College and Research Libraries JOHN P. McGOWAN TOWARD THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE AND BEYOND Private University Libraries and a National Information Policy The private university library's role in a proposed national library program is described. The contributions and resources that the library can bring to the program, the financial problems associated with participation, and the various sources of support are reviewed. Several options iire identified as means to fund the program and the difficulties with each are described. Foundations, federal funding, and the private sector are identified as possi- ble sources. The role of the Midwestern libraries through the consortium MIDLNET is also discussed. THE ORIGINAL purpose of a White House conference ·was to gather together those people who are best qualified to advise the president on a complex issue; the original purpose of a commission was to bring disci- plined and superior intelligences together to study and agonize over a complex problem. In both cases, serious, objective, dis- passionate investigation was thought to pro- vide the guidelines needed for the making of sensible national policy. . . . No one who has ever participated in one of these foolish tent shows thinks there is the slightest chance of any intelligent contribution to na- tional policy emerging from it."1 If this statement, which recently ap- peared in the Chicago Tribune by syndi- cated columnist Andrew Greeley under the title, "Commissions of Absurdities," is cor- rect in any sense, it would be best if the reader stopped here to embark on more important matters. As one reads the report of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and the documents on a variety of issues prepared for the commission, the evidence is clear that dis- ciplined and intelligent individuals were john P. McGowan is university librarian, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. brought together to study and agonize over the complex problem of designing a national library program, which, when fully im- plemented, will serve all the citizens of this country. The commission's goals and objectives are ambitious, almost global in concept, with broad appeal to almost every possible audi- ence, yet enunciated with a view that pro- grams ·must be affordable, although requir- ing some governmental support; evolution- ary and realistic, while striving for the ideal; and that those projects yielding the greatest return over the short run will be supported. CONDIDONS OF PARTICIPATION For the many communities that have reacted to the commission's reports and those others who will participate in the statewide conferences, it is understood that, while the goal of creating a national library program is central to all communities, there is a wide and diverse set of characteristics for each participating community, with its specialized and· unique information re- quirements that must be incorporated into the final design and the operation of the national library program. One community, the private university library, which views itself as a contributor I 11 18 I College & Research Libraries • January 1979 and participant, will need to define with some degree of precision exactly what it will contribute and how it will participate, such that there will be mutual gains for its users and those others noted in the commission's programs. For many private universities , straining to keep a balanced budget, dedi- cated to providing quality education, and supporting research , such definitions of roles are clearly difficult to make at this time. Many of these institutions must support themselves through tuition, the yield from shrinking endowments, gifts , and aid from foundations and federal agencies . To attract the most gifted students they make available a host of scholarships and aid programs. Al- though there has been no real or substantial growth in their library budgets, there has been a general unwillingness on the part of many faculty to reduce the library budget , since they regard the library as absolutely central to their scholarship and research. Extending the capability of the library through cooperative programs will be re- ceived with enthusiasm by faculty and uni- versity administrators if it can be demon- strated that services and collections will not be impaired. This is very unlikely , since many university libraries located in urban settings have always rendered a very high level of reference services to residents of the community and neighboring colleges. Some form of assistance or incentives on a recurring basis will be needed if there is to be any expansion of these services. There is some reservation on the part of university administrators that state funding for this type of effort and others proposed by the commission may not be always available or even the most reliable source. Private uni- versities find it difficult to develop long- standing and mutually advantageous rela- tionships with state agencies. STATE VS. FEDERAL FUNDING In a recent study conducted by North- western University under a grant from the National Science Foundation on this topic of state funding, it was reported: Increased state sponsorship is a mixed blessing for higher education. While allowing the educa- tion institution an opportunity to participate in the identification and solution of problems of local concern , there are increased administrative dif- ficulties . Not the least of these is the recovery of indirect costs ... . the state legislature re- appropriates most funds coming to it from federal sources. The result of this re-appropriation pro- cess is that funds from DHEW (and presumably other federal sources) lose their "federal " charac- ter. Following re-appropriation by the legislature , these funds are regarded as belonging to the state and its various agencies . While this view may or may not be correct in itself, it has the effect of obscuring such federal regulations as those just cited regarding the recovery of indirect costs at federally negotiated level. In addition , the re- appropriation process makes it practically impos- sible to identify, after the fact , which state agency expenditures are ultimately of federal origin and which are not. The current situation regarding the recovery of indirect costs from state agencies is clearly not fa- vorable to higher education institutions . Because indirect costs are not recovered , the institution is forced to subsidize a project , a subsidy which is ultimately met through higher tuitions , decreased faculty compensation , delayed maintenance, or some combination of other strategies. 2 If federal funds are to be channeled through state agencies as proposed by the commission, it is likely that private universi- ties may not be the recipients of this aid in any measurable amount and may be re- stricted in what they can do for their local communities. This support, which in the past has come primarily from federal agencies and foun - dations , has been an important factor in keeping many of these universities vital and innovative. In recent years this support has been substantially diminished. Graduate education and research have been severely affected by these changes in the funding patterns. In a recent report, Research Universities and the National Interest: A Report from Fifteen University Presidents, there appears a series of recommendations calling for in- creased support to education, research, and the research library community. The private universities, as much as they would like to maintain a high degree of independence, need the support and assistance of the federal government to carry out their pro- grams. The government is equally in need of the expertise that research universities can offer. However, as stated in the report, "it is desirable to maintain a degree of de- I j ] '. centralization in the authority to make deci- sions about basic research. "3 A SPECIAL RESOURCE It is clear that the libraries of these in- stitutions need support at various levels and, like their parent institution, have an unusual array of resources to contribute to the national program-unique collections, expert staff, and a thorough understanding of the scholarly and research process and the machinery and the resources necessary to maintain it. Many of these private uni- versity libraries have also pioneered in the application of computer technology to li- brary operations, developed sophisticated and efficient techniques for servicing their students and faculty, and, because of their relative freedom from regulation, have been able to try various innovative approaches to their operations. At some point in the future, when the history of this period is recorded, many of the accomplishments will be credited to the universities in the private sector. The com- mission affords these universities the oppor- tunity to continue with these contributions and recommends that means be found to sustain the most promising vent~res that will optimize accessibility to the nation's col- lections. One means to achieve this objective is to identify new ways to deploy and use the special talent that resides in each library, the experts in collection development, bib- liographers, and those individuals with ad- vanced training who have recently entered the library profession. Some formcil way to share the special knowledge that these indi- viduals have of their collections with their colleagues and faculty in other institutions needs to be explored, perhaps some type of "knowledge resource" network. The pro- grams of many libraries can be enriched, collections more fully exploited, and service enhanced if ways are found to properly use this talent. IMPEDIMENTS AND BURDENS In any enterprise as ambitious as the one the commission is advocating, the possibility for identifying the incorrect solution or the least workable model is very high. Some years ago a Nobel laureat, in an address to Private University Libraries I 19 an audience of librarians and information scientists, stated that once the right prob- lem has been identified the solution will readily be fo~nd. The commission has identified the right problem. It sees the problem for university and research libraries as one of sharing im- balances, the inability to maintain and pre- serve and develop collections, various im- pediments to innovative and experimental collective activities, and insufficient funds to provide services to a wider clientele and sustenance to a number of select collections. These maladies are endemic to all university libraries. The disease will not kill the pa- tient but, unchecked, will weaken and sap its vitality and ultimately leave it crippled. The private university is very susceptible. The cure the commission prescribes is more federal and state assistance. In some cases the cure may be worse than the dis- ease. Federal and state funding needs to be accepted with the full understanding that it will not encumber or change the character or primary mission of the university, service to its own student body and faculty. If one is to carry this awkward analogy one step further, there is the matter of the administration and the level of the dosage that the patient can take without becoming addicted. It must be administered in such a way that it does not place an undue burden on the recipient of the aid. A recent example: Under Title 11-C of the Higher Education Act, Strengthening Re- search Library Resources, some 100 applica- tions were received for which twenty grants were made. Each of the participating li- braries and institutions diverted sizable re- sources to review guidelines and prepare and write proposals, and a host of reviewers were assembled to critique the proposals under a peer review process. Out of the twenty grants that were to be made, there was at the outset a general awareness that certain institutions would very likely receive funding. Under this assumption there were perhaps no more than fifteen grants avail- able to the 100 or so libraries that submit- ted proposals. Although there is no evi- dence to support this statement, it is likely that upwards of a half-million to a million dollars in man and woman hours may have been spent on this effort. 20 I College & Research Libraries • January 1979 NEW APPROACHES A more efficient process must be found. For the small to moderate size university li- brary with limited staff and expertise in proposal preparation the process is inequit- able. In the recommendations appearing in the Research Universities and the National Interest it is stated: We recommend that the Library of Congress ex- plore with the country's leading learned societies and research-library organizations the possibility of establishing a permanent body to assess the quality of national resources, to promote action by responsible agencies, and to help shape na- tional policies. 4 Such a functioning, nonpartisan body with the commission's support might appoint boards of inquiry who could, as one of their duties, assess need, define optimum yield against support levels, and make recom- mendations as to how and where to allocate governmental funding. If the process were open and visible, the national library pro- gram would be better served. Given the present mood of the country, recipients of grants, particularly the private university library sector, should not rely on any sustaining support for their operations or add on activities to carry out the commis- sion's goals. They may need to break the habit very quickly. As unattractive as it is to many libraries, users' fees and ·more reliance on the private sector may be needed. At those universities where there is a sizable amount of contract work, researchers should be encouraged to include in their applications support for special services supplied by their libraries. Many applications contain support for com- puter services, few for library services. The network statements in the commis- sion's report are in general accord with the views held by many individuals knowledge- able in the field. If the network system architectur·e can accommodate the biblio- graphic apparatus to identify and access col- lections, it will bring the resources of more libraries to a larger population and may ul- timately lead to a more rational means of developing collections on a national level. Until such time as this is accomplished, which at the present rate of progress may be several decades, means should be found to support scholarly travel to use specific li- brary collections that have been identified as national resources. MIDLNET The network objectives advocated in the commission report stress the need for standards, cohesiveness, experiments with different modes of technology, and a sup- port for statewide networks. In the Mid- west, where there are many strong state- wide networks, a high level of expertise in computer technology, and rich multistate resources, there is some sentiment on the part of many libraries that a single state may be too small a building block ~or a network structure. The creation of MIDLNET under the au- spices of the Committee on Institutional · Cooperation was formulated with a view that a multistate network could complement and enhance state networks and provide the basis for building a regional data base. The Midwest institutions, with their strong tendencies for independence and . self- sufficiency, were also concerned that this important region of the United States needed stronger representation in the inner councils where national library policy was being discussed and also an opportunity to have an equitable share of the funding for its cooperative activities. To date some of these goals have been realized. The regional data base is a longer range goal. However, MIDLNET, with the assis- tance of members of the University of Chicago library and eight other libraries in the region, is prepared, if sufficient support can be found, to take the first step toward that objective. After the completion of a sys- tems and specifications study of the eight participating institutions, some operational activities employing the library data man- agement system of the University of Chicago through MIDLNET could start in a year. The objective is to provide a next generation prototype operation that will serve the region, access other regional net- works, and look toward the Library of Con- gress as the library of last resort. If one looks at network development in the United States, it appears as a large unfinished mosaic, with many of the pieces still to be discovered for placement in the array. The development of yet another net- work may appear to add to the disarray and complicate the orderly process of creating the national library network. Perhaps any undertaking as ambitious as this can never Private University Libraries I 21 be orderly or operate under a systematic· plan . The best that may be hoped for is that out of the disarray will come order, and out of diversity of approach to the network problem will come progress. REFERENCES 1. Andrew Greeley , " Commissions of Absur- dities," Chicago Tribune , June 1, 1978, sec.3, p .4. 2. Charles H. Seibert , " Improvement of Re- search Management Relationships between State Governments and the Higher Educa- tional Community ," A research study sup- ported by grant #NM44247 from the National Science Foundation Research Management Improvement Program , July 1974 through Au- gust 1977, p.2, 15, 20, 21. 3. Research Universities and the National Inter- est: A Report from Fiftee n University Presi- dents (New York: Ford Foundation , 1978) , p.58 . 4. Ibid., p . 100.