that the user not the librarian defines user needs.

Share

COinS
 

Library Workstations and the Changing Paradigm of Library Service

In 1645 Oxford's Bodleian Library denied Charles I the loan of a book.[l] It could be argued, that with the English Civil War well advanced, Charles I was a bad risk. On the other hand, Oxford was at the time a stronghold of partisans to the Crown. Whatever the case, just four years later Charles I was executed. I am not sure this is an example of cause and effect but it does serve to highlight how libraries have so frequently approached the question of access.

Three hundred and fifty years later access has not improved that much. A user is still required to come to a physical place called the library to obtain the information resources he or she may need. Granted, many places do let the user remove the materials from the library though there are many times we, as librarians, wish we could employ Cromwell's axe man to mete out justice to the patron who fails to return an item on time. Automation and the access to electronic information holds the potential for changing all of this. In particular, the development of the library information workstation holds real promise for liberating the user and, hopefully, the librarian from an outdated paradigm which has frequently provided little concern for the user.

The traditional library paradigm has emphasized the ownership of materials and the primacy of library functions. It is my contention that libraries must adopt a new paradigm which forgoes ownership for access and stresses the importance of the user as the center of library service. This is both different from and more than Martel's client-centered library in which the library is organized by librarians to improve library service to the user but does not specifically take into account the user's information needs as perceived by the user.[2] What I am advocating is that the user not the librarian defines user needs.