 |
| JC Williamson's
Federation Pantomime Australis or the City of Zero |
Predicting the future is
what we do to prepare ourselves for tomorrow.
Some predictions prove to be fanciful while others turn
out to be uncannily accurate. JC Williamson, in his
Federation pantomime Australis anticipated that in the
year 2000 New Zealand would be our seventh state and the
Antarctic would be the capital of Australia. The French
artist Villemard imagined in 1910 that one hundred years
later we would be able to send mail by dictating into a
loudspeaker and we would be listening to
audio-newspapers. Some would argue that George Orwell
foresaw with unsettling accuracy in his novel 1984 a
world run by Big Brother through – at least in Australia
- the Ministry of Truth.
Libraries have so far survived the first phase of the
information revolution. But what is in store for the
coming decades?
CHECKING THE REARVIEW MIRROR
When gearing up for the
future, it is instructive to look at the past. Richard
Neustadt and Ernest May promoted the necessity of doing
so as a way of avoiding future mistakes. [1]
My readily available pieces of history are the articles
I’ve written on conferences and trends for Online
Currents during the past decade. What sort of story do
they tell?
As the new millennium drew near, the library world was
mired in uncertainty. At the Australian Library and
Information Association (ALIA) Information Online
Conference 1999, rapporteur Neil McLean summed it up.
The internet was the greatest cottage industry in the
world but more discussion was needed on how to make the
most of it. He urged delegates to take comfort in
uncertainty, find a new centre of gravity, think long
term, re-think paradigms, form new alliances, re-think
architectures, examine intermediary roles, and match
people with new opportunities and resources. Provocateur
Tony Barry reckoned libraries would be by-passed or take
on a more advisory role, major search engines would go
down the gurgler, and there would be a rise in
specialised online indexes. Peter Lyman, from the
University of California, Berkeley, warned about getting
too carried away with technology. It does not produce
productivity gains, he said, but it does drive changes
in the way work is organised.[2]
At the Ozeculture conference in 2001, John Rimmer from
the National Office of the Information Economy (NOIE)
offered a map and a compass to find directions in a new
economy based on the creation and exchange of
information. For the cultural sector, he said, growth
would be dependent on successful navigation of
apparently contradictory and competing forces, making
the most of converging technologies and the
restructuring of industries. There was talk of
allocating investment funds in a more sustainable
fashion.[3]
A couple of months later, the Computing Arts Conference
at the University of Sydney depicted the work of
academia in the digital realm. In a year which also
witnessed the attack on the twin towers in New York and
the birth of Wikipedia, Edward Zalta gave the stand-out
presentation on how the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy was able to marshal the forces of scholars to
produce a free online product. Government, academic,
cultural heritage and business sectors, however, seemed
to be running on separate exploratory tracks.[4]
The ALIA Biennial Conference in 2002 set out to help
librarians position themselves in an Australian
knowledge industry then valued at $171 billion.
IBISWorld’s Phil Rhuven drew attention to the extent to
which librarians were merely bit players in the
information game. Peter Crawley, headmaster of Knox
Grammar School, anticipated a future fascination with
Facebook and Twitter by saying that gossip helped us
process information. Various speakers touched on the
importance of infrastructure, connectivity, content,
competencies, research and innovation. One of the aims
of the conference was to promote discussion on a
national plan, but there was some confusion as to
whether it was to be a plan for ALIA or for the sector
at large. Some doubted that national information plans
really work. Crawley cautioned against anecdotal
thinking: “if you cut and paste your future, you will
cut and paste you’re irrelevancy.” McLean asserted there
would be no quick way to work through the future: “we
may need to live through a generation of
uncertainty.”[5]
The Ozeculture conference in 2002 was devoted to the
challenges of marrying cultural heritage with
information technology. Government adviser Terry Cutler
set the mood by saying we were still in the primitive
stage of the technology revolution. “There is not enough
disorder, one of the ingredients of invention.” The
challenges included long-term thinking, linking
pre-internet and past-internet collections and “moving
into the spaces between the main tracks”. NOIE’s David
Kennedy, sketching out findings of the Creative
Industries Cluster Study Report, called for more
industry data to guide decisions and the creation of
clusters in which small players would feed off big
players. There was talk about the need for
“whole-of-government” approaches.[6]
In 2003 it appeared libraries and kindred spirits were
more positive about their role in the information
revolution. At the ALIA Information Online Conference
that year, the need for clarity emerged as a common
theme in a number of papers devoted to roles, strategies
and services. Generalisations tended to muddy positions.
Roger Summitt, in the final session, urged delegates to
‘distinguish between different types of information
needs, from broad public needs to the needs of the
commercial workplace.’[7]
In 2003, the Australian Senate conducted its inquiry
into the role of libraries in the online environment.
The committee had formed the reassuring impression that
Australia was remarkably well served by its library
services. The “propensity [of libraries] to band
together and to share resources is an object lesson in
what can be achieved by cooperation across
jurisdictional boundaries.” It was, however, concerned
that many outstanding services appeared not to be widely
known and that libraries appeared to be taken for
granted rather than valued. It recommended in principle
the notion of a national information policy and
anticipated the Cultural Ministers’ Council would review
the need for such a policy. Other recommendations
touched on national leadership, connectivity, content,
legal deposit, skills, promotion and funding.[8]
Two other articles in 2003 (Arts Hub Australia and
Who’s
Who in Australia Live!) looked at responses by local
commercial publishers to the emerging online
environment.[9] And, in the same year, the Australian
Bureau of Statistics published a web-based compendium of
metrics for Australia’s knowledge-based economy and
society, involving a suite of indicators representing
contexts, innovation and entrepreneurship, human
capital, information and communications technology, and
economic and social impacts.
At the 2005 ALIA Information Online Conference, Colin
Webb, felt the time had arrived to change the metaphor
to describe how librarians were coping in the online
revolution. In1995, he said, we had talked of the
internet in terms of “drinking from a fire hose,” but in
2005 it felt that we were now preoccupied with putting
out bush fires. As major overseas reports presented a
picture of sector fragmentation, duplicated effort and
resources, lack of leadership and lack of influence in
the higher reaches of political power, there was an
expectation that some coherence would be forged locally
by the newly-established Collections Council of
Australia.[10]
In the same year, it was time to explore the purpose and
dynamics of library and information associations. The
internet had made it easier for librarians to find
professional information, but it had also made it more
difficult for some associations to retain members.
Business acumen, it seemed, was needed to harness a
diverse marketplace in which values and volunteerism
continued to play an important part.[11]
The ALIA Information Online Conference in 2007 explored
the changing nature of library services as we moved
closer to a Semantic Web. Joanne Lustig’s analysis that
compelling disruptive forces were triggering a period of
exponential change was balanced by more circumspect
commentary that questioned the need for exponential
change. Walt Crawford, for example, was sceptical about
the need for a revolution, but he thought Library 2.0
developments would make libraries more interesting, more
relevant and better supported.[12]
The high dependency of libraries and other cultural
institutions on government funding prompted a closer
look at government policies in 2009. Creative Nation
in
1994 had been followed by a steady trickle of Government
reports and policies about the information economy and
the cultural heritage and creative industry sectors.
Future prospects appeared to rest with the Collections
Council of Australia, which had been created by the
Howard Government in 2004. The Council’s Australian
Framework for Digital Heritage Collections presented
priorities for further collaboration under nine broad
needs. It called for additional government funds and a
more sensible way of allocating funds, only to find its
own funding had been withdrawn by the Labor
Government.[13]
The ALIA Information Online Conference in 2009 explored
the buzz around the need for transformative change,
spending money wisely, and working creatively with
others. Two main threads were that the changing
behaviours of users would drive this change and
librarians should jettison their risk-averse bent in
favour of being more innovative.[14]
The Museums Australia national conference in 2009 drew
out reflections on how museums were connecting with
information seekers. In considering the museum sector’s
tortured attempts to deal with standards and aggregation
since the 1920s, a report by Mary Elings and Günter
Waibel was called into play as a reminder that
successfully connecting library, archive and museum
collections hinges on the emergence of a more homogenous
practice in describing like materials in different
institutions. While it is easy to map data structures,
data content variance prohibited economic plug-and-play
aggregation of collections.[15]
The article Mastering Digital Lives in 2010 reviewed
personal digital practices in a Web 2.0 world and the
work of cultural heritage institutions to address
attendant challenges through projects such as PARADIGM,
the Digital Lives Project, and OCLC’s Sharing and
Aggregating Social Metadata study. In an age when
everyone with a computer has become an archivist, for
cultural heritage institutions risk management had
gained new prominence as the name of an old game.[16]
The VALA conference in 2010 drew out thoughts about the
Semantic Web, cloud computing and linked open data. The
information revolution was described is an evolution
with innovative outbursts. An organic Web was leading us
to a linked up future in which language was the
impediment as well as its currency. For the Semantic Web
to work, Tom Tague urged, we need to clean up the dirty
data in the World Wide Web. Dealing with dirty data
would involve discipline in the back end at a time when
the back end was an open office. Librarians were urged
to step up their role in the revolution. Stepping up
would involve strengthening cooperation, developing
systems and applying standards.[17]
The ALIA Information Online Conference 2011 got underway
as the tipping point for e-books was about to arrive.
Borders and Angus and Robertson were about to be placed
into voluntary administration. Jim McKerlie urged
librarians to find new paradigms to help libraries do
more with less. Darwinism, he said, would prevail: there
would be winners and losers. Other commentators pointed
to the capacity of social media to change the nature of
information production. Those in the parallel streams of
the conference seemed to have their finger on the pulse:
persistent change was part of doing normal business.[18]
The ALIA Biennial conference 2012 coincided with the
rush to mobile devices and the need for designing better
library interfaces. Michael Kirby urged us not to forget
values in giving service. As technology continued to
drive all before it, there were grounds for librarians
to look forward to the future with optimism.[19]
Jane Douglas reported on the 2013 ALIA Information
Online Conference in Brisbane. The attendance figures
for Australia’s biggest library conference had dropped
dramatically. Its theme was “be different, do
different”. Speakers sought to position librarians as
knowledgeable intermediaries in a world of overwhelmed
users. Minds were again focussed on prompting the value
and indispensability of libraries. There were calls for
changes to buildings, systems, and services based on an
understanding of the marketplace.[20]
Articles on the changing nature of library and archival
services in the fields of the arts and health sectors
revealed challenges in specialised areas exposed to new
online opportunities, complex IT requirements, and
half-baked management solutions.[21]
VIEWS ABOUT THE ROAD AHEAD
In 2014, the economic and
social forces still appear to be daunting.
The CSIRO, stepping into the shoes of futurists John
Naisbett and Patricia Aburdene, has identified 6
megatrends that may affect the way we operate. Three of
them may influence the future of libraries. We will have
to do more with less because the earth has limited
resources. Individuals, communities, governments and
businesses will be immersed into the virtual world to a
much greater extent than ever before. There will be
rising demand for experiences and social relationships
over products.[22]
The predictions are amplified by other crystal ball
gazers. The World Economic Forum sees intensifying cyber
threats, inaction on climate change, a diminishing
confidence in economic policies, a lack of values in
leadership, an expanding middle class in Asia, and the
rapid spread of misinformation online.[23] Among the
predictions of the Futurist Magazine are things that are
already happening. Big data will help anticipate our
every move. Buying and owning things will go out of
style. Quantum computing could lead the way to true
artificial intelligence. Atomically precise
manufacturing will make machinery, infrastructure and
other systems more productive and less expensive. It
also predicted populations would shrink by 2020 and our
wealth will shrink with them.[24]
The current state of the internet flags geopolitical and
social shifts. There are now more than 2.2 billion email
users, who transmit 144 billion pieces of email per day.
Around 70% of all email traffic is spam. There are more
than 634 million websites. About half of the 2.4 billion
internet users worldwide are from Asia. Facebook has
more than 1 million active users, Twitter more than 200
million who send 175 million tweets every day. There
were 1.2 trillion searches on Google in 2012. More than
1.1 billion people have smartphones. We watch 4 billion
hours of video a month on YouTube.[25]
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering
proffers likely technological directions. Mobile and
cloud computing are converging to create a new platform
of unlimited, more seamless computing resources. New 3D
printing tools and techniques are empowering everyone to
create new devices more quickly, cheaply and easily.
Exploding interest in Massive Open Online Courses is
generating a need for technology to support new learning
systems and styles. There will be a continuing battle to
balance individual privacy and the interests of the
system at large. Big data is generating datasets that
are increasing exponentially in both complexity and
volume, making their sharing and archiving among the
great challenges of the 21st century.[26]
The International Federation of Library Associations has
pinpointed nuances in the transformative impact of new
technologies. In its Trend Report, it says
technologies will both expand and limit who has access
to information. Online education will democratise and
disrupt global learning. The boundaries of privacy and
data protection will be redefined. Hyper-connected
societies will listen to and empower new voices and
groups.[28] An earlier report by the American Library
Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy
makes similar observations and concludes that the future
is mainly about collaboration.[28]
The signs of change can be found in a number of reports
about libraries in the United States, the United Kingdom
and Australia.
The Pew Research Centre’s report, Library Services in
the Digital Age, establishes the importance of public
libraries in the minds of Americans. Public libraries
are trying to adjust their services to new realities
while at the same time serving patrons who rely on more
traditional resources. The availability of free
computers and internet access now rivals book lending
and reference expertise as a vital service. Americans
would embrace even wider uses of technology at libraries
such as online research services, apps-based access to
materials and programs, the ability to check out books,
movies or music without having to go to the library, and
classes on the use of technology.[29]
The slogan on a media release from the Institute of
Museum and Library Services report on American public
libraries sums up the challenges they face: “Libraries
doing more with less, local government taking larger
funding role”. Although physical visits increased and
circulation figures were the highest in ten years,
expenditures decreased for the first time since 2001 and
local governments have taken on a greater support role.
The recession has had an impact on the public library
workforce, which has decreased by 3.8% since 2008.
Librarians made up one-third of all library staff.[30]
The Association of Research Libraries gives a picture of
what has been happening in research libraries. Over the
past 20 years, there has been an overall drop of 10% in
staff numbers, a 29% decline in total circulation, and a
staggering decline of 65% in reference transactions.
Inter library loan traffic increased by 158% in the same
period, but has started to drop. In the period 1986-2011
spending on serials soared 402%. [31]
In the United Kingdom, government austerity measures
appear to be having an even greater impact on libraries.
According to a survey by the Chartered Institute of
Public Finance and Accounting more than 200 public
libraries were cut in the UK in the period 2011/12.
Staff numbers dropped by 8%, while the number of
volunteers working in libraries increased by 9% (on top
of a 23% hike in 2010/11). The number of books issued by
libraries also decreased, as did the number of active
borrowers.[32] With overall cuts of 40% in the costs of
running government departments between 2010 and 2016,
library bodies are anticipating further grim news.[33]
The release of Arts Council England’s report Envisioning
the Library of the Future has generated fresh cries for
help. John Dolan, Chair of the Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals, said “without
stronger political leadership supporting a clear
national vision it’s going to be a struggle to deliver
consistently high-quality and relevant library services
in communities across the country.[34] Alan Davey, Chief
Executive of Arts Council England, pinpointed
collaboration is key element in placing the library as
the hub of the community, making the most of digital
technology, and delivering the right skills for those
who work in libraries.[35]
Australia’s public libraries, according to a report by
SGS Economics, deliver benefits that are worth nearly
three times the cost of running them. With a net annual
benefit of $1.97 billion, it makes a case for increased
levels of funding for public library services.[36] ALIA
is reviewing options for its future direction and has
released a paper to promote discussion on the future of
all types of libraries around three themes: convergence,
connection and the golden age of information.[37] The
Victorian Government is reviewing future options,
including the level of funding and funding
accountability provided by the three tiers of government
to support public library services.[38]
Two American colleagues draw some of the threads
together.
OCLC’s Lorcan Dempsey says we are at a “re-set moment”
in which collaboration has to move from the margins to
the core.
At the LIANZA Conference 2013 and in a related article,
he said reduced transaction costs in a network
environment are reshaping whole industries and libraries
will be no exception. We are experiencing an accelerated
transition from print to digital materials, from bought
material to licensed products. Shared and third party
arrangements are being used to manage related processes.
There is trend from institutional systems to shared
systems. Library spaces are being redefined to encourage
interaction between people and specialist services.
Libraries must build their services around user
workflows. Distinctive services are emerging in which
library expertise is being promoted as a key element of
library value. An enterprising mentality is required to
implement changes.[39]
Clifford Lynch, the director of the Coalition of
Networked Information, in The Public Library in 2020,
anticipates a profound transition for public libraries.
Some things won’t change much, but the accessibility of
electronic information from other services is forcing
public libraries out of their traditional marketplace.
As the economic circumstances move from a world in which
information resources are sold to one in which they are
licensed, there will be a flash-point as electronic
materials begin to dominate. The good news is that
public libraries will be able to reposition themselves
as cultural memory services by forging closer alliances
and partnerships with historical societies, local
government records services, businesses and
universities. There may be a move to membership-based
funding strategies as a means of financial survival. We
may see library mergers or close alliances of
geographically remote libraries. They may become
creators of specialised content and publishers of
independent authors to complement the commercial
mainstream.[40]
Lynch and David Fenske, in a conversation at Drexel
University's College of Computing & Informatics in
October 2013, reflected on the future of libraries and
informatics in the scholarly environment. Among the
issues to be managed are big data and data curation, the
tensions between private rights and public good, cyber
security and misinformation, and personal digital
archives. There is a need to develop services in a way
that is “equal to the pace of public expectations.” [41]
PULLING OURSELVES TO WHERE WE WANT
TO BE
Will the future of libraries involve more of the same or
something completely different?
Some would say it is a question not worth answering
because the planet may not survive very much longer. Ugo
Bardi references the wisdom of Seneca in an article
about the possible end of civilisation caused by
inaction on climate change: “It would be some
consolation for the feebleness of ourselves and our
works if all things should perish as slowly as they come
into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish
growth, but the way to ruin is rapid.” The Roman
civilisation took seven centuries to peak and about
three centuries to fall. But, as a way of lacing a
daunting challenge with a dose of optimism, Bardi does
take solace in the words of Robert Louis Stevenson:
“Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of
consequences.”[42]
The future may be less dramatic than some futurists
predict. Joss Tantram says it will most probably lie
somewhere “between the worst doom-mongering predictions
and the most optimistic techno-utopian dreams.” But it
will be shaped by our passivity or the action we take.
It is not magic we require for a sustainable future,
just co-ordinated will and intent.[43]
The information revolution continues to evolve with
occasional surprises. Bill Davidow has warned of a
future catastrophe: the internet may be the conduit for
the next global crisis. Social media offer the illusion
of greater democracy, the promise of productivity, and
smaller thoughts. Some say the information revolution
has stalled, while others say it takes a while for
revolutions to play out.
The things we can control may be more important than the
things we can’t control. Frank Spencer and Yvette
Montero Salvatico, for example, in arguing that
predicting the future is a waste of time, have said we
should pull ourselves toward to where we want to be.
Guiding narratives driven by values, aspirations and
good design are a more effective compass in navigating
our complex and volatile landscape.[44]
How do we pull ourselves to
where we want to be?
The uncertainty felt by
librarians in 1999 has not abated and is now an accepted
norm. The Guardian reminds us that ideas contrary to a
prevailing dogma are likely to be attacked when they
first appear. Innate conservatism will destroy
half-baked ideas but hostile criticism will be honed by
persistent minds. Uncertainty, accompanied by confusion
and discovery in equal measure, “will always remain a
labyrinth.”[45]
The call for leadership has
been constant in conference deliberations, but what does
leadership involve and who’s to be the leader? In the
2002 ALIA Biennial conference, Neil McLean detected “a
yearning for leadership”, but he also put the finger on
the dysfunction of library tribes. When creating a new
infrastructure, he cautioned against making
generalisations and searching for a one-size-fits-all
solution. Creating a new infrastructure, Paul Raven
reminds us, is a staggeringly complex and messy job. We
are often tempted to make it someone else’s problem.[46]
Plans are one of the
necessities although some well-positioned commentators
have expressed cynicism about grand visions and the
likelihood of broad consensus. Planning is a process as
well as a recipe, particularly in world where the things
driving the action are constantly changing. Instinct
sometimes has to override well honed plans.
The call for solutions has
often been accompanied by the call for innovation when
the need may actually be the need for more common sense.
Some have argued that innovation is an overrated concept
and an overworked word. Librarians are usually part of
someone else’s business. With limited control over their
finances, they are not well placed to take risks. But
they are adept at making the most of someone else’s
innovation.
Revolutionary collaboration is widely proclaimed as an
overriding necessity, but deep collaboration in the
cultural heritage sector has been difficult to muster.
The experience of the National Digitisation Information
Infrastructure Preservation Program in the United States
highlighted the difficulty of collaboration in diverse
environments. Managing institutional interests is not
easily transferable to sector-wide, multi-jurisdictional
programs. Even within the same domain, there are
barriers to collaboration. Although partners share a
common interest, their work in diverse communities is
not necessarily conducive to thinking and working as a
larger network. Interoperability challenges become
greater as user communities broaden their interest.
Solutions are not necessarily found by looking for
silver bullets.[47]
Leah Prescott and Ricky Erway have underscored the
institutional, technical and metadata challenges. The
apparent differences in approaches by libraries,
archives and museums might be insurmountable, they wrote
in Single Search, if not for the fact that they share
one value in common: their desire to simplify resource
discovery and delivery.[48]
Government assistance is necessary at a time when there
will be increasing pressure on the public purse.
Marshalling the interest of cultural heritage
institutions calls for compelling incentives, but the
government record has not been encouraging on this
front.
In Australia, the Howard government created the
Collections Council of Australia, but the Labor
government closed it down - along with the wrongly-named
Collections Australia Network - with no explanation. The
Labor government’s attempt to make high speed broadband
as easy as turning on water has been replaced by
Coalition plans based on the idea of reinventing the
local telephone box. In the United Kingdom, the Cameron
Government disbanded the Museums Libraries and Archives
Council. The Institute of Museum and Library Services
has survived the recession in the United States.
Future government decisions will be shaped by cultural
heritage sector recommendations on how to spend taxpayer
funds. Without a respected coordinating body to make
sense of the complexities and high order priorities,
actions will be left largely in the hands of those with
control over major institutional spending.
The route to the future is probably the same as it was
when Neil McLean sketched it out in 1999: take comfort
in uncertainty, find a new centre of gravity, think long
term, re-think paradigms, form new alliances, rethink
architectures, examine intermediary roles, and match
people with new opportunities and resources.
But at least we now have Trove as an established path to
some of the hidden treasures and as a platform full of
promise for future collaborative endeavours.[49]
End notes
[1] Neustadt, E and May E. Thinking in time: The uses of
history for decision makers. (The Free Press, 1988).
[2] Bentley P, “Shifts in
the sand: Information Online 2001” (2000) OLC v14 n10: 2
[3] Bentley P, “Australian culture seeks e-business
direction: Impressions of the Ozeculture Conference,
Melbourne, June 2001” (2001) OLC v16, n7: 16
[4] Bentley P. “Digital
resources for research in the humanities: The computing
arts conference, Sydney, September 2001” (2001) OLC v16,
n10: 13
[5] Bentley P, “Searching
for the next sigmoid curve: The ALIA Conference 2002”
(2002) OLC v17, n6:19
[6] Bentley P, “Driving
Australian e-culture: The Ozeculture Conference 2002”
(2002) OLC v17, n8: 10
[7] Bentley P, “Information
Roles: A Question of Maturity? A view of the Information
Online Conference 2003, Part 1” (2003) OLC v18, n1: 7;
Bentley P, “Stinking libraries, disappearing librarians
and the invisible Web: A view of the Information Online
Conference 2003, part 2” (2003) OLC v18, n3: 23
[8] Bentley P, “Libraries in
the online environment, part 1: Contexts” (2004) OLC
v19, n1: 11; Bentley P. “Libraries in the online
environment, part 2: Challenges” (2004) OLC v19, n4:15;
Bentley P, “Leading libraries, archives and museums in
an online environment: A Senate Inquiry postscript”
(2004) OLC v19, n6:14
[9] Bentley P, “Arts Hub
Australia” (2003) OLC v18, n8: 12; Bentley P, “Who’s Who
in Australia Live!” (2003) OLC v18, n10:10
[10] Bentley P, “Fighting
bush fires: The 2005 Information Online Conference”
(2005) OLC v20, n2: 6
[11] Bentley P, “Baking a
new pie: Library & information associations in an online
world” (2005) OLC v20, n9: 3
[12] Bentley P, “Embedding
librarians in a world of dirty data: The Information
Online Conference 2007” (2007) 21 OLC 231
[13] Bentley P, “The digital
economy dance: Getting into step with government policy”
(2009) 23 OLC 13
[14] Bentley P, “Getting in
the game of creative collaboration: The ALIA Information
Online Conference 2009” (2009) 23 OLC 1
[15] Bentley P, “Changing
the horseshoe on a galloping horse: Connecting museums
to information seekers (2009) 23 OLC 186
[16] Bentley P, “Mastering
digital lives: Cultural heritage institutions tackle the
Tower of Babel” (2010) 24 OLC 67.
[17] Bentley P, “Talking up
the back end of an evolving revolution: The VALA
Conference 2010” (2010) 24 OLC 121
[18] Bentley P, “Winning and
losing in a world of new paradigms: the ALIA Information
Online Conference 2011 - part one” ((2011) 25 OLC 111;
Bentley P, “Operating in a world of ornate variations
and tipping points: The ALIA Information Online
Conference 2011 – part two” (2011) 25 OLC 1
[19] Bentley P, “Reinventing
libraries for the mobile flaneurs: The odyssey
continues” (2012) 26 OLC 295
[20] Douglas J, “ALIA
Information Online 2013” (2013) 27 OLC 195
[21] Bentley P, “Evolving
stages: Australian performing arts online” (2005) OLC
v20, n6: 14; Bentley P, “Being there without being
there: the Arts in the Age of YouTube” (2012) 26 OLC
171; Bentley P, “Catching lighting in a bucket:
Archiving the performing arts in the digital age” (2012)
26 OLC 171; Bentley P, “Body knowledge in bytes; the
health industry gears up for the 21st century” (2013) 27
OLC 186
[22] Naisbett, J and
Aburdene P Megatrends 2000 London: Pan, 1990; CSIRO,
Our
Future World, 23 April 2010, updated 2 October 2012
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner/Futures/Our-Future-World.aspx.
23 April 2010,
[23] Columbus L, “Top Ten
Trends Of 2014 From World Economic Forum Underscore The
Need For Cloud Security” Forbes 15 November 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2013/11/15/top-ten-trends-of-2014-from-world-economic-forum-underscore-the-need-for-cloud-security/?utm_destname=techl0g&utm_desttype=twitter
[24]Tucker P, “Top Ten
Forecasts for 2014 and Beyond” The Futurist 6 October
2013
http://www.wfs.org/blogs/patrick-tucker/futurist-magazines-top-ten-forecasts-for-2014-and-beyond
[25] “Internet 2012 in
numbers” Pingdom 16 January 2013
http://royal.pingdom.com/2013/01/16/internet-2012-in-numbers/
[26] “Top 10 Tech Trends in
2014” IEEE Computer Society
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/membership/Top-10-Tech-Trends-in-2014
[27] International
Federation of Library Associations, Trend Report,
(2013)
http://trends.ifla.org/
[28] Hendrix JC, Checking
Out the Future: Perspectives from the library community
on information technology and 21st-century libraries,
ALA Office of Information Technology Policy, Policy
Brief no 2, February 2010
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oitp/publications/policybriefs/ala_checking_out_the.pdf).
[29] Zickuhr K, Rainie, L
and Purcell L, Library Services in the Digital Age, Pew
Research Centre 23 January 2013
http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/01/22/library-services/
[30] Institute of Museum and
Library Services, “2010 public library survey results
announced” 22 January 2013
http://www.imls.gov/imls_2010_public_library_survey_results_announced.aspx
[31] Kyrillidou M,” Research
library trends: A historical picture of services,
resources, and spending” in (2012) Research Library
Issues: A Quarterly Report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC
(280): 20-27. (http://publications.arl.org/rli280/20).
[32] Russell V, “Library
closures hit 200 last year” The Chartered Institute of
Public Finances and Accountancy 10 December 2012
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2012/12/library-closures-hit-200-last-year-cipfa-survey-shows/
[33] Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals, “What the
Government’s spending review means for library and
information services”
http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/what-government-s-spending-review-means-library-and-information-services
[34] Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals, “Call for
political leadership on libraries” 23 May 2013 http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20130626073405/http://www.cilip.org.uk/news-media/pages/news130523.aspx
[35] Arts Council England,
A
response to the Envisioning the library of the future
report, by Arts Council England Chief Executive Alan
Davey, May 2013
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/The_library_of_the_future_May_2013.pdf
[36] Australian Library and
Information Association, “Libraries: a better investment
than gold” 14 May 2013
http://www.alia.org.au/media-releases/libraries-better-investment-gold
[37] Australian Library and
Information Association, Library and information
services: The future of the profession themes and
scenarios 2025 and related material
http://aliafutures.wikispaces.com/
[38] Premier of Victoria,
“Tomorrow’s Library report tells a compelling story” 3
December 2013
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/5560-tomorrows-library-report-tells-a-compelling-story.html
[39] Dempsey L, “Keynote
presentation at LIANZA conference 2013”5 November 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAev2DUJe1U; Dempsey L,
"Libraries and the informational future: aome notes"
(2012) 32 Information Services & Use: 203–214
http://iospress.metapress.com/content/q74467n473057274/fulltext.pdf
[40] Lynch, C The public
library in 2020
http://www.cni.org/publications/cliffs-pubs/public-library-2020/
[41] Lynch C and Fenske D, A
Conversation [at] Drexel University College of Computing
& Informatics 4 October 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjPxIkKHHLA
[42] Bardi U, “The Seneca
effect: Why decline is faster than growth” Business
Insider Australia, 31 August 2011
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-seneca-effect-why-decline-is-faster-than-growth-2011-8
[43] Tantram J, “Preparing
for a sustainable future requires co-ordinated will, not
magic” The Guardian 23 July 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/preparing-sustainable-future-will-magic
[44] Spencer F and Salvatico,
YM, “Why predicting trends doesn't help prepare for the
future” Fast Company 20 November 2013
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021148/futurist-forum/why-predicting-trends-doesnt-help-prepare-for-the-future
[45] “In praise of
uncertainty” The Guardian 9 December 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/dec/09/in-praise-of-uncertainty-genes
[46] Raven, PG, “The artist
as engineer: we need to talk about infrastructure” The
Guardian 4 September 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2013/sep/04/artist-engineer-infrastructure-means-matters
[47] Bentley P, “The digital
economy dance: Getting into step with government policy”
(2009) 23 OLC: 13
[48] Prescott L and Erway R,
Single Search: The Quest for the Holy Grail, OCLC
Research July 2011
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2011/2011-17.pdf?urlm=162962
[49] Trove: trove.nla.gov.au/
Non-commercial viewing,
copying, printing and/or distribution or reproduction of
this article or any copy or material portion of the
article is permitted on condition that any copy of
material portion thereof must contain copyright notice
referring "Copyright ©2013 Lawbook Co t/a Thomson Legal
& Regulatory Limited." Any commercial use of the article
or any copy or material portion of the article is
strictly prohibited. For commercial use, permission can
be obtained from Lawbook Co, Thomson Legal & Regulatory
Limited, PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039,
www.thomson.com.au
