A recent day-long taskforce exercise that I attended that was set up by the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL) explored the collaborative potential that a consortial URM purchase could unleash. In a general sense, this concerns the intersection of collections and technology. Thankfully, we’re taking a “what could be possible” rather than a “which tool is best” approach.
At any rate, it was a well structured and vibrant day, with a lot of provocative yet grounded thinking. As an AUL with a large IT portfolio, what we are going to do next with respect to the ILS/SFX/ERM/… technology matrix is more or less constantly on my mind. Moreover, lately I’ve been veering ever more strongly toward questioning some of the core functions and services we provide in libraries, and am finding myself more ready to dispense with some sacred cows.
This taskforce meeting raised two issues that I’d like to tease out here and then suggest some fairly radical conclusions. One of the key themes of the day was discovery, i.e.- what role do we play in helping our users locate information? We all know from myriad studies that a vanishingly small percentage of users prefers our interfaces to those they find on the open Web. We’ve wrung our hands about this for years, and the emergence of federated searching part deux, aka the discovery layer, seemed to promise salvation. One box! All the content! Problem is, it hasn’t quite worked out that way.
Taking a step back from the discovery layer, one can see that it is really a response to years of decline with regard to the library catalog as a place to start research. We tried sexifying the catalog with various features over the previous decade: RSS feeds, call number texting, LibraryThing recommendations, etc. None of those could really halt the decline. So now we’ve dropped the discovery layer on top of that, and while behind that interface now sits an infinitely larger pool of content, it would seem that most users still see it for what is is, i.e.- a librarianly window into a world that we define. And so they have not returned in droves from Google and Co.; the discovery layer solves a ‘problem’ that we’ve defined, not our users. Given the level of financial and organizational investment in these tools, that’s a less than ideal outcome.
Now we, and presumably others, are talking about creating what are essentially consortial-level discovery layers. Surely, the reasoning goes, if we all join forces and collections, then we’ll hit that critical mass that will bring users back to us. Why bother, really? Google won the
search discovery wars years ago, and nothing we can do is going to change that.
My radical suggestion here is that we–finally–acknowledge that our inventory control systems are of little interest to our users, whether an OPAC or a discovery layer. As such, we should invest as little as possible in the public interface while making it as useful as possible for the few who do find it critical to their needs. At McMaster we use VuFind on top of our catalog, and it’s an attractive and useful interface that no one seems to dislike. Done. Next.
So what could one do with time saved not implementing and maintaining a discovery layer? There are a couple of ideas here that I took away from the taskforce meeting, both of which come from the oft-repeated notion–for example, Robert Darnton’s remarks at the 15:00 mark of this interview–that one of the most valuable assets we have in the library moving forward is our store of unique content, i.e.- our special collections. Many libraries have done a fair bit of work to digitize portions of their special collections, but collectively we are decades away from being caught up with that job. Along the way, however, we have neglected their discoverability, perhaps ironically because we’ve been too invested in creating discovery layers that we thought users would use as gateways to this content. Recent work done by Kenning Arlitsch and Patrick O’Brien has laid out in detail how poorly our digital collections are indexed. So while they may be present in our local tools, they’re not visible via Google and other search engines, rendering them essentially invisible. At the very least, we should be looking at Arlitsch and O’Brien’s research and making sure that we do everything we can to surface our content in the tools people actually demonstrably use.
To that end, some brave soul mentioned that we should be doing more with linked data. I’ll be the first to admit that while I understand linked data conceptually, I do not actually know how to realize a statement like that operationally or organizationally. That said, at last year’s Access conference, I saw a talk that began to address that issue (text; video), demonstrating a tool that actually enables staff–who may not be able to rattle off a tidy definition of linked data–to create useful linked data and publish it.
One could suggest at this point, and correctly, that this is advocating for us to invest in an unproven technology and hope it pays off in the future when and if the major players on the Web create tools that leverage it. I would argue we need to take such risks. We know what’s not going to be a major driver of our future: library-developed search interfaces, print collections, etc. In fact, our whole gatekeeper role between users and licensed content is eroding as scientific literature becomes more generally available as open-access mandates mature and generate impact and as commercial information providers bypass us to market directly to users (Oyster is just the latest), a far more lucrative market for their wares.
Do we spend too much effort on our interfaces? Are we doing enough to develop the future?