College and Research Libraries The Electronic Revolution in Libraries: Microfilm Deja Vu? Susan A. Cady Fifty years ago microfilm was perceived as the most significant technological development to affect the scholarly community since the invention of the printing press. Claims that microfilm would bring about a revolution in research methodology parallel current predictions about the impact of electronic technologies. However, the expectations for microfilm as an acquisitions and preservation tool in libraries and as the engine to drive increased scholarly productivity were not completely fulfilled. The history of microfilm provides some cautionary guidance as to the way in which the profession should approach the era of electronic documentation. , n the 1930s the vision for the use of microfilm technology in libraries and the scholarly com- munity in general was a com- plex one incorporating elements of preser- vation, space management, access to materials, and productivity. Now that more than fifty years have passed since the initiaL burst of enthusiasm for this technology, how does the reality of micro- film usage in libraries and by scholars square with the original expectations? Mi- crofilm is an integral part of academic and research library collections in the late twentieth century, and the burgeoning preservation movement is now focusing new attention on its key role in saving the intellectual content of disintegrating printed pages. However, the literature is also replete with discussions of problems relating to microfilm, practical problems that lead librarians and library users to yearn for an improved technology. Indeed, other technologies are generat- ing enthusiasm now, primarily the elec- tronic ones. Today's library leaders and scholars are making claims for future elec- tronic documentation uses that parallel those made a half century ago for micro- film. The history of the development of microfilm and its adoption by libraries may offer some guidance as to the way in which the profession should approach the use of these electronic technologies. This paper will limit its scope primarily to mi- crofilm since the early claims were made in relation to that specific technology. EARLY HISTORY OF MICROFILM In 1839 English optical craftsman John Benjamin Dancer invented microphotog- raphy by utilizing a microscope with the new daguerreotype process made public in the same year. However, the French- man Rene Dagron was responsible for the first microfilm patent, for commercializa- tion and popularization of the medium, and for one of the most exciting stories in microfilm history. His patent was for a de- vice that combined a compact viewer with tiny microfilm pictures taken in his studio, all fashioned into a piece of jewelry that he sold at a handsome pr'ofit. When the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870, Prussian troops laid siege to Paris. In Sep- Susan A. Cady is the Associate Director for Technical Services at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylva- nia, 18015-3067. 374 tember of that year, Dagron and his equip- ment departed from Paris in two balloons to escape behind the Prussian lines and set up his famous "Pigeon Post." Microfilms of official dispatches and private messages were filmed and sent back to Paris via homing pigeons. Although the period from 1871 through 1920 was a relatively uneventful one in terms of microfilm, librarians were becom- ing aware of photographic technology. Cannon's Bibliography of Library Economy, which covered the period 1876 to 1920, in- cluded a heading for ''Photographic Copying Processes" with several refer- ences to the use of the ~hotostat, origi- nally a Kodak trademark. The immediate successor to Cannon's Bibliography indexed nine articles, three of which pertain to the Fiskoscope, a lorgnette-like device for speedy microtext reading. 2 In the late 1930s the literature of librarianship ex- ploded with articles about microphotogra- phy. A 1938 article stated that ''Micropho- tography, a big word for a small body, has become the talk of the town, and rather suddenly so."3 The 1933-1935 volume of Index to Library Literature included thirty- five articles in three pages. In the next vol- ume (1936-1939) there were twenty-six pages containing 294 annotated refer- ences under this heading. 4 The growth of the microfilm literature later subsided to a rate in proportion with the rest of library literature. 5 Microfilms of official dispatches and private messages were filmed and sent back to Paris via homing pi- geons. Allen Veaner dates the beginning of mi- crofilm use in libr~ies to 1938 with the ini- tiation of the Foreign Newspaper Micro- filming Project at Harvard and the founding of University Microfilms by Eugene Power. 6 Meckler suggests that li- braries had become interested in photo- graphic reproduction technology through their use of the photostat machine that Electronic Revolution 375 had been installed at the Library of Con- gress, the John Crerar Library, and the New York Public Library by 1912. 7 The 1925 re-publication of an article by Otlet and Goldschmidt and improvements in microphotography technology also con- tributed to the new enthusiasm. 8 The Otlet article was notable as an early con- ception of microfiche technology, even to the point of suggesting eye-readable headings. About 1925 the Leica camera be- came generally available, a camera that provided a compact instrument with a high-quality lens and a small film surface for each exposure. It was used by individ- ual scholars and on large projects at the Huntington Library and Stanford Univer- sity's Hoover Library. The miniature Leica camera could only hold five feet of film at a time and was thus inefficient for the massive microfilming activities envisioned by proponents of this new technology. A camera developed by bank manager George P. McCarthy to re- produce bank checks on 16mm film solved this problem. McCarthy licensed his Check-0-Graph camera to Kodak that produced and sold it under its newly formed subsidiary Recordak. With some modifications, the planetary (nonrotating) version of this camera is still in use for mi- crofilming. THE VISION OF MICROFILM IN LIBRARIES Writing about microphotography in the late 1930s and early 1940s was not only vo- luminous but also filled with hyperbole. Robert C. Binkley claimed that microfilm "promised to have an impact on the intel-: lectual world comparable with that of the invention of printing.''9 In 1940 Frederick · Kilgour at Harvard University Library wrote a popular article on microfilm for the Christian Science Monitor. Kilgour claimed that microphotography was ''one of the most important developments in the transmission of the printed word since Gutenberg.'' 10 Librarians quickly perceived in micro- film technology an opportunity to im- prove their services at a reasonable cost. The literature of the period captures their great expectations and their early efforts 376 College & Research Libraries to transform these visions into reality. Three early sources of documentation on scholarly microfilm stand out to such an extent that their publication histories themselves tell something about micro- film history. The first was the Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, a widely cited work produced initially in 1931 and then re-issued in 1936. 11 In the Manual, historian Robert C. Binkley exam- ined the economics of all the existing tech- nologies for the publication and distribu- tion of research materials. He included examples of each technology and photo- graphs of machinery used to produce and read them. The second source was the pe- riodical Journal of Documentary Reproduc- tion published from 1938 through 1942. It ceased in 1943 for II the duration of the war effort" but was not revived until 1950 when its sponsorship was transferred from the American Library Association to the American Documentation Institute. Thus, it reappeared as the journal Ameri- can Documentation but by 1959 contained few articles about microfilm. u The third source was the proceedings of the Micro- photography Symposium at the 1936 Con- ference of the American Library Associa- tion. This was the first library conference on microfilm, and top leaders in the pro- _fession were prominently in attendance. PRESERVATION MICROFILMING Today the goal of preservation micro- filming is to capture the intellectual con- tent of whole collections in a medium that will outlast brittle acidic paper. In the 1930s librarians were primarily concerned about the deterioration of newspapers and about the possible destruction of irre- placeable documents during the threat- ened hostilities in Europe. By 1936 East- man Kodak was microfilming the New York Herald Tribune, New York World Tele- gram, Buffalo Courier-Express, Chicago Daily News, Dallas News, Detroit News, and New- ark Sunday Call. 13 In the late 1930s the Har- vard University Library initiated the For- eign Newspaper Project, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, to microfilm be- tween thirty and thirty-five current for- eign newspapers. 14 July 1990 Raney called microfilm 11 our indefatiga- ble little friend" that "can hide away in its elfin quarters the records of civilization when war's madness breaks loose." 15 With the onset of World War II, President Roosevelt lent his support to the preserva- tion effort in a letter dated February 13, 1942, to the Society of American Archi- vists.16 Roosevelt stated: At this time, and because of the conditions of modern war against which none of us can guess the future, it is my hope that the Society of American Archivists will do all that is possible to build up an American public opinion in favor of what might be called the only form of insur- ance that will stand the test of time. I am refer- ring to the duplication of records by modern processes like the microfilm so that if in any part of the country's original archives are destroyed, a record of them will exist in some other place. Originally microfilm efforts in Europe were aimed at providing convenient ac- cess to materials for American scholars, but as war threatened, these projects took on a new urgency. After microfilming on the continent had to be abandoned, it con- tinued in England with the aid of Eugene Powers, founder of University Microfilms Inc. Some individuals involved in the scholarly microfilming effort also lent their expertise to the war effort, often in intelligence microfilming. 17 A vital technical consideration in the use of microfilm for preservation was the du- rability of the film over time. Writing in 1935, L. Bendrikson reported on his exper- imentation with a sixty-five-year-old spec- imen of Rene Dagron' s work inserted into the small pamphlet Dargon ;mblished to immortalize his adventure.1 Bendrikson printed enlargements from the film and declared them to be 11 not only perfectly legible, but showing clearly all peculiari- ties and characteristics of the lettering, in spite of its age and the fact that it has been subjected to strong magnification." He predicted that contemporary films made with proper care and adequately pre- served would be useful after the year 2000. 19 In addition the National Bureau of Standards had undertaken to determine the stability of motion picture film as a nat- ural extension of its work on paper rec- ords. In 1936 B. W . Scribner reported the preliminary results of an a~etate film study which suggested that, if properly made and stored, such fil~0would last as long as good quality paper. ACQUISITION BY MICROFILM Librarians conceived of microfilm as an acquisition tool as ~ell .as a pr~servation technology. Microfilmmg. of Important and unique research matenals would ~n­ able libraries around the world to acqurre them at a reasonable cost. Interlibrary loans could be supplied on microfilm as well, saving the cost of shipping, wear and tear on the item, and providing access to materials as needed. Microfilming would allow speedy, low-cost "publica- tion'' of highly specialized re~ear~h, keep- ing scholars informed in ~he mte~rm ~hile traditional slow-paced prmt pubhcahon of results took place. In the 1930s librarians and scholars perceived that important contemporary research was not being made available in a timely fashion because the economics of publishin& ~ere. incom- patible with increased speCialiZation, e~­ pecially in the sciences. Some felt that mi- crofilm publication would actually replace print publication especially for ''on de- mand" small run publishing. Libraries began microfilming research materials with a vengeance under the as- sumption that libraries rather tha~ com- mercial firms would do much of this work thereby merging the acquisition and pub- lication functions. 21 Although there IS an occasional reference to copyright prob- lems in the microfilm literature, concern about this as a possible barrier to micro- publication was minimal, probably be- cause most of the early efforts involved materials not covered by the copyright statutes. THE SCHOLAR'S WORKSTATION Another early vision for microfilm tech- nology was its utility as the scholar's amanuenses. In 1936 Binkley wrote glow- ingly of this possibility: Just as the scholars of the last generation found in general that it was desirable to be able to use Electronic Revolution 377 the typewriter, so the scholars of the next gen- eration will find it necessary to use photogra- phy ... It offers the possibility th~t a ~cholar, by purchasing mic~ocopie~ from hbranes and making his own m1crocop1es of excerpts ~om books, may build up organiz~d ac~umul~hons of data that will resemble a pnvate hbrary m ex- tensiveness, and a note system in its internal or- ganization. Pictorial and textual ~aterial can ~e fitted into the same file. That which scholars m the past have been able to do with the help of an amanuensis, the scholar of the future may .be able to accomplish with photographic eqmp- ment.22 Some scholars did indeed adopt microfilm as an aid to their personal research. For in- stance, an expert on Indian languages filmed 16,000 pages of Aztec materials in Mexico. 23 During World War II, Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Re- search and Development, revived the idea of the scholar's workstation when he ad- vanced the notion of a device in which an individual's books, records, and com- munications would be stored but readily available for consultation. 24 This "me- mex '' as he called it, would include a tran~lucent screen for convenient reading of projected material plus "a keyboard, and sets of buttons and levers." Thus Bush sought a convenient personal de- vice, capable of displaying full ~e~t and graphics and searchable by sophisticated methods. He conceived of this machine first as an extension of the microfilm reader. The articulation of the need for a scholar's workstation, or at least a low- cost, portable personal microfilm reader, demonstrated a growing recognition of the dilemma posed for the scholarly com- munity in utilizing research matenals re- quiring a reading machine, usually housed only in a library. LOW COST 11HIGH-TECH" Throughout the early literature there was a continual emphasis on the low cost of the process, and by implication, the products of microphotography. Binkley's monumental study was primarily a study of the relative costs of disseminating infor- mation using various technologies, in- cluding the printed monograph or jour- nal. 25 In his conclusion, he emphasized 378 College & Research Libraries that the scholarly community must no longer depend solely upon the methods ·and economics of traditional publishing but utilize a variety of vehicles for the preservation and distribution of scholarly materials. 26 Based on his extensive cost studies, Binkley found that each technol- ogy offered different ratios of first-copy cost to running copy cost; thus, the maxi- mum efficiency level of each particular method could be computed. At one end of the spectrum was commercial publishing with its efficiency point of 2,000 copies and at the other end was microfilm with an efficiency point ranging between one and fourteen copies. Binkley and Robbins elaborated on the efficiency point further in 1939 with the addition of mathematical formula for determinin~the cost of a book and its utility per copy. Swept up in the efficiency movement of his time, Binkley advanced the possibility of publishing ma- terials not formerly economically justifi- able even for subsidized academic presses. He apparently assumed that his scholarly colleagues would accept these alternate formats as readily as the printed page. Binkley also predicted that low-cost spe- cialized research materials and alternate technologies would drive various changes in the academic world, increasing overall scholarly efficiency. They would enable a greater division of labor in the scholarly workplace just as new technology had al- lowed the entry of semi-skilled labor into industry. The work of preserving, collect- ing, organizing, assembling, and prepar- ing research materials would pass through several stages handled by librari- ans and archivists and others less skilled, leaving the highly trained professional scholar to do the work at the top of this broadened "pyramid of scholarly activ- ity.'' Furthermore, scholarly work would be more dispersed, no longer dependent for resources on the largest universities with their major research libraries. In addition to emphasizing the effi- ciency afforded by microfilm technology, librarians, having entered the new me- chanical age at last, exulted in the techni- cal details of microphotography. M. Llew- ellyn Raney noted in his introduction to July 1990 the Richmond Symposium on Micropho- tography that 11 A generation familiar with carburetors, fuselage and static will now have to hobnob with emulsions and the like or engage a proxy.' ' 28 In another arti- cle he compares microfilm to the Ford as- sembly line and to the Taylor system of · scientific management. 29 In "Microfilm: Machine Tool of Management" yet an- other analogy to modem industrial meth- ods is used to advance the status of micro- filming.30 The author described how railroad waybills were dispatched by pneumatic tube for microfilming as freight trains pulled into a station, microfilmed, and returned by tube to the other end of the station so quickly that the train did not actually have to stop. With the exception of the typewriter, other gadgets that so fascinated Americans had bypassed li- brarians but microphotography allowed them to join the mainstream. The sheer volume of technical detail about microfilm in the library literature attests to the strong appeal of technology, almost as an end in itself. Microfilm may have served as a vehicle for librarians to join both the technical and managerial revolutions and for some to advance their individual careers signifi- cantly. Among early microfilm activists are such well-known names as Vernon D. Tate, editor of the Journal of Documentary Reproduction and Director of Libraries at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at the United States Naval Academy; Frederick Kilgour, founder of OCLC, Inc.; Ralph Shaw, United States Department of Agriculture Librarian and Professor at the Rutgers University Graduate School of Li- brary Service; Keyes D. Metcalf, Librarian of Harvard University; and Eugene Power, founder of University Microfilms. THE REALITY OF MICROFORM USE IN LIBRARIES The Once and Future Research Library Since microfilm was conceived of ini- tially as a scholar's aid and since academic libraries remain the chief market for schol- arly microfilm, it is necessary to consider the changes that have taken place in re- search institutions and their libraries in or- der to analyze the extent to which micro- film technology has fulfilled the vision of its early proponents. The most significant change in higher education during the past fifty years has been growth. 31 Prompted first by the GI bill and later by the baby boom, the 1.5 million student population of 1940 grew to approximately 12.4 million by 1989. In 1940 only about half of today' s colleges and universities existed. The volume of scholarly com- munication and the size and number of ac- ademic libraries have increased dramati- cally as well. Wesleyan University Librarian Fremont C. Rider foresaw this tremendous growth. In 1944 he wrote a now classic book, The Scholar and the Future of the Research Li- brary, A Problem and Its Solution, about the problems growth presents. 32 He claimed that the size of research libraries in Amer- ica had been doubling every sixteen years and submitted that the micro-card, con- taining the text of books affixed to the back of the corresponding bibliographic refer- ence in the card catalog, would solve the space problem created by this expansion. In a summary article he described the fail- ure of micro-text to date: For-all propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding-it has been disappointing. We have had corning into our research libraries a mere trickle of micro-materials, where our micro-enthusiasts had hoped for, and had ex- pected to have, a flood. And the reasons why this flood has never come is the one just stated: micro-reduction has never yet really integrated itself into library practice. Micromaterials have always been treated (by their makers, by their users-and by librarians) as though they were books. A different sort of books, to be sure, an annoyingly different sort, and so problem- making instead of problem-solving. 33 Rider grasped the impact of tremendous growth and was one of the first to advance the use of microforms predominately as a space and cost-saving measure. He legiti- Librarians conceived of microfilm as an acquisition tool as well as a preser- vation technology. Electronic Revolution 379 mately criticized the failure to accompany low-cost purchase of microforms with low-cost maintenance, storage, and cata- loging. However, despite the genuine contributions of micropublishing and Rider himself to the problems of research libraries, microforms did not ultimately bring the revolution envisioned by early proponents. The readers found them in- convenient and preferred print if at all possible. 34 The introduction of any new technology is usually slowed by the initial lack of stan- dardization of format, equipment, etc. This was certainly true of microfilm and related products such as microfiche and microcards. However, standardization per se was achieved eventually, and the proliferation of formats does not seem to have limited the use of microforms signifi- cantly. Indeed, today most libraries pro- vide materials, readers, and printers for both microfilm and microfiche. Yet, the lack of high standards of quality have plagued the industry throughout its exist- ence. Part of the failure of microfilm to achieve fully its anticipated success can be found instead in the desire to jump on the band- wagon of machine-based efficiency with- out a thorough grasp of the magnitude of social, economic, and technological changes necessary for widespread accep- tance of microfilm. Cost control impressed institutional administrators and efficiency experts, but not scholars. The commercial sector made a profit from the easy filming process but avoided the complexities and economics of developing high-quality im- ages, good portable readers, and well- indexed materials. Consequently, scholars continue to dislike microfilm. Preservation Microfilming Microfilm technology has experienced a marked resurgence of popularity in the last five years with national attention fo- cused on the need for preservation of li- brary materials and other paper records of research value. Although there are some proponents for using optical media for preservation, many authorities think that high-quality microfilm currently offers the best reliability record. In a recent book 380 College & Research Libraries Nancy E. Gwinn stated: It is possible that materials first captured on high-quality microform can later be transferred to (optically read) disk. Therefore, the library and archival community can continue to ex- pand preservation microfilming activities with- out fear that the disk technology, should it prove economically feasible, will render these efforts obsolete .... As of this writing, micro- filming remains the most reliable method of for- mat conversion for paper-based records and is likely to continue as the most economical for storage of less heavily used materials in the for- seeable future. 35 Scanners, which can digitize the textual image at the same time that it is photo- graphed on preservation-quality micro- film, already exist on the market. The de- velopment of scanners with even higher resolutions continues. In a move reminis- cent of the beginnings of scholarly micro- publishing, libraries themselves are per- forming the photography, primarily because they do not believe that the com- mercial sector can adhere to the high qual- ity standards required for this task. Some major research libraries have collectively established nonprofit preservation cen- ters, like the Mid-Atlantic Preservation Center at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to carry out this task. Once again the relative low cost and permanency of microfilm are compelling reasons for its use by libraries. The preservation of newspapers by mi- crofilming has been one of the real success stories of this technology because it offers one simple low-cost solution to the diffi- culty of handling large bound volumes of newspapers, to the cost of binding and storing them, and to the rapid disintegra- tion of the ground-wood pulp paper on which they are printed. In addition, users seem to experience as much difficulty han- dling newspapers as they do handling mi- crofilm reels. Micropublishing Scholarly micropublishing by both profit and nonprofit organizations has been the primary method by which the early expectations of greater access to ma- terials via microfilm have been fulfilled. This industry today is still a relatively small one, represented by a total of 319 or- July 1990 The preservation of newspapers by microfilming has been one of the real success stories of this technology. ganizations worldwide. Meckler states that "the bulk of the $70 million in United States micropublishing sales accrue to ap- proximately 108 firms and can be ac- counted for largely by micropublications of newspapers, serials (periodicals), gov- ernment documents, and research collec- tions.' ' 36 The marketplace for scholarly mi- cropublications is limited almost exclusively to libraries, but libraries have been spending a decreasing percentage of their acquisitions budgets on microforms in recent years. Tables 1 and 2, constructed from data in the Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information, demonstrate trends in hold- ings and acquisitions of microforms by public and academic libraries during the period 1968 through 1986-87. In the four- teen years encompassed by table 1 (1972-73 to 1986-87) academic library pur- chases of microform publications grew from $4.7 million to $19.2 million, an in- crease of 312%. However, microform pur- chases as a percentage of total acquisitions of approximately $914 million declined from 5.4% to 2.1 %, a loss of 61%. Public li- brary microform purchasing followed a similar trend growing from $1.7 million to $9.8 million but declining in percentage of total acquisitions of approximately $544 million from 3.3% to 1.8%. Table 2 illus- trates the decline in the rate of growth of film reel and other microform unit collec- tions in academic libraries. These changes are due to a combination of factors includ- ing the completion of periodical backfile conversion to microfilm, the higher in- creases in the cost of paper publications, and the availability of the newer electronic media. Microforms have passed their peak in terms of "market-share" of library acquisitions dollars and library holdings, even though the industry continues to grow in absolute dollars. Micropublication has clearly found a niche within the scholarly publishing in- Electronic Revolution 381 TABLE 1 LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS OF MICROFORMS Academic %Total Public %Total Year Libraries Acg Libraries Acg 1972-1973 $4,678,302 5.4 $1,709,670 3.3 1976-1977 7,383,958 2.7 3,422,824 1.9 1982-1983 9,821,331 2.2 4,237,723 1.6 1986-1987 19,263,088 2.1 9,820,455 1.8 Percent Change {15 years} 312% -61% 474% -45% Source: Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Infonnation (1975, 1980, 1984, and 1988 respectively) . TABLE2 MICROFORM HOLDINGS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES (IN MILLIONS) Other Film % Microform % Year Reels +I- Units +I- Fall1968 5.2 45.0 Fall1969 6.3 21 58.0 29 Fall1970 9.0 43 85.0 47 Fall1971 9.2 2 95.2 12 Fall1972 10.0 9 97.0 2 Fall1973 10.2 2 98.0 1 Percent Change {5 years} 96% 118% Source: Summary of College & University Library Statistics for Academic Years 1964-1973, p .258, 19th edition (1974) Bowker Annual of Library and Book Trade Information . dustry, but it has not revolutionized the field. It is rarely used for original publica- tion, and interlibrary loans are only occa- sionally filled via microfilm. Only Univer- sity Microfilms Inc. of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has developed true on-demand micropublishing, an activity limited to doctoral dissertations and selected out-of- print titles. The primary reason libraries continue to purchase microforms is to save space. In recent years the federal gov- ernment has enjoyed economies in pub- lishing and distribution by issuing many government documents on microforms. Academic administrators, who increas- ingly view libraries as ''black holes'' into which endless resources can be thrown, have little sympathy for more costly alter- natives. The failure of micropublishing to achieve wider application can be traced to limitations of the technology itself, the way in which it was implemented by the industry, and false conceptions about the economics of publishing. Early expecta- tions were that the scholarly community would either accept the fatiguing clumsy devices necessary for reading microfilm or that a compact, comfortable, and easy-to- use machine would be engineered. Nei- ther of these alternatives ever really devel- oped. Furthermore, the very ease with which text could be captured on microfilm led many entrepreneurs to seek a quick profit by producing poor-quality micro- film with little or no indexing. As recently as 1988 a major delay in the production of federal publications for distribution to de- pository libraries arose because of poor- quality microfilming by a commercial firm. These firms, especially microfilm "service bureaus" oriented to the rela- tively short-term, low-use demands of business and industrial microfilm, do not always provide the quality and durability needed by libraries. The lack of indexing and bibliographic control by commercial microfilming firms forms another barrier to usage. As Fre- mont Rider maintained in 1944, no matter how economically materials could be ac- quired by libraries, if they had to expend enormous labor in providing access to in- formation for users, microfilm was not a 382 College & Research Libraries bargain. Finally, the initial expectation that original publication of specialized or low-demand materials on microfilm would lower costs was false because such a large proportion of publication costs are generated by factors other than the physi- cal production of the material, such as edi- torial, advertising, and distribution costs. Microfilm Readers The literature on microfilm from the ear- liest days to the present details the quest for suitable reading machines. In 1938 Vernon D. Tate, writing in a report for the National Research Council's Committee on Scientific Aids to Learning, described the many readers under development but lamented that ''A summary of the reading machine problem is discouraging. In the very field where greatest benefits to mi- crophotography from special equipment could accrue, progress has been painfull~ slow. Little selection is now possible." 7 Interestingly, Tate had come to a some- what different conclusion about the prob- lem by 1950 when he wrote again on the subject in American Documentation: Over the years there have been objections and comments on the use of microfilm, some of which were trivial and others serious .... Eye- strain used to be a spectre that caused much shaking of heads and viewing with alarm. Sci- entists, many of whom spent considerable time peering into a microscope, were never unduly worried but a good many others were. . .. Anyone who will suffer (and the word is se- lected advisedly) a television program need have no fear of eyestrain from reading micro- film. . . . The cost of reading machines is a com- mon complaint. A reading machine suitable for 35mm film can still be had for about the cost of a portable typewriter, and a recently developed French machine announced and shown in Paris this summer costs about the equivalent of $37.50 in France .... 38 In 1960 the Council on Library Re- sources commissioned a study entitled Reading Devices for Micro-Images as part of its State of the Library Art series. 39 The au- thors decried the lack of objective data on almost every topic relating to microform readers-eyestrain, cost, enlargement ra- tios, etc.-and noted the lag in reader de- sign as compared to camera design. They attributed this lag to the dominance of the July 1990 more lucrative market in business and in- dl,lstry, the conflicting demands of the li- brary market, and the misguided quest for a universal library machine that produced a high-quality image, had the ability to read all film resolutions, and had printing capability. 40 Efforts to develop an effective microfilm reader were later funded by the Council on Libr~ Resources itself, but came to naught. 41 Two decades later proponents of micro- forms in libraries still lament the limita- tions of portable readers stating ''These shortcomings of portable readers are still with us, as anyone who has recently struggled with small, inexpensive view- ing devices can testify. Users are ex- tremely sensitive to image sharpness, and unsatisfactory resolution rivals mutilated issues as a cause of migraine in otherwise contented library patrons. " 42 The indus- trial reader market emphasizes quick suc- cessive "look-ups" for small pieces of dis- crete information by experienced operators while the library market empha- sizes simple controls, good resolution, and constant frame focus. 43 MICROFILM AND ELECTRONIC RESOURCES Some tentative comparisons and con- clusions can be drawn about the relevance of the history of microfilm in libraries to the planning for and adoption of elec- tronic resources today. First, the micro- film experience in libraries and the experi- ence of our culture in general indicate that new technologies seldom replace old ones. Just as television has not eliminated radio and the microwave oven merely supplements the electric or gas range, so microfilm has not done away with the book and neither will electronic text. In- stead there will be expanded opportuni- ties, greater diversity, and a more complex environment. Another lesson is that there are definite limits to the inconvenience or discomfort scholars and researchers will tolerate in their use of materials no matter what the library economics of the situation are. Conversely, industrial workers seldom have any power to affect the quality of technology they use. Furthermore, im- proved technology to eliminate inconve- niences is not always forthcoming, for rea- sons often beyond the profession's control. In the case of microfilm, librarians were so entranced with the technology it- self, and the opportunities it offered to provide cost-effective improved services, that they failed to conceptualize and artic- ulate clearly to the nascent microfilm in- dustry the need for quality work, index- ing, bibliographic control, and above all user-friendly microfilm readers. There are definite limits to the incon- venience or discomfort scholars and researchers will tolerate in their use of materials no matter what the li- brary economics of the situation are. Indeed one of the most interesting anal- ogies between microfilm and computer technology is the question of the reading device itself. To what extent is it reason- able to expect people to read extensively from computer screens anymore than from microfilm readers? Up to this point, public use of computers in libraries has been predominantly for indexes, not for full-text publications. By the very nature of index use, a quick perusal of several screens, frequently accompanied by a printout to take away, suffices for most us- ers. Once lengthy documents, even long journal articles, are published routinely in electronic form, the fatigue or inconve- nience of reading them on a screen may approach that of microfilm. (Until there- cent advances in high resolution moni- tors, microfilm was much more satisfac- tory than computer screens for the display of drawings, diacritics, photographs, and graphics.) The alternative of printing out lengthy documents gives rise to other in- conveniences and costs since pricing schedules by some electronic publishers include additional charges for printing the text. The prevailing assumption seems to be that the high resolution page-size mon- itors now becoming available on high-end workstations will provide the comfort level needed for extended text reading as Electronic Revolution 383 well. If so, will researchers be able to af- ford this type of computer at home and in the office or will they only be available in libraries and computer centers? In 1982 Meckler suggested that com- puter technology would solve many of the problems that microfilm was never able to overcome. He asserted that computer marketing "was carefully tailored to the specialized needs of each type of potential user'' whereas microfilm was introduced by naive librarians who assumed that the technology would be readily accepted by users based on its obvious cost-benefit ad- vantages. However, the market may not be sufficiently large to support commer- cial efforts in electronic information de- voted exclusively to the needs of libraries and scholarly users. Electronic products are being designed to go directly to high- volume business-oriented "end-users" operating microcomputers in their offices and paying directly for information. Li- braries must be prepared to pay dearly and continuously for products that meet the needs of their users well or to accept generic products with their limitations. This choice is similar to that which con- fronts consumers of microfilm technol- ogy. A revolution in patterns of scholarly communication will be necessary before the electronic journal can begin to reduce the costs associated with research publica- tions. Issues of copyright, tenure require- ments, journal proliferation, the referee- ing process, and the role of the for-profit sector must be addressed. Bibliographic and indexing problems limited the effectiveness of microfilm. The electronic revolution contains their reverse-information overload. Low-cost computer mass storage and the full-text indexing capabilities of sophisticated soft- ware can generate so many data and text access points that the user is unable to lo- cate appropriate material quickly . Too much access is as dysfunctional as too lit- tle. Librarians are well aware of this prob- lem and must request that vendors devote resources to effective retrieval. It cannot be assumed that they will do so. A related issue is whether electronic full-text products will replace microfilm. One of the major scholarly microfilm pub- 384 College & Research Libraries · lishers, University Microfilm Inc., is rap- idly diversifying into the electronic media. UMI offers its premiere print index, Dis- sertation Abstracts, on CD-ROM as well as an entire system of business periodicals in full text. This company, with its long his- tory in the microfilm business, is particu- larly sensitive to the equipment interfaces and has worked extensively on the devel- opment of a high-resolution page-size monitor for reading electronic text. Con- versely, Mark R. Yerburgh argues that mi- croform will not become extinct because it provides a uniquely cost-effective format in which libraries have already invested heavily. He predicts that diminished ac- quisitions budgets and increased efforts by librarians to eliminate the ''curse of user (lack of) acce:gtance'' will enable mi- crofilm to survive. The latter effort seems unlikely to be successful, after some fifty years of trying. However, the realities of organizational competitiveness lend some support to the view that microfilm will survive. The qual- ity of a research library is still measured pri- marily by the size of its holdings. Microforms are counted within those holdings as items owned (film rolls, microfiche pieces, etc.) and titles held. Thus they enhance the status of the institution at a relatively low cost in terms of both purchase price and storStge space. Although a cost- benefit ratio based on frequency of use might make microfilm look less attractive, such measures of the utility of research materials are not widespread. Electronic resources vendors tend to provide li- braries with access to information for a specified time via a license but do not con- fer permanent ownership of physical items containing the information. Future researchers will only be able to make use of the information if the library continues its license. Perhaps the emergence of per- formance measures for evaluation of li- brary effectiveness will enhance the value of access and document delivery over the traditional value of permanent owner- ship. July 1990 Issues other than these political ones af- fect the decision to treat electronic re- sources as permanent parts of the collec- tion. Magnetic and optical media offer even greater space savings than micro- film, although there is some question about the salience of space economy as a factor in adoption of microfilm. However, at the present time uncertainty about the shelf life of magnetic and optical media is one of the key factors in the preference for microfilm in preservation. Even if the me- dia are permanent, will appropriate soft- . ware and hardware be retained indefi- nitely to read these materials? Will electronic resources have to be converted each time the technology changes? Any li- brary presently retaining readers for a small quantity of some microformat is fa- miliar with this problem already. The quality of a research library is still measured primarily by the size of its holdings. Microfilm technology was embraced by librarians as the exciting future that would enhance their status and offer users ex- panded access to research materials at controlled costs. Although this technol- ogy has played a significant role in ena- bling libraries to cope with the growth of materials, it has not revolutionized schol- arly activity. Despite its limitations, librar- ians in the 1930s and 1940s probably had no other alternative but to adopt microfilm given the exponential growth of literature, their finite resources for acquiring and storing publications, and their limited im- pact on the market. It seems equally un- likely that contemporary librarians will be able to influence the overall direction of computer technology; however, they may be able to avoid costly errors by learning the limitations of the technology and plan- ning for a multiplicity of modes of access and formats. Electronic Revolution 385 REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. H . G . T. Cannon, Bibliography of Library Economy: A Classified Index to the Professional Periodical Liter- ature in the English Language Relating to Library Economy, Printing, Methods of Publishing, Copyright, Bibliography, etc. from 1876 to 1920 (Chicago: American Library Assn ., 1927). 2. Library Literature 1921-1932: A Supplement to Cannons' Bibliography of Library Economy 1876-1920 Compiled by the Junior Members Round Table of the American Library Association under the Editorship of Lucile M. Morsch . (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1934). 3. M. Llewellyn Raney, "Through the Eye of a Needle," The Journal of Documentary Reproduction 1:233 (Summer 1938). 4. The articles in the 1933-1935 volume of Index to Library Literature were listed under the heading "Photographic reproduction and projection" with subdivisions for bibliography, copyright, and newspapers. "Photostat" had disappeared as a separate heading. In the 1936-1939 volume the literature had been subdivided further with additional separate sections for apparatus and pro- cesses, care and conservation of films, exhibits, services, study and teaching, and terminology. In the 1940-1942 volume there were twenty pages of references . 5. The 1985 volume of Library Literature indexed seventy-three articles under the heading "Micro- forms and micrographics" with subdivisions for administration, aperture cards, bibliography, care and restoration, cataloging, equipment and supplies, microfiche, microfilms, policy state- ments, reading machines, and reviews. Other articles are contained under seventeen headings that use "Microform reproductions" as a subdivision of another topic and still more articles ap- pear under headings for "Computer output microfilming" and "Photographic reproduction ." 6. Allen B. Veaner, "Micropublication," Microforms in Libraries, ed. by Albert James Diaz (Westport, Conn.: Microform Review Inc ., 1975), p .15 . 7. Alan Marshall Meckler, Micropublishing: A History of Scholarly Micropublishing in America, 1938-1980 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982). 8. Paul Otlet and Robert Goldschmidt, "Sur une forme nouvelle du livre," Institut International de Bibliographie, Bulletin, 12:61-69 (1907). 9. Robert C. Binkley, Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials: A Survey Made for the Joint Committee on Materials for Research of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies (Ann Arbor, Mich .: Edwards Brothers, Inc ., 1936), p.2. 10. Frederick G . Kilgour, "Typography in Celluloid," _ The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Magazine Section (Sept . 14, 1940), p.8-9. 11. Robert C. Binkley, Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials. 12. In 1970 American Documentation changed its name to the Journal of the American Society for Information Science, the new name of its parent organization . Thus this journal links microfilm technology to the present computerized information age. 13. Charles Z. Case, "Photographing Newspapers," in Microphotography for Libraries: Papers Presented at the Microphotography Symposium at the 1936 Conference of the American Library Association (M. Llew- ellyn Raney, ed.) (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1936), p.57. The New York Times was not being microfilmed because a rag paper edition began publication in 1927, primarily for libraries. A pro- posed miniature rag paper edition, which would have addressed storage as well as preservation concerns, was never produced because not enough libraries subscribed to justify the expense. 14. Frederick G. Kilgour, "Foreign Papers Microfilmed," The Library Journal66 :319 (April15, 1941). 15. M. Llewellyn Raney, "Through the Eye of a Needle," p.241. 16. V. D. Tate, "Microphotography in Wartime," The Journal of Documentary Reproduction 5:130 (Sept . 1942). 17. Thomas A. Bourke, ''Spyfilm : The Mystique of Microfilm for Espionage," Microform Review 17:297 (Dec. 1988) and Collected Papers of Frederick G. Kilgour (Dublin, Ohio : OCLC Online Computer Li- brary Center Inc., 1984), p.xi. 18. Prudent R. Dagron, La Paste par Pigeons Voyageurs: Souvenir du Siege de Paris. Specimen identique d'une des Pellicules de Depeches Portees a Paris par Pigeon Voyageur (Tours-Bordeaux, 1870-1871). 19 . L. Bendrikson, "How Long Will Reproductions on 35-Millimeter Film Last?" The Library Journal 60:145 (Feb. 15, 1935). 20. B. W. Scribner, "National Bureau of Standards Research on Stability of Filmslides," in Micropho- tography for Libraries: Papers Presented at the Microphotography Symposium of the American Library Asso- ciation, (M. Llewellyn Raney, ed .,) (Chicago: American Library Assn ., 1936), p.44-46 . The Na- tional Bureau of Standards recommended that film be stored in an environment with about 50 percent humidity and that the moisture be restored to it after each use. 386 College & Research Libraries July 1990 21. Accounts in the Journal of Documentary Reproduction and elsewhere describe microfilming of the National Recovery Administration hearings, The New York Times from 1914-1919, United States Census Bureau population records from 1970 to date, books printed in English up to 1550 (and held by British libraries), 18th century periodicals, materials relating to the history of the American South, and many other projects. 22. Robert C. Binkley, Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, p.159. 23. George T. Srnisor, "Collecting a Library of Rarities on Microfilm," Journal of Documentary Repro- duction 5:98-102 Gune 1942). 24. Vannevar Bush," As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly 176:106-7 Guly 1945). 25. Robert C. Binkley, Manual on Methods of Reproducing Research Materials, p.3. 26. Ibid., p.183. 27. Robert C. Binkley and Rainard B. Robbins, ''The Efficiency Point in Quantity Reproduction,'' Jour- nal of Documentary Reproduction 2:270-74 (1939). 28. M. Llewellyn Raney, "Introduction," Microphotography for Libraries: Papers Presented at the Micro- photography Symposium at the 1936 Conference of the American Library Association. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1936), p.v. 29. M. Llewellyn Raney, "Through the Eye of a Needle," p.242. 30. Lt. Joseph P. Brennan,"Microfilming: Machine Tool of Management," Journal of Documentary Re- production 5:81-88 Gune 1942). 31. Barbara B. Moran, "The Unintended Revolution in Academic Libraries: 1939 to 1989 and Be- yond," College & Research Libraries 50:25-41 Gan. 1989). 32. Fremont C. Rider, The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library, A Problem and Its Solution (New York: Hadharn Press, 1944). 33. Fremont Rider, "The Future of the Research Library," College & Research Library 5:304 (Sept. 1944). 34. Although rnicrocards were NOT generally affixed to catalog cards, they were heavily used by agencies like the Atomic Energy Commission which had the Microcard Corporation produce 20 million between 1952 and 1962. By the 1960s microfiche had replaced rnicrocards due to the econ- omy of producing additional copies on demand and the ease of making enlargements. 35. Nancy E. Gwinn, ed., Preseroation Microfilming: A Guide for Librarians and Archivists (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1987), p.xxvii. 36. Alan Marshall Meckler, Micropublishing, p.89. 37. Vernon D. Tate, ''The Present Status of Equipment and Supplies: A Report Prepared for the Com- mittee on Scientific Aids to Learning," The Journal of Documentary Reproduction 1:44 (Summer 1938). 38. Vernon D. Tate, "An Appraisal of Microfilm," American Documentation 1:97 (Spring 1950). 39. Jean Stewart, Doralyn Hickey and others, Reading Devices for Micro-Images (New Brunswick, N.J.: Graduate School of Library Services, Rutgers-The State University, 1960). 40. Rolland E. Stevens, "Resources in Microform for the Research Library" Microforms in Libraries, ed. by Albert James Diaz (Westport, Conn.: Microform Review Inc., 1975): p.58. 41. Rolland E. Stevens, "The Microform Revolution" Microforms in Libraries, ed. by Albert James Diaz (Westport, Conn.: Microform Review Inc., 1975): p.45. · 42. Michael R. Gabriel and Dorothy P. Ladd, The Microform Revolution in Libraries (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press Inc., 1980), p.56. 43. Ibid., p.89. 44. Mark R. Yerburgh, "Studying All Those 'Tiny Little Tea Leaves:' The Future of Microforms in a Complex Technological Environment," Microform Review 16:14-20 (Winter 1987).