ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries December 1 9 9 0 / 1055 staffs. I do not intend to suggest that we should not pursue some o f these projects, although we must make our choices carefully. Artificial intelligence is not going to solve many problem s for us in the next five to ten years, and it is difficult to predict its im pact over thirty years. O ur tasks will not be easy, and we will not reach our goals as quickly as we might wish. The future o f reference III: Another response By Dennis Trombatore Librarian, Geology Library The University o f Texas at Austin While I found Pat M olholt’s presentation e n te r­ taining and challenging, I would like to rem ind everyone that we are talking about the concept of libraries in the context o f universities where, if I can paraphrase, we practice the willing suspension of profit and loss in th e hope of having an effect on people’s lives, to transm it understanding through teaching, and to inquire into th e nature of things. The university is not M cD onald’s, Chevron, or IBM, and though th ere is a mythology o f the uni­ versity, described by Anne W oodsworth, Pat Mol- holt, et al. in th eir 1989 article as “in mission, character, and organizational structure . . . essen­ tially a medieval institution,”1 and that mythology may have been deeply altered by big professions, big sports, big research, big government, and big enrollments, I believe it is too soon to replace the library, the so-called heart o f the mythical univer­ sity, with a Jarvik-7. In spite o f P at M olholt’s subtle efforts to downplay the significance and usefulness o f print collections while skillfully persuading us o f the allure and irresistible vitality of artificial intelli­ gence (AI) systems, the fact is that no m atter what technological mix we end up being able to afford in university libraries, the key to th e information fu­ ture is hum an-based services delivered by a suffi­ cient num ber of people who care and people who hustle to get the job done right the first time. At the 1978 LITA C onference on Closing the Card Catalog, H ugh Atkinson, th en of Ohio State, also spoke about walls— he predicted that online library catalog systems would destroy traditional physical and social work patterns in libraries, in effect allowing workers and work to be distributed in a way that would unify library departm ents at the same tim e that it increased th eir autonomy and 1Anne W oodsworth et al., “T he Model Research Library: Planning for the F u tu re ,” jo u rn a l o f Aca­ demic Librarianship 15 (July 1989): 132-138. im proved services.2 Atkinson described these work groups as “tribes” of about a dozen people. In effect, this am ounts to a reinvigoration o f the branch library concept (something that has in fact happened) where, rather than splitting off and com partm entalizing print from electronic systems, collection developm ent from technical services, or reference from adm inistration, these necessary segments of an information delivery system are integrated around the mutual online catalog files now available to us. Meanwhile we in branch librar­ ies, who wear all these hats, can ply our trade w here it counts— footsteps away from our customers. I ’d like to rem ind everyone that all the hullaba­ loo about access over acquisition is the sad o u t­ growth o f physical and fiscal exigency, and that the yearning for global interconnectivity is just another run at the same old wish to have everything close at hand. Yet, access without delivery is suicide. To illustrate that, let me ask you to substitute the term “m icroform ” for “A I” in th e access provision model. W e already provide lots of access on micro­ form, b u t people confound us by refusing to accept it. Why? Because we refuse to pu t muscle behind delivery. In order to save money most libraries offer too few printers, printers that are poorly d e ­ signed, th at cost too much when they do work, and that generally give a lousy product. T he costs o f real AI systems, with serious access and delivery potential, would destroy us, so we will settle for what we can afford— som ething betw een that old magic eight-ball toy and a thought police­ man— all the while asking ourselves why no one is ever satisfied. 2H ugh C. Atkinson, “The Im pact o f Closing the Catalog on Library Organization,” in Closing the Catalog: Proceedings o f the 1978 and 1979 Library and inform ation Technology Association In sti­ tutes, ed. by D.K. G apen and B. Juergens (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1980): 123-133. 1056 / C &RL News Those o f us who work in branch “tribes” in today’s online catalog environm ent get to see our service capabilities with all the pride and anxiety o f th e small-business person— up close and personal through th e eyes o f the students and faculty whose education and research we eith er help or hinder. It ain’t always pretty, bu t it works. Anything we do to revolutionize our business had b e tte r work at least as well, and provide at least com parable value. A classic m arketing p ap er w ritten by T heodore Levitt in th e early 1960s called “M arketing Myo­ pia”3 describes th e dem ise o f th e American rail­ roads through th e loss o f understanding th at rail­ roads w ere in th e transportation business. Owning a great collection, or having access to a great collec­ tion, is still only the product. T he business we are in is co n su ltatio n , facilitation, an d organization. Those o f us who work in branch libraries are not allowed to forget what our business is; it walks right into our offices all day long, and we use w hatever technology b e st suits th e occasion— one th a t works. T he online catalog environm ent has forced th e branch library “trib e ” to acknowledge to a greater degree w hat kinds o f responsibilities and obliga­ tions accom pany our greater autonom y and our renew ed sense o f purpose. W e are learning to take a m ore com m itted role in developing policies and procedures as we becom e closer partners in a unified inform ation delivery system m ade possible by th e online catalog environm ent. W e also know th at th e special nature o f th e university plays a critical role in establishing standards by which our m easure is taken. W e know, for instance, th at while universities may in fact b e corporate entities with corporate aspirations and corporate values in some quarters, universities in th e U.S. still b ear th e m antle o f th eir medieval heritage. Universities are not p rep ared to accept p u re entrepreneurial signals from academic libraries any m ore than they are p rep ared to actu­ ally hire th e athletes— the old mythology is too po ten t and th e re is no suitable alternative. T he rhythm o f university life is not yet th e rhythm o f new product developm ent. T he am bigu­ ity o f change on cam pus is genuine, b u t th e concept o f th e university is still governed by th e req u ire­ m ent o f reflection. T he same is tru e o f university libraries, and we m ust rem em b er th at what makes us different from a military base o r a factory is our dedication, not to novelty or power, not to control or success, b u t to carrying forward our collective “external memory” by teaching and inquiring into the nature of things. This is properly a hum an task, 3T heodore Levitt, “M arketing Myopia,” Har­ vard Business Review 38 (July-A ugust 1960): 45-56. carried out by people and for people, not done to people at the expense o f people. W e m ust also take precautions to com prehend th e survivability and social consequence o f new technologies. W e m ust rem em b er th at printing and copying are not ordinary technologies. They have always had to thrive in spite o f vigorous political efforts to control or suppress them , even today as eastern bloc nations begin to repeal th e ir registra­ tion laws for typewriters, copiers, and printing presses, and the hunger for ready access to print and photocopy technology in those nations is still seriously underestim ated. In o rd er to move away from p rin t we m ust b e assured we can carry the good into the merely new. Printing was not invented deliberately because th e scriptorium monks ate too m uch and used too m any candles. Nevertheless, once developed it was as intellectually com pelling as gunpowder. Like gunpow der, its influence will not fade quickly from o u r lives just because a new p roduct gives a bigger bang. Libraries p redate both printing and universi­ ties, and someday could postdate th em as well, since universities could ju st as easily be disem bod­ ied by electronic technologies as libraries. The library and the university will certainly live on as “log-on concepts” if nothing else, b u t I find it hard to im agine either one w ithout a place to go to and a person to see there. I hope we are not forced to disem body th e library (or the university) eith er architecturally or intellectually merely for th e sake o f cost control or to aggrandize an inform ation pow er base. People req u ire hum an-based services to negotiate th e complexities o f print collections, and people will req u ire all o f this expertise and m uch m ore in o rd er to fully exploit the potential o f new er storage and retrieval m ethods in a complex mixture o f systems and formats. I f this turns out to be too great a social cost, if it becom es necessary to eject these institutions and th e people that em body th em into th e “eth e r-n e t” to save them , I believe it bodes ill for our society, for o u r culture, and for our very self-understanding. Which northeastern colony came first? I f your answer to th a t question is Plymouth, you are wrong, according to th e New York State Library. T he first colony was N ew N etherland, established on O ctober 11, 1614, and encom ­ passing the land area from Q uebec to Delaware Bay. The records o f th at pre-English colony are being translated from 17th-century D utch by Charles G ehring in a project supported by th e National E ndow m ent for th e Hum anities.