Re: Libraries and dissertations

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Sandy,

I am not missing the "main" problem here.  I know very well what
the problem is.  My point was simply that we shouldn't pick on
librarians. If the dysfunction is systemic, then we shouldn't be
blaming librarians or anyone else.

Joe Esposito

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Sandy Thatcher

<sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Joe, you are missing the main problem here, which is systemic
> dysfunctionality. If librarians are not buying revised
> dissertations because they have to make tough budget decisions
> and this is a relatively cheap way to cut the pie, the effects of
> those decisions are noticed by acquiring editors at presses, who
> will then do the easy thing also, and this is not to consider
> books based on dissertations. Why should presses go the extra
> mile to expend more on marketing revised dissertations when they
> have more than enough books coming in that are not based on
> dissertations?
>
> But, meanwhile, P&T committees continue to insist on the
> publication of one or two books for junior faculty to get tenure.
> Without having a dissertation to revise into a book, how
> realistic is it to expect that in six years a junior faculty
> member, saddled with teaching new courses and all the other
> responsibilities that come with being on a tenure track, get two
> books done in that time? If these revised dissertations are not
> published, moreover, there will be many very valuable
> books--examples of which i have given--that never get published.
> And don't tell me that somehow people will find them anyway in
> the ProQuest database and turn them into best sellers. =C2=A0The very
> process of revision is often what makes them the valuable books
> they turn out to be.
>
> This is not a problem that librarians or publishers, on their own
> or even together, can solve. But it is a very serious problem for
> the future of scholarship. =C2=A0Administrators need to start looking
> into this and not just sweeping it under the rug. The problem is
> only going to get worse. And it is not just a financial problem.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> At 3:57 PM -0400 4/18/11, Joseph Esposito wrote:
>>The recent thread on libraries and dissertations touched on quite
>>a few important points, but I was most struck with Kevin Smith's
>>remark, with which I wholeheartedly concur, that the question of
>>how libraries make decisions about what materials to purchase
>>cannot be discussed without taking into account the context of
>>purchasing, a context defined in part at this time by severe
>>budget-cutting. =C2=A0If there is not enough money to acquire
>>everything you would like to, something will have to be rejected
>>or cancelled. This makes perfect sense--and should be obvious,
>>no?
>>
>>The question is how libraries make those decisions. =C2=A0Here I am
>>inclined to think that librarians know what they are doing, and
>>before we second-guess those decisions, we should pause to
>>reflect on how much thought goes into those decisions, the
>>professional training of the people overseeing the purchases, and
>>the community of librarians (as evidenced on this list, among
>>other places) that more than any profession with which I
>>personally am familiar, shares information with colleagues and
>>seeks "best practices." =C2=A0There is nothing like this on the
>>publishing side of the business, where except for the financial
>>reporting of the publicly-traded companies, which operate under
>>normalizing regulatory policies, no two organizations do the same
>>thing in the same way.
>>
>>Therefore I have to assume that if libraries are making what
>>appear to be "mechanical" decisions ("We don't acuire any books
>>based on dissertations," etc.), there must be a good reason for
>>it. =C2=A0I don't see how it would be possible for libraries to
>>evaluate each and every publication that is offered to them
>>without some kind of generalizations. =C2=A0Suppose libraries would do
>>this the "right" way, assessing each publication one at a time?
>>Well, the "right" way would be the wrong way, as it would be easy
>>to incur $2 in administrative overhead for every $1 saved in
>>making "perfect" decisions.
>>
>>My experience is that most people most of the time do their jobs
>>tolerably well. =C2=A0I just returned from a trip, during which I
>>marveled at how an industry could put multi-ton aluminum tubes
>>into the air, screen thousands of people for security in minutes,
>>and most of the time get me where I need to go on time. =C2=A0Yet as I
>>stood on the security line for about 3 minutes, the people in
>>front of and in back of me, were complaining about having to put
>>liquids in a separate baggie. =C2=A0Perspective, people!
>>
>>If good books are being rejected on the misapplication of some
>>algorithm, then it is the publisher's responsibility to rectify
>>the situation. =C2=A0This means finding ways to call exceptional
>>titles to people's attention. =C2=A0Simply getting a book into a
>>warehouse or POD facility and letting YBP and Coutts do the rest
>>is not publishing. Over the next few years, largely because of
>>ongoing budget problems coupled with the rapid migration to
>>ebooks, publishers will have to put more time and energy--and,
>>yes, money--into marketing. =C2=A0It may not be a welcome task, and it
>>can't possibly be a welcome expense, but it is an essential one.
>>Picking on librarians does not seem to me to be productive.
>>
>>Joe Esposito

---2071850956-379302740-1303350437=:13394--