Frederick J. Friend, Director Scholarly Communication, University College London

Abstract

The barriers in the world of information are being lifted. The increasing flow of information from country to country brings an awareness of both common humanity and cultural differences. Libraries across the world are sharing common problems and common opportunities in securing access to information. Libraries in the UK have developed strong links with one another through organizations such as SCONUL and CURL, and a national policy for collaboration has been provided through the work of JISC, the Joint Information Systems Committee. The structure of those organizations is understandably UK-centred instead of world-centred, as is the structure of many organizations in the US. Library organizations have to take a world-view if we are to defend the public good against the world-view of commercial exploitation. Our libraries are libraries of one world. There are threats to library services from rising costs and competing services, but there is also the promise of improved access to information provided by technological developments. Collaboration both within each country and internationally is proving vital for libraries in managing both the threats and the opportunities. ICOLC, the International Coalition for Library Consortia, may be a model for the future, as a virtual international organization. Library co-operation in Europe has become more important as the countries in Europe are working more closely together through the European Union. This development has also brought both threats and opportunities. The principal threat has been of restrictive copyright legislation, the principal opportunity that of working together in specific areas of information provision. Collaboration in specific subject areas is a good principle to follow in terms of global library collaboration, rather than attempting to solve all the world's library problems and exploit all the opportunities through one gigantic organization. It seems clear that such international collaboration is set to grow and can produce even greater benefits.

Perhaps the single most important feature in shaping British history is that Britain is separated from Continental Europe by twenty one miles of water. It does not sound very much but it has had a profound effect in preventing cultural invasion as well as armed invasion. As a boy I grew up in Dover, and I used to stand on the White Cliffs looking across at a foreign land that I could see but which I did not visit until I was 15 years of age. This paper is about looking out across more than twenty one miles of the English Channel. We must look across thousands of miles of ocean. The world has changed a great deal since my childhood, on the whole for the better, and one of the improvements is that we are more aware of other cultures. Cultural differences are important in demonstrating both our common humanity and our unique identities. They illustrate what we have in common and also what we can offer to others as our contribution to the human race. The ancient world and the medieval world were harsh environments for mankind, but in Europe those harsh environments produced a sense of cohesion in the form of a common language and a common spirituality. That cohesion was lost as the cultural pendulum swung towards national identities, but in the electronic environment we may have a new opportunity to create a new sense of common identity which does not over-ride local culture.

Our life in the world of information is part of that mix of unity and diversity, of common features and variety. In the past our ignorance of other cultures was matched by our ignorance of other people's information and other people's information needs. I generalise of course, and you may correct my generalization by pointing to examples of women and men who had a world-view of information long before the age of the aeroplane or the computer. But it is nevertheless true that geographical barriers such as twenty one miles of sea have had a profound influence upon the development of information services. The way in which academic library services have developed, for example, is very different in the various countries of Europe, and we need to understand and respect those differences if we are to achieve international collaboration. The question I shall address in this paper is this : now that the geographical barriers to the flow of information are breaking down or disappearing, how can we use the new internationalism to provide users of information with a better service? This is not a question of technology but of structures. Our co-operative structures were shaped in the age of geographical barriers to information. Should they or can they be re-shaped in a truly international way?

Some publishers, libraries and other information intermediaries are still acting as though the geographical barriers to information were still in place. Others recognise the importance of the international electronic world but cannot adapt their structures to take full advantage of the new opportunities. The co-operative organizations we have in the UK do an excellent job within the UK but we are not finding it easy to absorb the implications of the international electronic world into our structures. This is not due to any lack of awareness of the international dimension to information. Librarians in the UK are very aware that the problems they face, such as the escalating price of journals, are faced by librarians across the world. Librarians in the UK are also very aware of the vast range of information sources now available globally. The difficulty comes in turning awareness into programmes, incorporating the work of individuals into corporate plans and structures.

Let me illustrate what I mean by describing the work of three UK organizations : JISC, SCONUL and CURL. JISC is the Joint Information Systems Committee of the four Funding Councils which channel taxpayers' money into UK universities, and JISC is the agency which looks after national information issues in networking or in content.

It is JISC that has developed services such as NESLI, the National Electronic Site Licence, and JISC is the right organization to promote collective purchasing within the UK. JISC is certainly aware of the potential benefits of international collaboration in its work and has negotiated deals for UK-wide access to databases such as JSTOR. However, the way JISC has to approach a purchase is from the UK looking out, looking outside the UK for a product or a service which it cannot supply from within the UK. That is understandable given the structure and funding of JISC, and I am not being critical, merely pointing out that it is difficult for even an excellent organization like JISC to think or act in a truly international way. Where JISC has been able to act in a truly international way is in the development of document delivery software, as the development of the new version of the RLG Ariel software has been a true collaboration between people in Australia, the US and the UK.

SCONUL promotes collaboration between academic libraries in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and SCONUL has a Scholarly Communication Committee which is very concerned with international developments. Nevertheless SCONUL's mission statement and strategic plan is that of a UK and Irish organization, not that of an international organization. The international dimension is, again perhaps understandably, one of SCONUL participating in the international world of information only at points at which that world touches UK and Irish interests. CURL, which represents the large research libraries, took a very bold international step in joining RLG "en bloc". This was in recognition that research libraries in particular have to be fully-immersed in the global information world. There are some in CURL who would wish to choose only those RLG services which are relevant to their local needs, and when budgets are under so much pressure I can understand that wish, but there is a big difference between selecting information resources from another country and a truly international perspective, looking at the situation in one's own country from a global perspective. It is like the difference between seeing the world from where we are, thus seeing only part of the world, and seeing the world from outer space, thereby seeing the whole world.

The same dilemma in choosing between national and international priorities appears in the services offered by three US-based organizations : OCLC, RLG and ARL. Perhaps the US organization best-known outside the US is OCLC. As one who helped Fred Kilgour to bring OCLC to Europe twenty years ago, I pay tribute to his vision. A truly international action by OCLC at the time was that Fred agreed to supply the University of Essex, where I was Librarian, with sheaf slips for its catalogue instead of the catalogue cards all the other OCLC libraries were using. Adapting OCLC's procedures presented a big challenge but this was the action of a man who did not limit his offer to what the organization already had. Fred started by thinking that this international development was right, and did whatever was necessary to make it work. I have to say that the more recent perception of OCLC in the UK, where its services are still used heavily, is that this is not a truly international organization but a US-based organization which is offering services internationally as a by-product of its US services. By contrast RLG has made real efforts to become a truly international organization, working with partners outside the US to develop its services, although RLG has a huge gap in its portfolio from an international perspective, and that is its lack of any serious effort in the STM area. Perhaps RLG's international role is as a support for research in certain specific areas rather than providing a comprehensive support for research. ARL has not avoided the STM area, and its SPARC programme in particular could have a big influence upon global information provision in science and medicine, helping both directly and indirectly to reduce the price burden for libraries throughout the world. And ARL has set up SPARC as an international initiative, finding academic and library support across the globe. ARL, however, faces the same problem as SCONUL and CURL in the UK, that apart from initiatives like SPARC its main activities have to be US-centred because that is where its roots lie.

One very interesting organization from the perspective of global information is ICOLC, the International Coalition of Library Consortia. There are times when ICOLC acts as a US-based organization which has decided to include some members outside the US. You will understand from what I have said so far that I do not believe this kind of approach is right in the new international electronic world. However, ICOLC at its best is adopting a truly international approach, its policies shaped not by the needs of one country alone but by the needs of libraries world-wide. The interesting lesson from ICOLC is that this international approach has been possible because ICOLC is a virtual organization. It does not have premises. It does not have a subscription. It does not have staff, as everybody who works for ICOLC does that work as part of their normal job. I would like to suggest that it is the physical structures associated with traditional co-operative organizations that restrict their movements in this new international electronic world. If an organization has buildings and paid staff, that inevitably anchors the organization within a particular country and subjects it to the priorities of that country. Perhaps we need more virtual organizations to meet the needs of the new virtual world. The difficulty of course is that a virtual organization like ICOLC is totally-dependent upon the good-will of the individuals who work for it and the organizations they represent. Can the kind of organizations we need to be effective in the international electronic world depend upon such voluntary help? The key may lie in the attitude of our existing co-operative organizations towards using their own staff resources in a new way, devoting their time less towards internal objectives and more towards objectives which set their organization in an international context.

In some respects the need to adapt to the new international world has become an imperative, a matter of survival, and in other respects it can be described as a vision, a view of the future which offers users of information a service vastly superior to the service they now have. The threats are certainly very real in this new world. Many commercial organizations have adapted to the new environment more quickly than libraries. The corporate strategy of many publishers is now truly an international strategy, whereas the strategy of many libraries is understandably focussed very locally. The threat in that situation could be offers by publishers to supply local services from their international store-house, bypassing local information-providers like libraries. Commercial organizations are also seizing the opportunities provided by the electronic medium in a more determined way than libraries. Of course we have had electronic information services in libraries for many years, and at one time we were persuading reluctant commercial interests to enter the new electronic world. Now commercial interests have entered that world with a vengeance and are determined to control it. The only way we can defend the public good interest we represent is by organizing ourselves in a way that is equally-determined and equally-efficient.

The vision lies in the opportunities in the new international electronic world. The world of global information really is here. I do not see it as a village. The word "village" carries connotations for me more of the old world, the world constrained by space and time. We are now in a world in which information has no constraints of space or time. Instantaneous transfer of information across the world is now a reality. The barrier of cost is certainly there, particularly in countries which cannot afford the infrastructure let alone the content of information. But overcoming that barrier is part of the vision for rich and poor countries alike. The importance of information to world development, national development and individual development makes it essential that we should have a global vision of electronic information, and if librarians cannot help to shape that vision and turn it into reality, who can? Underlying our policies should be the thought that our libraries are libraries of one world.

How can we adapt our organizational structures to take advantage of the international electronic world? The situation in Europe has demonstrated both the difficulties and the advantages in such an approach. The vision behind the creation of the European Union is exactly the kind of vision we need, respecting national cultures and yet co-operating across national borders. And yet translating that vision into co-operative structures has proved controversial and some would say ineffective. In respect of access to libraries, for example, it is difficult to point to any way in which access to libraries for citizens of Europe is any easier now than it was before the formation of the European Union. Indeed in one respect the European Commission threatens to make access more difficult through its attempt to change copyright legislation in the interests of publishers rather than the interests of library users. The Commission has devoted large amounts of money to a Libraries Programme which has sponsored many projects, but no Europe-wide policy on access to information has emerged from that work. No common purchasing policy has been developed. Some library organizations have begun to act in a European way. LIBER, for example, has developed licensing principles from a European perspective. EAHIL, the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, was founded specifically to improve access to health information across Europe. As the EAHIL web site says, "Health and illness know no frontiers", and they could equally say the same about information. This example of European collaboration has come in a subject area in which information is very important, literally "vital". It will be interesting to see if this proves to be a model for wider international collaboration. Can a global approach to information come through the formation of new groups in specific subject areas or with a very specific remit?

I believe it can. It will be difficult for many existing library organizations to re-shape their strategies to start from the global and apply the global perspective in a national situation. But such an approach will be possible for a few existing organizations and for any new organizations that are formed. Their remit will have to be defined very clearly if they are to be effective. One global library organization attempting to cover all aspects of library services cannot be effective, as we have seen for many years with IFLA. Too wide a role can render an organization ineffective. Some have thought that ICOLC might purchase databases on behalf of consortia throughout the world, but such a wide role would render ICOLC ineffective in its true remit, which is to provide a forum for collaboration between consortia continuing to make their own purchases. In this particular role ICOLC is effective in a truly international way. I believe that there is a strong case for the development of subject-specific virtual organizations which could be effective in their own particular areas in improving the flow of information to users across the globe. Perhaps such virtual organizations will grow out of the listserve groups which already correspond on a global basis. If such groups begin with an initiative in a particular country, I hope that they will quickly become, like ICOLC, truly international. Librarians across the world are working together more closely than they were when I began my career, and a new internationalism in information provision is developing, but the time has past when we could only take an interest in what happens across the oceans in a superficial way. As those who provide access to information we have to think global in the same way as those who are creating information are thinking globally. The research teams in our universities are often collaborating across oceans, the publishers are publishing globally, and we cannot continue to live within a restricted world. The world has opened up since I stood on the White Cliffs of Dover 50 years ago, opened up in an exciting and a challenging way. Our collaborative organizations face the same exciting challenge that we face as individuals. We are librarians of one world.

Back