Building a Collaborative Digital Collection: A Necessary Evolution in Libraries

Poster: Curtin, Shane

Wu, M. M. (2011). Building a Collaborative Digital Collection: A Necessary Evolution in Libraries. Law Library Journal, 103(4), 527-551.

Summary:

This article discusses the importance of collaborative digital collections for law libraries, and how collection development is influenced by storage practices and budget. The author describes her vision for a library that can grant access to its users regardless of “time, space, and resources…” She discusses the millions spent on collection development by law libraries throughout the country, and how some states have dramatically reduced costs through collaborative collection development. If each library commits  a small sum to the creation of a shared database, she contends, each library would each get hundred of times more than their money’s worth in access.

The explosion of legal resources and the constantly accelerating pace of the development and proliferation of laws no longer supports an institution by institution method of collection development: it is not an intelligence use of time or money. Each library, the author proposes, should focus its collection development on materials of local interest, while allowing the central branch of its consortium to obtain all of the general materials. Past attempts at consortium have failed because, according to the author, “local need… takes precedence over collective need” in the minds of most of the librarians invited to participate.
Following this is  an in-depth discussion of copyright law and the problem librarians face when truing to digitize their materials. A law known as 17 USC 108 puts substantial limits on the duplication rights of libraries. So why “recreate the wheel” the author asks.  If private companies like Google are already embrarking on such massive digitization projects, can we not just utilize their efforts? Of course, but it would be a risk; Resources provided by private institutions have fluctuating conditions, and their future is at the whom of those who control them.
The author concludes with a “call for collective action” to start building the law libraries of the future.

Evaluation:

All in all, this was a very interesting article. Law libraries are an interesting type of library to study, because the questions that dog standard reference collections (regarding the quick obsolescence of the resources) apply to the vast majority of things owned by law libraries.  While I support the goals of building a truly open access digital repository free from control by private entities like Google, I am a little skeptical of the feasibility of the project.  The sentiment is good —
 “If each library group committed to pre- serving a portion of the world’s existing, printed knowledge in cooperation with one another, they could reduce duplication of effort and ensure an unbiased preservation of materials. “ (p 545)
but could libraries ever work together on such a vast scale? While we are all bonded by the ALA, collaboration at this level for a sustained period of time is a big thing to ask, especially with so many institutions already strapped in terms of resources, financing and manpower.
Furthermore, digitization of law books is not even a good use of time- laws are always changing. Books on any one aspect of the law, like probate code, sometimes have several new editions or addendum’s per year, rendering the old versions instantly moot. While the evolution of laws is of historical importance and could be of use to scholars, most law library patrons are lawyers and in need of current information. If there any library materials that should be kept in digital format only, its those of law and science, which often become in obsolete even as the editor makes the final proof.  It seems prudent for law libraries to do away with hard copy versions of low-circ legal texts altogether, and subscribe instead to legal databases.

The article raised an interesting point I had not considered- the extent that out viewpoint about history are influenced by contemporary materials- The author says of her proposed digital database-

“Its creation would hopefully also allow libraries to prevent a great harm—the potential distortion of information. If users gravitate to online sources and only recent legal information is available online, then society’s perception of reality shifts to reflect only the information easily available. Part of our mission, therefore, should be to ensure that use of information is not determined solely by format, and the most effective way to achieve that goal is to place print and online documents on equal ground.”

The effort is similar to the rift in history between the world before and after writing, or the creation of audiovisual materials. Even in the short term, our view of the past is warped by medium- like the quality of  old time radio broadcasts and black and white films amplify the differences between the past and the present which are in truth, quite minute. Medium influences perception of content, and makes many unduly prideful of their own era, entrenched in the contemporary zeitgeist.