The special library sector in Norway
consists of relatively few really large libraries,
such as the Norwegian National Library
(NB) and those libraries attached to the
four universities, together with a wide
range of medium-sized and smaller special
libraries. Even within the university and
training college sector there are considerable
differences between the university
libraries, the regional college libraries and
the special libraries attached to the colleges
of science. Other special libraries are
to be found connected to research institutes,
museums, government administration,
hospitals and private concerns. The
authors of this article represent two specialised
libraries, one within the museum
sector and the other attached to a college
of higher professional education.
The Norwegian library sector was previously
administered by two government
bodies. The Norwegian Directorate
for Public Libraries performed a
supervisory and advisory function in
relation to library legislation and the
public library sector, while the National
Office for Research and Special Libraries
(RBT) had an advisory role towards
the special library sector but no
responsibility for supervision or directives.
The latter was established in 1969
and until 1993 devoted much of its
efforts towards the creation of a Norwegian
national library independent of
the University of Oslo Library. Since
the appointment of a national librarian
in 1993 RBT has been able to concentrate
completely on the challenges presented
by the special library sector and
has become a vital source of expertise.
Large areas of the special library sector
in Norway have enjoyed a unique form
of co-operation through BIBSYS, a
common library system based on the
sharing of data and co-operation in
inter-library lending. In addition to its
role as a service provider BIBSYS has
become an important centre of competence
for the special library sector.
With regard to services and expertise
NB also plays a vital role. An electronic
central catalogue was set up at an early
stage to cover the majority of Norwegian
special libraries and several of the
larger public and county libraries. NB
runs a number of other databases and
is also responsible for a deposit library
vital for inter-library lending.
From two library bodies to the Norwegian
Archive, Library and Museum Authority.
What does this change involve?
Certain elements of the Norwegian library
sector have worked hard for years
to achieve a co-ordinating body for
special and public libraries at government
level. These efforts have been
motivated by the needs of library users
such as students constantly on the
move, the demands of lifelong learning
and a general desire for better utilisation
of collective resources.We have,
however, seen little concrete evidence
that these tasks were beyond the competence
of the Directorate for Public
Libraries and RBT.
In the national budget for 2002 the
government proposed an amalgamation
of these two bodies. The great surprise,
however, not least for the libraries,
was to find that the museum sector
as represented by the Norwegian Museum
Authority (NMA) and also Norwegian
archives were to be incorporated
in this sector ‘fusion’. In its budget proposals
for 2002 the government had
the following to say about the most important
responsibilities of the archive,
library and museum sectors.
- To preserve the community’s social
memory in an electronic age
- To exploit digital technology so as to
reveal the unique material and
sources of knowledge hidden from
the general public in our archives
- With the National Library as spearhead
to develop the library sector
into a wholly-integrated system
based on user-friendly technological
solutions
- To create the so-called seamless library,
i.e. library facilities which
enable users to contact any library
of any type or size in order to obtain
the assistance and service they
require
- To expand the functions of public
libraries by the use of broadband
connections offering all sections of
the population access to Internetbased
services
- To reconstruct a fragmented museum
sector on the basis of three
principles:
- Preserving and strengthening
local involvement in cultural
conservation
- Ensuring professional expertise
and institutional strength at a
regional level
- Co-ordinating museums into a
national network
- To prepare the ground for the development
of a large, national art
museum in the vicinity of the
capital
- To establish a governmental coordinating
and development body
for the archive, library and museum
field as a whole, a central body to
develop joint solutions and provide
the archive, library and museum
sectors with joint services, both selfinitiated
and on request. Although
the emphasis here is on solutions
and services which encourage cooperation
and co-ordination
between sectors, consideration must
also be given to sector-specific requirements.
(Authors’ emphasis)
This list of aims and proposals clearly
shows that the archives and museums
face massive concrete tasks, both with
regard to making material accessible
and to network development. A collective
library sector has already accomplished
a great deal in these areas – and
this without any joint governmental
co-ordinating body. This is naturally
due to the fact that the library sector is
internationally oriented with regard to
technology and standards and has already
established a long tradition of
co-operation and network philosophy.
Concern has been expressed that the financial
investment necessary, particularly
within the museums, will mean
reduced funding for libraries.
The Norwegian Archive, Library and
Museum Authority (Norwegian official
short version: ABM-utvikling) is now a
reality and our intention in this article
is to consider the possibilities arising
from this establishment and to identify
the challenges and needs of our particular
sector.
As representatives of specialised professional
fields we can see several possible
benefits to be gained from strengthening
and co-ordinating the archive and
museum sectors. ABM-utvikling has
indicated a number of central areas to
concentrate upon, including the structure
of collections where the objective
is said to be “to contribute to collective
action and work-sharing in the structure,
management and utilisation of
stored material and sources of knowledge”.
With regard to presentation and
dissemination the Authority’s aim is
“to contribute to the organisation of
sources so as to promote cross-sector
utilisation of all types of material and
to ensure source suitability to meet the
wishes and requirements of a variety of
users”.
We should certainly like to see ABMutvikling
become a driving force for
good, standardised joint catalogues for
the archive sector with detailed information
on each individual archive.
Many museums have interesting collections
of special material such as
drawings and photographs but these
can be difficult to access because they
lack good catalogues. Extended catalogues
with efficient search functions
would ease the role of the libraries as
providers of practical information,
while at the same time enabling a
greater number of end-users to obtain
such information direct.
Concentrating on a national museum
network with a sensible sharing of
tasks, instead of everybody trying to
collect everything, would strengthen
the level of specialisation. The registration
of museum artefacts is very important
and again this is a question of
giving priority to co-ordinating cataloguing
functions. The archive sector is
in the process of creating a unified catalogue
by means of its Digital Archive,
but the museums are lagging behind.
Certain museums have laid out parts of
their collections of objects and photographs,
but so far no joint catalogue
function exists. This is sorely needed. It
is important that ABM-utvikling insists
on all registration being based on the
same standards within each professional
sector in order to facilitate the creation
of unified catalogues.
The field catalogue for museums of art
and culture (NMA, 2002) is a good
example of a registration standard for
objects and photographs. The important
thing must surely be to know what
there is and where to find it rather than
expect it to be delivered to the door.
The Norwegian digital library
One of ABM-utvikling’s first concrete
steps in the library area is its report on
the Norwegian digital library (NDL).
The advisory committee proposes a
five-year national programme to be
carried out with the Authority responsible
for the secretarial functions. The
Authority’s press release reads as
follows.
“A Norwegian digital library will consist
of many component parts and services.
Among the most central of these
will be the following.
- The possibility for co-ordinated
search of all library services
throughout the land, thus making it
possible for library users to sit at
home in front of a PC and order any
book from anywhere in the country.
- The creation of a Norwegian data
base of knowledge consisting of
our most important sources of
information and cultural heritage.
The working committee recommends
that these should be made
accessible to all and that the costs
should be met from central funds.
- A simple, effective user interface
providing the university and higher
education sectors with access to
Norwegian and foreign journals...”
Norway, in contrast to both Finland
and Denmark, has so far seen no
government initiatives for direct funding
of an electronic library system.
However, a number of reports, proposals
and projects have been launched,
some of these under the auspices of
BIBSYS, NB, the library committee of
the Council of Universities and Colleges
of Higher Education and the RBT,
the latter having also succeeded in
obtaining a number of consortium
agreements with regard to reference
databases and electronic journals.
The Authority’s report covers a wide
range of subjects, including framework
considerations, metadata, content and
services, various aspects of co-operation
and organisation and also concrete
recommendations. Joint solutions for
electronic journals, both with regard to
financing and organising, are of vital
interest to very many special libraries,
depending upon their area of specialisation
and the extent of their electronic
publishing. In our opinion this aspect
of the NDL represents one of the most
important areas of initiatives in relation
to the special library sector. Here
there is a need for the channelling of
project funds and the core financing of
joint services, together with further
development of RBT´s negotiating
expertise.
The report also points out that licensing
co-operation might well be viewed
in an international or Nordic context.
This is perhaps particularly important
for the smaller, specialised areas. The
producers of reference databases and
electronic journals often come from
smaller environments unconnected
with the large publishers and distributors
and these sources of knowledge
therefore find no place in the large
‘packages’. A recent example of a Nordic
model is the consortium agreement
drawn up between ARLIS Norden (Art
Libraries Society) and PrioInfo concerning
access both to reference databases
and certain full-text sources.
One particular challenge for electronic
journal subscription lies in the
question of storage. So far, neither
nationally nor internationally, is there
any unified solution to this problem
which is particularly relevant to those
engaged in the humanistic field. Until
a reliable system of electronic storage
becomes available, a possible solution
might be found in an official requirement
for all paper versions to be stored
either in accordance with an agreed
sharing of responsibility or alternatively
perhaps in the NB’s Deposit Library.
The seamless library
We have observed that one of the
government’s objectives in establishing
ABM-utvikling is the so-called ‘seamless’
library. The proposals for a Norwegian
digital library also reflect a vision
that a user should not need to think
about what type of library to approach
when in need of library services. The
report recommends extensive possibilities
for co-ordinated searching and a
flexible system for document delivery
based on ‘inter-library lending goodwill’.
This concept is not further discussed,
but we doubt that the efficient
functioning of an inter-library lending
system is primarily dependent upon
goodwill. Unfortunately the main
requirements are of a substantially different
nature.
Norway has no arrangements for the
funding of inter-library lending of
books. It is the major users among the
libraries themselves that finance the system
as part of their normal activities
and without any extra funding from
the granting authorities to the ownerinstitutions
concerned. A number of
proposals have been made in order to
solve this problem of funding, including
an initiative from the Norwegian
Library Association’s special committee
for inter-library lending which in 1992
launched a settlement plan whereby
the libraries attached to universities
and colleges of higher education agreed
to a system of payment similar to that
covering the ordering of copies. Such
initiatives, however, have been stopped
on the grounds of being in conflict
with the principle of free lending and
borrowing and also with reference to
copyright legislation which bans any
form of payment for the lending of
books. The most important step towards
seamless lending of documents
would be central government financing
of an inter-library system. Here the
newly-established ABM-utvikling has a
vital part to play.
Seamless document delivery does, however,
possess other aspects. Loss of material
is extremely serious for specialised
professional fields, particularly in
the humanistic sphere where the old is
as equally important as the new. The
likelihood of loss is greater when the
borrower comes from outside the primary
user group. Access to rare material
in a library readingroom is also of
much greater value to the general public
than any compensation the library
may receive for the loss of a book to
some borrower’s private collection.
Those of us who represent small special
libraries whose collections are also of
interest to the man in the street see
great advantages in having lending procedures
which permit some control of
those wishing to borrow our material.
We regard this in much the same way
as we view the right to offer different
services to different user groups.
In this particular respect many libraries
with specialised collections have much
in common with the archive sector.
Archive material is unique and will in
most cases only be made available in
the reading room of the institution
concerned. The user must come to the
material, not the material to the user.
The same applies to any book that is irreplaceable.
The risks attached to sending
books by post and allowing their
use outside the library must outweigh
any inconvenience to the user of being
obliged to visit the institution concerned.
In the long run the general public
will be better served if the book is kept
safe, but available, in a library. Also
here, of course, much of the library archive
material will be subject to control
and use will require authorised access.
The concept of a seamless library is not
confined to lending but also includes
other library services, such as guidance
and access to IT-facilities. For the user
it may seem practical to approach a
special library direct but for the library
sector as a whole some form of worksharing
based on the user’s primary attachment
would appear to be much
more appropriate. Even when putting
visions into practice, a realistic attitude
should be adopted in relation to priorities
and the use of resources. From a
social and economic point of view we
can see no justification for specialist
librarians providing assistance, for
example, to pupils working on a school
project.When university and college
libraries become learning resource centres,
this does not mean that the general
public has access to computers,
colour printers and scanners. The
seamless library must not come into
conflict with the responsibility of special
libraries to tailor their services to
the requirements of their primary
users.
The need for continuity
under ABM-utvikling
Finally we should like to consider some
of the important tasks carried out by
RBT which we should like to see retained
by ABM-utvikling. RBT with its
high level of expertise represented a
professional approach to the needs of
special libraries, particularly those
smaller libraries with limited resources
of their own. Through its journal
Synopsis RBT has offered precise, specialised
information on national and
international challenges and initiatives.
In our age of information deluge this is
an invaluable asset.
RBT has arranged many important
conferences and further education programmes,
thereby contributing greatly
to the professional skills of Norwegian
special librarians. RBT has also fulfilled
a vital advisory function and has engaged
actively in creating a network
through regular contact with the
various types of special libraries.
Finally, RBT has kept a watchful eye on
events, both national and international,
and has played an important role in
securing both individuals and institutions
to inform and assist the special
library sector.
We are to some degree fearful of seeing
these important functions lost or
weakened.We welcome increased
knowledge about the other sectors of
ABM-utvikling but not a probable loss
of initiatives and input specific to our
own particular field.
Translated by Eric Deverill
previous
