NO EASY RIDER? THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE

RESEARCH LIBRARY. BY FREMONT RIDER: A REVIEW

ARTICLE

By Colin Steele

An earlier version of this article was published in The Journal of Librarianship and

Information Science, Vol 37(1) 2005

Author Profile:

Colin Steele is Emeritus Fellow of the Australian National University. He was University

Librarian, Australian National University (1980-2002) and Director Scholarly

Information Strategies (2002-2003). He is the author and editor of seven books, including

Major Libraries of the World (1976) and Changes in Scholarly Communication Patterns

(1993) and numerous articles and reviews. Colin has been an invited keynote speaker at

library and information conferences in ten countries.

Colin SteeleEmeritus FellowUniversity Librarian, Australian National University (1980-2002)and Director Scholarly Information Strategies (2002-2003)W.K. Hancock Building (043)The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200Australia

Tel +61 (0)2 612 58983Fax +61 (0)2 612 55526Email: colin.steele@anu.edu.au

1

Colin Steele contributed his first article, “Blanket Orders and the Bibliographer in the

Large Research Library”, to the Journal of Librarianship in October 1970 when he was

a staff member of the Bodleian Library in Oxford. His time at the Bodleian (1967 - 1976)

allowed him to meet some of the then “giants” of the American University research

library scene, such as Rutherford Rogers of Yale, Douglas Bryant of Harvard, Robert

Vosper of UCLA, and Melvin Voigt of University of California, San Diego. These

Librarians provided a link to the library developments in America in the 1940s and 1950s

when Fremont Rider’s THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH

LIBRARY (New York, Hadham Press, 1944) was so influential.

Keywords: research libraries, university library cooperation, economics of university

libraries, digital libraries, scholarly publishing and Fremont Rider.

Introduction

Who was Fremont Rider? Robert Molyneux in a number of articles has succinctly

outlined Fremont Rider’s career and the impact of his 1944 book, THE SCHOLAR AND

THE FUTURE OF THE RESEARCH LIBRARY. (Molyneux, 1986, 1994a, 1994b and

1996) Rider (1885-1962) wrote several travel books in the 1920s and was editor of The

Library Journal and Publishers Weekly. He was also an avid genealogist. The American

Genealogical-Biographical Index is the second edition of an index begun by Fremont

Rider in 1936. It is often referred to in older literature as the “Rider Index.”

2

Rider subsequently became Librarian of the Wesleyan University Library in Middletown,

Connecticut where he wrote THE SCHOLAR AND THE FUTURE OF THE

RESEARCH LIBRARY, which was subtitled, “A Problem and Its Solution”. He had

begun writing a series of articles in library journals in the 1930s focussing on reducing

the costs of libraries. In particular he believed the costs of acquisitions and storage could

be alleviated through inter library cooperation and reductions in cataloguing costs,

through changes in methodologies and technology, ideas which were to take permanent

form in his 1944 book.

In the Preface to THE SCHOLAR, Rider states that these 1930’s papers helped him reach

a conclusion that “no emendations in present library method alone were going to provide

a sufficient solution of our growth problem. The petty savings so effected were quickly

overwhelmed by its increasing magnitude. More and more over the years I became

convinced that our only possible answer lay in inter-library cooperation, and cooperation

much more sweeping than anything we had heretofore envisaged.” (Rider, 1944, x-xi).

Rider concluded his Preface with the words: “although this book is intended primarily for

librarians, it is also intended for education administrators, teachers, and scholars; and to

them some of our accepted library terminology might sound a bit blind if there were not

interjected occasionally a brief phrase of elucidation.” Certainly his concerns about

librarians talking to themselves and thus establishing an effective dialogue with the

academic user communities has resonated through subsequent decades. I have termed

this “the sound of one hand clapping” (Steele, 2004) Today we see examples of this in

3

the debates on Open Access publishing which are still a closed shop to many of the

academic community

Rider believed “research library growth has continued, without any significant

change of rate, either downward or upward, for over thirty decades, and at a rate

so uniform over so many years, and so uniform in so many different libraries, that

it might almost seem as though some natural law were at work.” (Rider, 1944, pp.

15-16) Rider believed that given this historical pattern of growth that research

libraries would face insurmountable problems in future years.

Rider stated in the Preface that “of all the problems which have, of recent years,

engaged the attention of educators and librarians, none have been more puzzling

than those posed by the astonishing growth of our great research libraries…it

seems, as stated, to be a mathematical fact that, ever since college and university

libraries started in this country, they have, on the average, doubled in size every

sixteen years.” (Rider, 1944, p. 8) This statement had a profound impact, both in

library and administrative circles, even though subsequently proven statistically

inaccurate.

Riders’s message remained current because of its simplicity and the fact that

research libraries did, in fact, continue to grow significantly in terms of stock and

complexity in the subsequent decades. Libraries ever since, have continued to

4

address many of the same generic issues posed by Rider, although in later years

within different technological frameworks.

Yale University Library’s growth rate was extrapolated by Rider to reflect that

within a century, Yale would contain nearly two hundred million volumes and

would require a cataloguing staff of over five thousand people Understandably

worrying! Rider and other library leaders suggested solutions including improved

interlibrary loan practices, shared and streamlined cataloguing, selective

deaccessioning, regional cooperative libraries, collection rationalisations, and the

increased use of microforms, particularly microcards.

Somewhat ironically in the light of Rider’s comments on deaccessioning, the personal

copy used for this review is one purchased from Richard Barnes’s Evanston bookshop in

1985. It had been deaccessioned from Northwestern University Library. Such was the

fate of one of the most influential books in the history of research libraries!

Rider and microform technological change

It will be surprising to many, as it was to this author, on re-reading THE SCHOLAR, that

in fact only just over one third of the text is devoted to the issue of research library,

growth and the rest is devoted to the issues of micro-reproduction in general, and

microcards in particular, which Rider and others saw as the major solution to the library

problems outlined above problems outlined above. Rider believed that the use of

5

microcards would be as revolutionary as the printed book was over the manuscript roll. A

significant part of the collections of research libraries would be held on five by three inch

micro cards which would have cataloguing data on one side and the text of up to two

hundred and fifty page books on the other. Rider believed that the microcard revolution

would drastically reduce what he saw as the four major costs of libraries, namely

acquisition, cataloguing, storage, and binding.

Rider was aided, in this microform “madness”, as Nicholson Baker has described it, by

other influential figures such as Verner W Clapp, the then Director of the Council of

Library Resources (1956-1957). Baker, in his polemical book, DOUBLE FOLD, impales

Rider, Clapp, and former Deputy Librarian of Congress, William Welsh, according to one

reviewer on “satirical needles”. (Baker, 2001) Baker argues that the microfilming and

subsequent discarding of much unique historical material has been a disservice to society

and that librarian’s adoption of micro-resourcing was a dreadful mistake.

As an aside, the views and adoptions of early technologies at this time proved both

anticipatory and awfully wrong. Vannevar Bush’s Memex Device in 1945, was a pre-

cursor of the Web. In the mid-1950s, others like Professors Haynes McMullen had

reservations. McMullen thought “It is unlikely that the typical university library staff of

[the year] 2005 will employ any mechanical devices which are not already in existence.”

He listed three reasons for this apparent lack of progress. “The use of transmitters,

copying machines and the like may be many years away from the mass-market that

libraries can afford. The new development will most likely be too expensive for most

6

libraries. Third, faculty members may not be ready for the increased efficiency.”

(McMullen, 1955)

It is clear that many of the basic issues addressed by Rider have not disappeared. While

scholars and libraries have much more digital information available through the Internet,

at the same time, the high cost of STM publications has accelerated in an almost Rider

type fashion. The small growth of European science publishers noted by Rider in the

1930s boomed in the second half of the twentieth century so that we know have the

multinational monopolies and significant profits of firms such as Reed Elsevier, Thomson

and Springer, engendered by academic “Faustian bargains”.

Plus ca change

David Stam, then Librarian of Syracuse University, reviewed sixty years of the

Association of Research Libraries in 1992 in an article entitled, “Plus ca change”(Stam,

1992). He notes that at the first meeting of ARL in December 1932 serial price increases

were on the agenda. “In March of 1933 Secretary Gilchrist complained that the situation

was so serious that Rochester had already had to cancel four Springer titles in the

previous two years”. (Stam, 1992) Later that year, an ARL memo noted a Medical

Library Association resolution, “that no library subscribe to any periodicals which do not

have a fixed annual subscription price for the entire annual output of volumes or parts …

unless definite word comes to that effect, MLA recommends cancellation except for one

library in each of six to ten zones throughout American”. (Stam, 1992)

7

The first meeting of what is now CAUL, the Council of Australian University Librarians,

in1928 had on the agenda consortial purchasing of books and serials and pooling of

library resources. When I attended my first meeting of CAUL in 1977 a resolution was on

the agenda to cancel all Elsevier titles in order to bring to the attention of Elsevier the

impact of rising serial prices. Needless to say, like the similar suggestion by Peter

Lyman, then University Librarian of the University of California Berkeley Library

several years ago, this suggestion collectively came to naught.

Stam goes on to say in the context of ARL: “What strikes one most in going through

some of this material is the similarity of past and present agendas. Apart from changing

social issues such as gender and race, the same issues recur constantly. The forms of

technology have changed, but the search for technologies to aid research libraries was

certainly present. So were the topics of cooperation, serials, statistics, relationships to

other organizations, membership criteria, resource sharing, serials, bibliographical

control, preservation, copyright, access to public information, serial price increases, and

mirabile dictu, even dues”(Stam, 1992)

Cooperative collection schemes

In relation to the 1932 ARL comment on cooperation, Rider was much taken by the work

of Keyes Metcalfe, whose 1942 “Division-of-Fields” became the precursor of the

American Farmington Plan, which took effective form after World War Two. This

8

voluntary agreement by around sixty American research libraries aimed to ensure that

one copy at least of each new overseas publication ...would be acquired by an American

library, promptly listed in the National Union catalogue, and made available by inter-

library loan or photographic reproduction. The Farmington Plan greatly enriched

American research collections but had foundered by the early 1970s, as many schemes do

in times of budget reductions, in that battle for individual local excellence and budget

priorities versus cooperative frameworks for the general good.

In the United Kingdom cooperative schemes were developed for public libraries and for

university libraries in terms of cooperative purchasing and location. In 1948, for example,

the Research Committee of the Library Association undertook to examine a national plan

for cooperation to ensure coverage of research material. Over the subsequent decades a

number of cooperative collecting frameworks were put in place in UK universities,

particularly in area studies, such as for African, Asian, Slavonic and Latin American

material. Perhaps greater success was achieved in mainland Europe where the Deutsche

Forschungsgemeinschaft initiated a decentralised subject collections scheme with

designated funding and the Scandia Plan linked the special and research libraries of

Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. An analysis of the pros and cons of cooperative

collection building has a literature, however, all of its own, but again the issues raised by

Rider and Metcalf resonated through the subsequent decades.

The Conspectus model of library collection cooperation, which was adopted in the US

during the late 1980s and early 1990s has also foundered, not least by a lack of adoption

9

and understanding by the academic community of the collection methodologies, Another

ultimately failed version of national cooperation involving librarians, but again not the

academic community, was attempted in Australia during the 1990s under the title of the

“Distributed National Collection”.

This eminently worthwhile theoretical concept, supported by the National Library of

Australia, was not accompanied by financial “carrots and sticks” to facilitate cooperation,

nor was there any acceptance by the Australian Vice Chancellors that greater good of the

whole resulted from individual cooperative actions. Australian initiatives in collection

coordination, like elsewhere, moved into seeking economies through national consortia

purchases of print and electronic material, although some argue that “The Big Deal” has

played into the hands of the large multinational publishers at the expense of smaller

learned societies and monograph publishers

Growth in university research collections in the 1960’s and 1970’s

Before the Big Deal was the Big Boom. The period of the 1950s and 1960s and part of

the 1970s seems like a Golden Age in terms of expansionist resources within the context

of the overall university budgets, although most writers of the time clearly did not always

appreciate that fact. The 1957 of the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite sent shock

waves through Cold War America and led to a rise in higher education funding in

general, and scientific research in particular. It has been suggested that this boom

continued until Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

10

How did Rider’s growth figures fit in this expansionist scenario? Keyes Metcalf had

pointed out in an essay in 1954 that the rate of increase in collections as observed by

Rider had dropped from four per cent to well below three per cent per annum. (Wilson

and Tauber, 1958) Nonetheless Metcalf stated that given the growth in library collections

and thus building requirements, that “it is not too early to be thinking about 1980”.

(Metcalf, 1954).

A review in 1960 of library growth figures for the twenty-five university libraries, listing

holdings of over one million volumes, revealed that only four had increased their

holdings by 100% or more during the previous fifteen year period. (Axford, 1962)

A 1963 analysis of the growth rates of the twenty libraries originally studied by Rider,

revealed that, collection growth rates have clearly decreased. His first group of “10 large

university libraries of respectable age” had a collection doubling time of sixteen years

based on the average growth rate for the period 1831-1938. However, based on their

average growth rate for the period 1938-60, their average doubling time was 25.1 years.

(Piternick, 1963)

The concerns on library economics highlighted by Rider had, however, not diminished

In 1967 the American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Research Libraries

submitted its Statement of Recommendations to the US National Advisory Commission

on Libraries and published them in the book On Research Libraries. (ACLS, 1967.) In the

Committee’s Preface the serious difficulties faced by research libraries in relation to staff,

11

space and funds and the “double-challenge” of increased demand for services and

increased publications were highlighted.

ACLS stated, “we offer no panaceas for the problems of the research libraries, but we

have no doubt that they can be largely overcome by a carefully designed combination of

measures including a substantial admixture of research and development”. (ACLS, 1967,

ix) They noted early in their analysis the fact that it is “axiomatic” American research

libraries “double in size every fifteen to twenty years” and noted, based on a Harvard

study, that library costs would rise from 5.7 million in 1964-65 to 14.7 million in 1975-76

(ACLS, 1967, xiv, xvii). Rider lived on

ACLS concluded, “even the most sophisticated electronic circuitry will remain an aid to,

not a substitute for, men's minds in contact with books”. In an era now where electronic

access of a Google/scholars portal nature is rampant, and there is a female CEO of the

British Library and of many US Ivy League libraries, such words seem decidedly archaic.

Current debates now focus on the quality of access to electronic information in a virtual

environment rather than the sole criterion of absolute collection size

Since American Research Libraries, plus the University of Toronto in Canada, have

historically set the benchmarks for quantitative collection statistics most of the examples

in this article have been taken from North America. Thus when I was commenting upon

blanket orders/approval plans in 1970, I noted, in relation to the Association of Research

Library statistics, “Statistics are often misleading and these figures are simply

12

quantitative but there is no doubt whatsoever that University libraries on this side of the

Atlantic constantly lag behind their American counterparts … apart from Toronto there

are others such as McMaster and Alberto with quite massive library expenditures and

budgets by British standards”. (Steele, 1970)

Libraries which were set up in new universities the UK in the 1960’s, for example the

University of Lancaster under Graham MacKenzie, placed much emphasis on the quality

and accessibility of their stock, albeit small, compared to the monolithic legal deposit

libraries such as Oxford and Cambridge. British university libraries, outside of the legal

deposit libraries, were always poorer cousins to some extent of the big American

universities. The 1967 British “Parry” UGC Report recommended that universities spend

a six per cent minimum on their university libraries but few of these actually achieved

that figure, and as the decades continued, the figure fell to much lower percentages,

although balanced by an increasing university expenditure on computer terminals,

networking, etc

The British “Atkinson” UGC Report tried to put a limit on the growth of collections

within libraries because of a perceived lack of funds for capital building. (UGC ,1976)

The term “steady-state library” became the watchword for curbing library growth within

physical confines. (Steele, 1978). One of the contemporary British library “giants”, Dr

Fred Ratcliffe pondered: “where and how, it might be asked, did the view arise that a

massive growth in university library stocks was threatening efficient library services…

and crippling the UGCs building program”. (Ratcliffe, 1980).

13

These comments were published in a 1980 article, although by this time the debate was

almost played out. The Atkinson Report was subsequently abandoned as official policy.

To many, open access compactus added to existing libraries, or in close by

campus/regional stores, are seen to be more economical than other solutions or

technology replacements such as microfilming a la Rider and Clapp.

Ironically today, many administrators again query the need for further library buildings in

the era of electronic desktop access environments. The rejoinder now is to focus on

efficient open access storage linked to or integrated in library buildings that focus on

information commons and dynamic learning spaces as well as providing a social hub

including coffee shops and book stores for the campus. In that context, the future may

well see a convergence of electronic publishing between libraries and bookshops,

particularly through virtual learning environments. In several university libraries,

bookshops have actually become part of the library, such as at the University of

Melbourne In some cases, libraries have introduced coffee shops, making them more

resemble the big 24x7 bookstore chains than traditional libraries

Research libraries in the 1980’s and 1990’s

Richard de Gennaro stated in 1977 that US libraries... libraries can no longer afford to

maintain the collections, staffs and service levels that librarians and users have come to

expect in the last two decades” and libraries should begin to “reduce our excessive

14

commitments and expectations to match our declining resources. (De Gennaro, 1977).

The Reagan years, however, saw significant collection growth for a variety of reasons,

not least the strong US dollar in terms of purchasing overseas material.

But whither cooperation? The American Council of Learned Societies had another go in

1979, just over a decade after its 1967 Report. Their Scholarly Communication Report

called for a system wide strengthening of the scholarly communication system, with

libraries needing to find better ways to share resources. (ACLS, 1979) It noted that

library acquisition budgets continued to lag behind increases in the volume and costs of

scholarly material but that resource sharing was hampered by major lending libraries

being resistant to large scale lending.

At this stage of library history a number of large libraries felt that the automated access to

their holdings via union catalogues such as RLG (Research Libraries Group), OCLC

(Online Computer Library Centre), and ABN (Australian Bibliographic Network) was

resulting in increased pressures on their resources and therefore less ability to service

their own clients. Debates on the costs of inter library loans therefore raged on several

continents as net lenders tried to recoup their costs and long arcane discussions on the

cost basis of charges, or indeed whether to charge at all, took place. In the UK the success

of the British Library Lending Division as founded by Donald Urquhart and continued by

Morris Line to some extent changed the debate in the UK.

15

The Web and Scholarly Change

The beginnings of the Web impacted in and on libraries earlier than most sectors of

society in the 1990’s. While the debates continue as to the issues of access, storage and

the economics of libraries and information provision, there is no doubt that the Internet

will be as revolutionary in societal change as the printing press was in the fifteenth

century. The World Wide Web is undoubtedly causing major cultural shifts in terms of

the access and dissemination of information at numerous levels.

Research libraries, as they become more involved in the creation and dissemination of

knowledge, will see their roles changing They will need to move from passive to active

players in the scholarly communication chain in ways that Rider implied with

microcards. The manner in which scholarly research is changing is evidenced in the

Australian Government funded study, Changing Research Practices in the Digital

Information and Communication Environment (Houghton, 2003). This study revealed a

need for an holistic approach to scholarly communication issues and that while many

researchers were working in a mode 2 interdisciplinary environment, that their

publications were still locked in a mode 1 traditional framework because of academic

reward systems.

Scholars will be involved in digital scholarly communication systems that are able to

capture the digital scholarly record, make it accessible, and preserve it over time.

Multimedia and grid computing applications are enhancing inter disciplinary

developments and changing the nature of what we might term scholarly “publishing” and

16

thus research access by research libraries. Professor Tony Hey, Head of the UK eScience

program, has noted the current ‘data deluge,’ which refers to the flood of scientific data

from e-Science experiments, simulations, sensors and satellites. (Hey and Trefethen,

2003). For the exploitation of this material by relevant search engines and data mining

software tools, such data needs to be archived and stored in appropriate formats with

relevant metadata.

Open Access Initiatives and Scholarly Publishing

“The Berlin Declaration” of October 2003 signed by all of Germany's principal scientific

and scholarly institutions argues that the Internet has fundamentally changed the practical

and economic realities of distributing scholarly knowledge and cultural heritage with the

guarantee of worldwide access. New access models based on existing institutional

infrastructures are emerging through the Open Access initiatives and institutional

repository developments, although the OA debates of 2004 reflected confused and often

heated. settings.

A different spin on the growth of research collections has come from the publishing

industry. Several commentators such as Robert Campbell and John Cox have argued that

the problem does not lie so much with the rise in prices of STM serials but rather with the

inability of academic budgets to keep up with the growth of R&D expenditure in the

developed world.

17

John Cox, a noted commentator on the publishing industry, has noted the market for

database collections of full text journal content has matured in the last decades of the

twentieth century. (Cox, 2004) In this context, he believes a number of factors have

converged; academic library budgets from the mid-1970s have failed to keep pace with

R&D output. While scientific research papers have doubled since 1975, library budgets

have increased by only forty per cent. (Cox, 2004, p5)

In the 1970s library expenditure as a proportion of total university expenditure in the

western world was running at four per cent of total university expenditure. Since that

time, Cox argues the proportion has steadily declined and is now under three per cent, but

as mentioned earlier, other proportions of the budget on ICT infrastructure have

increased. Many librarians would debate Cox’s comment that “university libraries have

not succeeded in selling the value of the library to the university community”. (Cox,

2004, p5) Cox notes, however, that consortia purchasing of large serial collections from

publishers and aggregated databases of journal content have assisted library provision of

information to the academic user communities.

Robert Campbell of Blackwell Publishing similarly believes libraries are now enjoying

access to almost double the number of journal titles they had in 1993/4 in the UK, that

downloads from Blackwell journals had risen from 19million in 2002 to an estimated 65

million in 2004, and academics were reading many more articles today than they did in

the 1970s. (Campbell, 2004)

18

These issues, however, must involve more directly, than has perhaps been the case to

date, the academic users even in their contradictory Jekyll and Hyde approaches as

readers and writers if scholarly communication and reward systems are to change. The

Berlin signatories believe that in order to realize the vision of a global and accessible

representation of knowledge a number of initiatives must be put in place. These include

researchers and grant recipients being encouraged to publish their work according to the

principles of open access; means and ways being developed to evaluate open access

contributions in electronic journals and digital repositories within the standards of quality

assurance including peer review.

Two strands, now beginning to intersect, namely the ‘decline’ in university presses and

the ‘rise’ of university libraries/repository centres could allow the rebirth of the scholarly

book in a significant way. Digital publishing technologies, linked to global networking

and international interoperability protocols and metadata standards, allow for an

appropriately branded institutional output to serve as an indication of a university’s

quality and also as an effective scholarly communication tool through visibility, status

and public value.

David Seaman, Executive Director of the Digital Library Federation, gave the 2004

James Bennett Lecture at the Australian National University in November Entitled "Mass

and Malleability: Nimble Libraries and Mutable Books". Seaman warned about "the per-

ils of rigidity in a Jell-O landscape” and urged academic publishers and research libraries

to work cooperatively to meet their central challenge: "the transformation from isolation

19

to integration. Virtual cooperation replaces physical cooperation as the twenty first cen-

tury watchword.

In some ways we now return to Rider in the context that access to electronic information

is growing faster on the web than we are able to deal with it. Scholarly publishing sym-

bolises the public/private struggles within the knowledge economy. New models will

need to be developed which may not fit late twentieth century business models, ie chan-

ging to ones which will utilise and benefit from the public domain infrastructure to sup-

port access to scholarly knowledge.

Research library futures

As indicated earlier, there are likely to be profound changes in the role and function of

many research libraries as user patterns change in terms of accessing information and lib-

raries become more active partners in the scholarly communication process. (Greenstein,

2004) Research and teaching platforms will link appropriate repositories through digital

asset management systems, with automated metadata harvesting. Such repositories will

be linked to new universal citation processes and open source/open access philosophies.

As history in general, and Rider in particular has shown, the ability to predict knowledge

access and transfer patterns is a complicated one, as Google Print and its partnerships

with publishers and libraries has shown. The digital revolution has brought us to another

set of information crossroads. Libraries have a choice -to understand and facilitate the

20

changes in scholarly communications and networked knowledge, or to be filtered out of

the new information environments. Libraries will have to become much more proactive

in their institutional roles, in the new paradigms for the creation, distribution and access

of information. We return to the question what is the future of the research library and its

economics in the digital era- no easy Rider?

REFERENCES(Internet citations are at 2 December 2004)

American Council of Learned Societies (1967) On Research Libraries. Cambridge:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

American Council of Learned Societies (1979) Scholarly Communication The Report of

the National Enquiry. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press

Axford, H William (1962) Rider Revisited College and Research Libraries. July 1962,

23:4, pp345-347

Baker, Nicholson (2001) Doublefold: Libraries and the assault on paper. New York:

Random House

Campbell, Robert (2004) Libraries: do they have a future in academia – or only a past?

Serials. March 2004 17(1) pp9-14

Cox, John (2004) Aggregators and the Primary Journal. Worthing: ALPSP.

De Gennaro, Richard (1977) Copyright, Resource Sharing and Hard Times: a view from

the field. American Libraries. September 1977, p435.

Greenstein, Daniel (2004) Library Stewardship in a Networked Age

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub126/green.html

21

Hey, T. and Trefethen, A. (2003) The Data Deluge http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ajgh/

Houghton, John, Steele, Colin, Henty, Margaret (2003) Changing Research Practices in

the Digital Information and Communication Environment. Canberra: Department of

Education, Science and Training.

http://www.cfses.com/documents/Changing_Research_Practices.pdf

McMullen, Haynes (1955) American University Libraries, 1955-2005 College and

Research Libraries July 1955, 16, 288

Metcalf, Keyes (1954) Spatial Problems in University Libraries Library Trends. pp558.

Quoted in Wilson and Tauber, p492.

Molyneux, R.E. (1986) Patterns, processes of growth, and the projection of library size: a

critical review of the literature on academic library growth. Library & Information

Science Research, January – March 1986, 8, 5-28

Molyneux, R.E. (1994a) More hortatory than factual: Fremont Rider’s exponential

growth hypothesis and the context of exponentialism. In For the good of the order:

essays in honor of Edward G. Holley, eds D.E. Williams et al., pp. 85-117. Greenwich:

CT: Jai Press

Molyneux, R.E. (1994b) What did Rider do? An inquiry into the methodology of

Fremont Rider’s The scholar and the future of the research library. Libraries & Culture,

29, 297-325

Molyneux, R.E. (1996) Fremont Rider’s Legacy ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter of

Research Library Issues and Actions, October 1996, 188, p6

http://arl.cni.org/newsltr/188/fremont.html.

22

Piternick, George (1963) Library Growth and Academic Quality College and Research

Libraries. May 1963,24(3), pp223-229.

Ratcliffe, F.W. (1980) The Growth of University Library Collections in the United

Kingdom in University Library History. Ed by James Thompson, London: K J Saur, p8.

Rider, Fremont (1944) The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library. New York:

Hadham Press.

Stam, David (1992) Plus Ca Change … Sixty Years of The Associate of Research

Libraries. Association of Research Libraries Newsletter

http://www.arl.org/arl/plus.ca.html

Steele, Colin R. (1970) Blanket Orders and the Bibliographer in the Large Research

Library. Journal of Librarianship. October, 1970 2(4), p273.

Steele, Colin R. Ed, (1978) Steady-State, Zero Growth and the Academic Library

London: Bingley

Steele, Colin (2004) The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The Politics of Scholarly

Communication http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc2004/

University Grants Committee. Capital Provision for University Libraries. London:

HMSO. 1976

Wilson, Louis Round and Tauber, Morris F. (1958) The University Library. Second

edition. New York: Columbia University Press, p492.

23