Best, 'Technology Information Revolution and the University: "The Electronic Superhighway is coming..."', LIBRES v4n02-3 URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/libres/libres-v4n02-3-best-technology LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal __________________________________________________________________ ISSN 1058-6768 August 28, 1994 Volume 4 Issue 2/3 Quarterly LIBRE4N2 BEST The Technology Information Revolution and the University: "The Electronic Superhighway is coming..." James J. Best Associate Professor Department of Political Science Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 Based on a talk given to the faculty at The University of Nebraska, Omaha on Monday, March 14, 1994 as part of a program on "The Pre- and Post-Electronic Classroom." Introduction American higher education is once again experiencing an information revolution, a revolution that will have an impact on all aspects of university life. In this essay I trace the history and development of this revolution and analyze some of its foreseeable impacts. Since libraries are one of the major players in the information revolution I also look at how Ohio is using this opportunity to create a statewide computer library information system. The Information Revolution: Part I Walk into almost any university classroom today and it is just as it was 10 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago, the way it has always been. Students sit in hard-backed, flat-bottomed chairs taking notes while the professor stands at the front of the room, occasionally soliciting comments and questions. Audio- visual aids for the more sophisticated teachers include the chalkboard (once black, now green or even white) and an overhead projector. It's all so familiar, so reassuring. But is it effective? What is comfortable today may be less effective than in the past. Faculty certainly complain that the current crop of student seem disinterested in learning, less willing to work, more interested in grades and jobs. But does the fault lie totally with the students? Or has the world changed and faculty teaching styles not kept up? The current crop of eighteen year old freshmen are part of the color TV generation -- their world has been designed and fashioned by alphabetic acronyms, CDs, MTV, HBO, ESPN, CNN, and SEGA. It is a world of intensive and fast-moving sensory stimulation -- a constant bombardment of sight and sound. Their high school experience provided a different kind of learning environment than they find in college. In many cases these students learned how to use computers -- even if they didn't use computers to learn. For these students, the college classroom with its requirement of rapt attention to someone else's ideas for the fifty-minute hour, is an anachronism. Somehow, we have to change the college learning experience to meet their needs. Other changes are taking place within education. Over the past forty years there has been a knowledge explosion that has outstripped the capacity of all but the most industrious faculty, an explosion that has made it all the more difficult for faculty to meet one of their central obligations in the university -- to do research and publish the results. As faculty have spent more time trying to stay current in their fields so they can do relevant research they have had less time to spend on teaching, to learn what contemporary students need to know, and how to best teach them. Faculty thus face two challenges: how to stay well informed so they can be effective researchers while at the same time learning new techniques to be effective in the classroom. Meeting these challenges may be the most important task facing faculty as they enter the twenty-first century. The introduction of personal computers at the collegiate level was thought by many to be the answer -- faculty would have new, more powerful tools to assist them in their research efforts and computer-assisted-instruction (CAI) would relieve faculty of the burden of rote instruction and do it more effectively. Everyone would benefit. But no one examined what happened when computers were introduced at the K-12 level. In terms of the high expectations of a microchip revolution in our badly ailing schools, computer education was a failure in the 1980s. One reason dispersal of personal computers to schoolrooms failed to check the deterioration of traditional public education in the media age was that the computers were so often seen as just another channel for transferring knowledge from the teachers to the students (broadcast paradigm) rather than providing an environment in which students can explore and learn together (network paradigm). (1) Computers became tools to help teachers teach rather than to help students learn. The same mistakes were made in the university. CAI Centers were established and some faculty became adept at writing course outlines and review questions for PCs. But the use of CAI was not wide-spread, the quality of the product was uneven, and, once again, the learning was teacher driven. Rather than allowing students to learn in their own ways, at their own pace, classroom computers forced students to learn the CAI way, at their own pace. By creating CAI centers we also reinforced the perception that using computers for learning was "extra-"ordinary, to be done at a special site, using special software on special equipment, not something that could be part of one's daily learning environment. When personal computers were introduced into faculty offices many faculty resisted, sabotaged, or only begrudgingly used them. For many PCs became typewriters in a different guise -- white letters on blue screens instead of black letters on white paper - - with editing and printing capacity that made them more attractive than the faithful Royal portable or more sophisticated IBM Selectric. The personal computer in the office had comparatively little impact on a major problem facing faculty -- access to and control over the ever-increasing flow of information. At best it made faculty more efficient writers, correcting spelling errors and, for more proficient faculty, evaluating writing style. As a result faculty were better able to contribute to an information explosion they could not control. The Information Revolution: Part II Once again we are on the verge of a revolution in information technology. This time the indicators are more immediate and real: 1. There has been a quantum growth in the use of personal computers. "In 1960, there were fewer than 50,000 computers installed around the world. Today, more than 50,000 computers are sold every day. In 1975, there were more than 500,000 computers installed worldwide. Today, there are more than 15 million." (2) 2. The current personal computers have more power and sophistication than ever before. In 10 years we have gone from machines with 64k of RAM and one 360k floppy drive to machines with 8 Mb standard and gigabyte hard drives that sit on the desk or can be easily carried. In addition, the personal computers have moved from being writing tools to serving as multi-function instruments, able to communicate with users and other computers. 3. There has been an extraordinary growth in communication networks. The Internet, developed from research-related university and government communications systems, is now doubling in size each year, reaching 1.3 million hosts in January 1993.(3) Commercial networks have also proliferated -- Compuserve, America-On-Line, Prodigy. Mandel estimates, "At the end of this decade, internetworks will link several hundred million computers together, and the total number of users with access to the global electronic information matrix will exceed 500 million."(4) This growth has lead the Clinton Administration to propose the creation of a National Information Infrastructure (NII), a private sector- government cooperative effort to create a fiber optic broad- band network, a proposal that has fueled interest in information technology. In general, what has been the impact of these dramatic changes in information technology? Vice-President Gore argues that the NII "will enable people throughout the world to share almost unlimited amounts of information -- text, data, images, video, and even sound."(5) This "electronic highway" will weave the world together in an electronic web in which everyone and everything is accessible, irrespective of time and place. But the increased capacity can have down sides as well. First, although the amount of information available electronically has increased dramatically, access to much of this information is limited to information professionals or users with technical backgrounds.(6) Using the Internet, our current large- scale information highway, is neither as easy nor user-friendly as commercial sortware. As a result "guides" to the Internet have proliferated, with one of them (7) a best-seller in the Boston area. However, gateway access to the Internet through commercial networks and their graphic user interfaces will make information more available. The development of Gopher and Mosaic software have made Internet easier and more like the interfaces available through the commercial networks. Second, the amount of information doubles every four to five years and we are unable to use 90 to 95 percent of it. Will generating access to even more information, information that we can't possibly use, be a service? The HEIRAlliance report states, "The greatest challenge facing modern society and civilization is how to cope with information and transform it into knowledge."(8) Some writers suggest that the task will be impossible. "The fact is that information has now become a form of garbage. We don't know what to do with it, have no control over it, don't know how to get rid of it."(9) While we may be on the verge of giving faculty access to the information they need to be more efficient researchers have we trained them how to use that information, to turn it from information into knowledge? Or will we merely drown in a sea of undifferentiated "true facts?" The information technology revolution will have a significant impact on higher education specifically. To make the fullest use of the information highway and the information it provides, a university must provide an effective and flexible infrastructure within the institution and devote appropriate resource levels for faculty development and support in learning how to use the new technology. Unless the university is willing to change its structure and invest the necessary resources "the real revolution of technology in higher education will not have occurred."(10) And it is important to recognize that tailoring the new technology to the university's mission (and vice-versa) will be both risky and wrenching, for there are few models to follow and little "real world" experience to rely on; universities may not have the time to wait to see how others adapt, for to wait is to be left behind. It is equally important to recognize that trying to do this "on the cheap" will be counter-productive. "The technology revolution requires real substantial change, and real change requires reallocation of resources."(11) For too many years I have watched my own institution try to be the K-Mart of educational innovation, wasting once-in-a-lifetime opportunities because university leaders were unwilling to commit the necessary resources to fully implement innovations they had installed. Not surprisingly, many of those innovations failed and those that succeeded did so because of the hard work and dedication of people who believed in them -- the investment of "sweat capital" replaced the university's investment of financial resources. Lately, I have found fewer and fewer faculty, students, and professional staff willing to pay these costs. For the technology revolution to succeed universities, faculty, staff, and students must invest time, energy, and money in a joint collaborative effort. Will it be worthwhile for a university to join the information technology revolution? Yes, in both the short and the long run. In addition to the increase in available information that faculty will need for teaching and research, the new information technology makes possible increased interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research. Colleagues will no longer have to be in close proximity to do joint research; research teams located all over the globe can participate in joint ventures by e-mail and "chat" facilities. Universities will also that find increased cooperation between heretofore competitive schools will become the norm. A state-wide electronic library system in Ohio became a reality when library directors at the state universities discovered that cooperation in the creation of a statewide electronic library system was better than fighting over increasingly meager resources to expand individual collections. The new information technology revolution will undoubtedly have its greatest impact on the faculty, as teachers and researchers. There will be some faculty who will resist change, unwilling to give up their lectern in front of the class. But traditional teaching roles are going to change -- if only because of the university's investment in technology and training. How will teaching roles change?(12) It is important to understand that world-wide networks of information and newer authoring and information delivery systems will mean that the materials available to students will be far different than is now the case. As a result, "styles of teaching and learning will change dramatically."(13) In a course on the American presidency, for example, students using the Internet can read President Clinton's speeches, his news conferences, Supreme Court decisions affecting the President's power, participate in group discussions about Administration actions, and even send their opinions to the White House electronically. This makes their knowledge base so much richer and greater than otherwise while leaving the instructor more time and freedom to build on what students already know. Equally important, the learning experience shifts from being teacher-centered to learner-centered. Students learn what they want, when they want, with whom they want. Learning becomes personalized, driven by the needs of learners rather than the demands of the teacher. It occurs when the learners want, not when materials are available or according to the time-schedule in the syllabus. Meetings between teacher and learners can be on- line, anytime, not dependent on the office hours of the faculty or the location of the learner. Students on-line can query the instructor as questions arise about what they are discovering rather than waiting until before or after class, when they have to fight for his/her time and attention. At the same time, this will mean that faculty will have to use those desk-top computers in their office as more than hi-tech typewriters -- they become important communication devices, as important as the office telephone and fax machines. But neither faculty or student have to be on campus to communicate with each other, the electronic highway provides the linkage between them. All this assumes, of course, that universities are willing to invest in establishing an electronic highway to link students and faculty, and provide "driver's education" for them. Clearly faculty roles in the classroom will change. Instructors will be responsible for creating interest in a subject rather than explaining the subject; instructors will spend time helping students choose information sources rather than being the sole source of their information. Instructors will become authors of classroom-relevant materials, putting those materials on-line to become another source of information for students to explore. Equally important, when the research capabilities of faculty are brought into the classroom and are made part of the learning experience, the traditional division between researchers and teachers will be diminished. All of this will have an impact on higher education. "It is the rethinking of the curricula and the reshaping of the instructional paradigm that must be encouraged, and technology is merely a catalyst that encourages this function."(14) But none of these changes will occur without cooperation between university faculty, students, and administration. As noted earlier, change costs -- and universities must be willing and able to commit the necessary resources to achieve meaningful change. Unless incentive systems change, why should faculty spend the time and energy to adapt to the new technology? While money will remain an important incentive for faculty, time and equipment will become increasingly important. Merely providing technology is not, in itself, a sufficient reward. Without training and with so much information available, "students and faculty members may become indecisive about what tracks to pursue in depth -- the kid-in-the-candy-store syndrome."(15) The types of faculty activities that are recognized and rewarded by the university must change as well; faculty who invest time and intellect in becoming more effective users and developers of technology must be rewarded just as those who research and publish currently are. And those who invest time and energy must be rewarded for their efforts, not just their successes, for innovation and change is, at the very least, a high-risk venture. In addition, administrators must recognize different forms of traditional faculty activities. Publication in a refereed electronic journal must be rewarded just a publication in a refereed hard-copy journal. The creation of a multi-media presentation used in a course must be as valued as effective teaching. Equally important, the investment of faculty time and energy, "sweat capital," in learning the new technology must be facilitated and rewarded. Those faculty who don't invest the time and energy to change will run the risk of becoming "obsolete" -- of finding their students knowing more than they about their subject and about the technology for learning about their subject. One of my colleagues found it difficult to make the transition from IBM punch cards to cathode ray tubes until he began to lose graduate students who could no longer do research with him. The information technology revolution will also impact how faculty do their research. A humanities professor argues that the impact will not be positive: Unless academic professionals, especially in the humanities, resist the trend, electronic information resources will accentuate professional ties over institutional ones, depersonalize the community of teachers and learners, exacerbate inequalities, and infringe on the professorate's monopoly on higher education. These centrifugal effects of electronic resources may bolster scholar autonomy, but the integrity of the professorate and our ability to fulfill both professional missions (of teaching and research) depend on collegial solidarity within the institution. Technology, in addition to turning faculty attention outward, may decentralize instruction, sweeping aside the traditional rationale for the university as a 'place of concourse.'"(16) The experiences of the sciences and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences, suggest that using information technology has not been disruptive of their disciplines or their universities. In the social sciences, where most departments have only one faculty member in each specialty within a discipline, the ability to communicate and share ideas electronically with colleagues outside the institution tends to destroy the usual sense of intellectual and professional isolation. Faculty no longer wait for yearly conferences to determine if their ideas have merit; ideas can be shared electronically and critiqued more quickly than ever before. This, in turn, will have an impact on how faculty operate; they may feel emboldened to put ideas forth if they have been electronically validated by colleagues in their field. Indeed, one can argue that the information highway may allow some fields to generate the "critical mass" of intellectual discussion and development to take off in ways not possible with people working in isolation in their own departments. The new technology will also create new "communities" of intellectual interest, unrestricted by time and space. It will certainly make "cross-national" research and collaboration much more feasible; researchers anywhere in the world will be able to gather and exchange ideas and data without ever meeting each other face-to-face. Collaborative research will become easier and more productive within the university and between universities. Information technology will enable scholars to track whatever information streams they feel relevant, in their own institution or around the world. In the process, research and scholarship will become truly international -- the idea of the scholar working in splendid isolation may well become a thing of the past. And the product of scholarly research will take new forms as well. Scholars will communicate their research results quickly to colleagues world-wide by electronic manuscripts; books and scholarly journals will be published electronically as well as on paper. The researcher who wants to stay on top of his/her field will find it more efficient to use search engines on electronic data bases than to wait for the publication of research through traditional sources. It is also crucial that university leaders know and appreciate the impacts of this second information revolution. Changes in what faculty, students, and administrators do and how they relate to each other will have immediate and dramatic consequences for institutions -- consequences that are best thought about and then experienced rather than the reverse. Recognizing a need and meeting it are different tasks -- particularly in an institutional setting where technology know- how may be scarce. As a result some universities -- the University of Hawaii, for example -- are appointing a CIO, a Chief Information Officer, to oversee the development and implementation of information technology planning. Finally, the information technology revolution may have its greatest impact on university libraries. The library of the future will be greatly different from the library of today. It [the library] will continue to provide access to information and guidance for navigating the informational seas --but it will no longer do this solely by acquiring and archiving information. The library of the future will not only be a place where information is kept, but a portal through which students and faculty will access the vast information resources of the world. To provide information and services effectively, libraries must bring together users and information resources without the constraints of a physical environment. The scholar may be at home, in a laboratory , or in a classroom, and the information may be in Kyoto or Bologna or on the surface of Mars. Librarians of the future will have the daunting task of helping scholars discover relevant information anywhere in the world , in any format. The library of the future will be about access and knowledge management as well as about the acquisition, organization, and preservation of scholarly information.(17) The library of the future will continue to have a physical home but its most important function may be to serve as an electronic nexus between information seekers and information sources, with librarians responsible for maintaining information sources, access to those sources, and serving as if-required mediators between information sources and seekers. Information transactions will become the measure of a library's capacity rather than the number of books and periodicals. The Library of the Future at USC, for example, was built on the following assumptions:(18) Online information systems should support a unified user interface across all resources. Access should be provided to a wide selection of information resources. Systems should provide a gateway to the information-rich environment beyond the institution, in addition to locally available resources. Systems should be easy to use by the public or campus user. As the library's role changes so will its operation. Libraries have given up trying to buy everything they needed; lack of money precludes that strategy. At the same time the demand for available information sources increased, leading to unacceptable turn-around times, overtaxed staffs and the demand for alternative arrangements. It has become increasingly clear that traditional inter- institutional cooperative arrangements are not working well. The library of the future will be part of inter-institutional arrangements that give information seekers access to books and serials they need, either on-line or through inter-library loan. Limited state funds and the resulting concern with eliminating duplication and dealing with access to materials spurred the state of Ohio to develop and implement a statewide library information system. The development of the Ohio statewide library system, OhioLINK, is described below, along with some of the lessons learned in bringing a state and its university libraries into the technology revolution. OhioLINK: A Case Study (19) For the past six years the State, at the behest of Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) and the library directors of the state university libraries, has moved to reshape the nature and definition of libraries in the state. This commitment by the state was the result of the convergence of three factors in the 1980s:(20) 1. Due to weakened national and state economy and a shift away from industrial work, Ohio's economic future within a global framework became a primary concern for state policy- makers. 2. Technological developments in telecommunication and the Internet coincided with the establishment of the Ohio Supercomputer Center (with a new Cray computer) to increase state-wide research capacity, and the development of a broad-band high-speed communication network (OARNET) as a link between university researchers and the new Supercomputer Center. 3. The election of a Democratic governor, Richard Celeste, who brought to state government an ideology of fiscal liberalism through public sector initiatives. Recognizing the window of opportunity presented by the convergence of these three factors, Ohio library leaders, working closely with OBR, proposed a statewide electronic library system that would provide an attractive alternative to the expansion of university library space needs, support library collaboration for shared acquisitions, and play a significant role in promoting Ohio's economic development.(21) Active involvement in the creating of a statewide library computer system began in September, 1987 when the library directors of the state universities met with directors of Ohio Higher Education Computing Centers (OHECC) to discuss the creation of a statewide library computer system. From this meeting the Ohio Academic Library Access System (OLAS) was developed [the name was changed to OLIS (Ohio Library and Information System) in 1989 and then to OhioLINK (Ohio Library and Information Network) in 1990 to avoid trademark infringement problems]. The first developmental stages were funded by OBR but since funded bi-annually by the state legislature through the OBR capital budget. The total budget for the first four years of OhioLINK was $21 million, spread over three biennia; the money was to pay for central site hardware, individual library hardware purchases (where necessary), conversion of MARC records to a uniform format at each site and the central union catalog, the creation of a statewide courier service to move materials from sources to point of need, the purchase of electronic data bases, and the development of workstation software to serve as a labor-saving interface to the new system. In 1991 Innovative Interfaces Inc. was awarded a contract for the development of the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) software for the central-site mainframe. Shortly thereafter the eighteen Ohio universities (16 state and 2 private) began the process of converting their local catalog records into a common machine-readable format and sequentially uploading them to the central site. At the same time libraries began converting their institutional hardware to a common system to facilitate communication and exchange of information between the eighteen institutions and with the central site. As of now the process of conversion and uploading records is approximately fifty percent complete. Recently, the 23 state community colleges have become members of OhioLINK, with their conversion expected to be completed within the next eighteen months. As conversion has progressed inter-library loan requests have increased and a courier service has been awarded a contract to reduce the delivery time of materials between libraries to 24 hours. When fully operational system users will be able to search for a book at any member institution, determine its shelf-status, place an electronic inter-library loan request for the book, and have it in their own library within twenty-four hours. With the installation of the OPAC in process, attention has shifted within OhioLINK. From the beginning there was internal pressure that OhioLINK had to be more than a high-speed, multi- gigabyte library catalog system. Subsequently, work began on determining whether electronic databases could be part of central site system (they could) and discussions were held as to what electronic databases would be loaded, when. The first three data bases were ABI/INFORM (1971-present), Periodical Abstracts (1986-present), and Newspaper Abstracts (1989-present). These will be followed in the near future by more specialized databases such as MEDLINE. As work moved forward on the OPAC and the on- line data bases, it became clear that a set of software tools would be necessary to enable end-users to make the most expeditious use of OhioLINK. The Users Group, which in 1989 had proposed the creation of a Workstation software project, was re- constituted in 1992 as the Workstation Task Force and charged with developing specifications for a software development project funded by OhioLINK. Decisions made by the Workstation Task Force will be important components in future OhioLINK developments, since much of the hardware and library development will hinge on how end-users use the software package, tentatively titled OhioLINK Software Tools (OST). As OhioLINK enters its seventh year what have we learned? (22) 1. Preparation and planning are essential. It is imperative that needs be identified, solutions proposed, and a "vision" developed -- a proposal identifying what needs to be done and why. At the same time, the major players must buy into the "vision" -- there must be agreement that this is what they are about, what they are trying to do. Two years of work by OBR staff and university library directors was necessary to define what they wanted to do and to insure that everyone involved agreed. This was before any money had been committed and before the project had even left the talking stage. 2. Involve relevant people as quickly and as early as possible in the planning and development process. If people become meaningfully involved they will be committed to the process and its product. In like fashion, try to keep people involved in the process as long as they are relevant. Although OhioLINK has benefitted enormously from commitment of many talented people who have unselfishly devoted free time and energy to the project from the very beginning it has suffered from the lack of involvement by university faculty who are the end-user of the system. This has been remedied by the creation of the Users Advisory Group composed of faculty from each campus. 3. Recognize that all decisions are political, no matter how technical their content. As long as there are choices, with winners and losers, there is politics. This is not necessarily bad but it must be recognized; good technical decisions are occasionally bad politics just as less-tahn-optimal technical decisions may be good politics. 4. At some point, the "vision" must be translated into practical reality. This may require changes in personnel -- some people are good at developing and articulating a "vision," while others excel at operations. Very few do both well and it may be a terrible mistake to ask a "dreamer" to operationalize his dream. 5. Recognize that small operational steps are important. Small steps allow you to change your mind -- to see how the vision is to be realized and whether the vision or the operations must be changed. And it will be easier to chart progress and demonstrate successes if small steps are taken. 6. As early as possible produce something that can be demonstrated to relevant publics whose support is needed for continuation of the project. The central site hardware and OPAC were operationalized and MARC records loaded quickly so that OhioLINK would be able to show university presidents, state legislators, and the governor that the OhioLINK budget was producing a tangible product. 7. Don't develop something before its time. The Workstation software project, for example, had to wait until there were enough MARC records and databases loaded so that the need for the software was apparent and the functional needs of the software could be determined. When the Workstation software is finally functional it will be possible to demonstrate to faculty and students how the software can be used to access information available on the system. 8. Recognize than any project takes longer and costs more than originally envisioned. One reason, of course, is that the original "vision" seldom remains unchanged -- ask anyone building their own "dream" house. 9. No system, regardless of its features, will work unless it is used. Users, particularly end-users, must be able to see what the new system will do for them, how it will effect what they do. Faculty, for example, must understand that a new information technology system will make their lives, and those of their students, different. They also must be trained to take advantage of system features; salesmanship and training are necessary adjuncts to hardware and software in successful system implementation. Conclusion Two points have emerged quite clearly. The "new" technology revolution is coming (again!) and wise universities must prepare for it, for its impact will be extensive and enduring. OhioLINK provides some interesting lessons about how institutions can go about preparing for technological change. University administrators must recognize that technological change will require choices, often hard choices between non- comparable ends or means. The process of making choices, regardless of how technical the content, is innately political. As OhioLINK has demonstrated, for choices to be effective and accepted there must be participation by stake-holders in the process. The decision to hard-wire a campus to provide computer access to all students and faculty may make sense to administrators but it must be accepted as necessary and cost- effective by faculty and students. It is imperative faculty, students, staff, and administrators be made aware -- as Boston area residents were in 1776 -- that "the electronic superhighway is coming." ENDNOTES 1. Howard Rheingold. The Virtual Community. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1993, pp. 244-5. 2. David V. Gibson, George Kozmetsky, and Raymond W. Smilor, eds. The Technopolis: Smart Cities, Fast Cities, and Global Networks. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1992, p. 19. 3. Thomas F. Mandel. Surfing The Wild Internet, p. 1. available from SRI International Business Intelligence Program, March, 1993, and through most Internet gophers. 4. Thomas F. Mandel. Surfing the Wild Internet, p. 1. 5. Al Gore. "We're in the Middle of a Digital Revolution That Will Change How We Live, Learn, Work." in Policy Briefing, November 15, 1993, of Roll Call, p. 1. 6. Brewster Kahle, Harry Morris, Jonathan Goldman, Thomas Erickson, and John Curran. "Interfaces for Distributed Systems of Information Servers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 44(8, 1993), 453. 7. Ed Krol. The Whole Internet: User's Guide and Catalog. Sebastapol, Cal.: O'Reilly and Associates, 1992. 8. "What Presidents Need to Know About the Integration of Information Technologies on Campus." HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #1, 1992, p. 2. 9. Neil Postman. "Buried in a New Kind of Garbage." in "Ideas and Trends." The New York Times. Sunday, October 24, 1993. E16. 10. "What Presidents Need to Know About the Integration of Information Technologies on Campus." HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #1, 1992, p. 5. 11. "What Presidents Need to Know About the Integration of Information Technologies on Campus." HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #1, 1992, p. 8. 12. See Robert E. Jensen. "The Technology of the Future is Already Here." Academe. 79(July/August 1993), 8-13. 13. Robert E. Jensen. "The Technology of the Future is Already Here." Academe. 79(July/August 1993), p. 10. 14. "What Presidents Need to Know About the Integration of Information Technologies on Campus." HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #1, 1992, p. 10. 15. Robert E. Jensen. "The Technology of the Future is Already Here." Academe. 79(July/August 1993), p. 13. 16. Carolyn C. Lougee. "The Professional Implications of Electronic Information." in Technology, Scholarship and the Humanities. Summary of Proceedings, Sept. 30 - Oct. 2, 1992. American Council of Learned Societies and the J. Paul Getty Trust, p. 15. 17. "What Presidents Need to Know About the Integration of Information Technologies on Campus." HEIRAlliance Executive Strategies Report #1, 1992, pp. 11-12. 18. Linda Demmers, Karen M.G. Howell, and Lucy Siefert Wegner. "Envisioning the Library of Tomorrow." Educators' Tech Exchange. (Fall, 1993), p. 10. 19. I would like to thank Barbara Schloman, Kent State University Reference Librarian and Chair of the OhioLINK Users Group, for her comments and suggestions for this sections. All errors of fact and interpretation are the author's. 20. For an excellent history of the early years of OhioLINK see Laura Bartolo. "Agenda Setting: A Case Study of How OhioLINK Became an Issue." M.A. thesis in preparation. Department of Political Science, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. 21. Academic Libraries in Ohio: Progress Through Collaboration, Storage and Technology. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Board of Regents, Report of the Library Study Committee, 1987. 22. These are lessons I have derived from my experiences as a political scientist and participating member of the OhioLINK family for the past six years. _____ Articles and Sections of this issue of _LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal_ may be retrieved via anonymous ftp to cc.curtin.edu.au or via e-mail message addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU (instructions below) Papers may be submitted at anytime by email or send/file to: Andy Exon, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, _LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, EDITORS@KENTVM.KENT.EDU _________________________________ *Copyright Declaration* Copyright of articles published by LIBRES: Library and Information Science Electronic Journal is held by the author of a given article. If an article is re-published elsewhere it must include a statement that it was originally published in LIBRES. The LIBRES Editors reserve the right to maintain permanent archival copies of all submissions and to provide print copies to appropriate indexing services for for indexing and microforming. _________________________________ ____________________________ GOPHER Instructions ____________________________ GOPHER will be available for future Issues. ____________________________ Anonymous FTP Instructions ____________________________ ftp cc.curtin.edu.au login: anonymous password: guest cd LIB-RESEARCH get filename (where filename = exact name of file in Table of Contents quit LISTSERV Retrieval Instructions _______________________________ Send e-mail addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM (Bitnet) or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU Leave the subject line empty. The message must read: GET LIBRE4N1 CONTENTS Use this file to identify particular articles or sections then send e-mail to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU with the command: GET where is LIBRE#N# name) and is the name of the author