Hi! Thanks for submitting this question to a survey meant for questions to be sent to the Dean’s Council. But, I appreciate your curiosity! I’ll try to answer your concerns as best as I can.
With regards to your first question, I actually conducted a survey! Maybe you saw it, or even took it. I don’t know. But, in case you missed it, I conducted a survey to back up my claims. So, here are some stats! My survey received 177 responses, though it is still open for individuals to submit. Of course, this is merely a student-conducted survey, though I am a student researcher here at Loyola. I know my way around quantitative analysis, even if there is a margin for error. Which is why I’m being transparent up top. There is a margin for error in this essay. I have not vetted all of the responses. These are self-reported answers. Without further ado, here are some of the initial results of my findings.
How often do you use the library to access research materials?
Have you ever checked out a book or requested to use a library-only volume?
Do you regularly use Cudahy as a space to study?
Do you think it is important for a university to have a large reference collection?
In 1996, Samuel Streit wrote a paper on the topic of de-accession, which is the permanent removal of items from a library/archival collection. If you’re interested, here is the link. He warns libraries, particularly those in universities, to be careful with deaccession and weigh all of the alternatives beforehand. This is what Loyola is neglecting to do. This is the issue I have with the so-called ‘plan’ put forth. In particular, the issue I have is that there is no plan.
As for downsizing, the universities that have done so have received plenty of backlash. There are numerous ways in which downsizing can be done without de-accession. Libraries have been grappling with this issue for decades. Of course I, and I’m certain many others, would be willing to entertain the idea of other options, like those put forth in this chapter written by a library faculty member at Illinois State University. This, however, is not the point here.
The point is that administration has no plan for what to do with the material resources of our library, whether it may be storage, removal, donation, etc. They have given no explanation for how they will handle the resources in the time-frame settled upon. Our collections are not outdated. Even those that are considered “unimportant” by the standards that led to them being stored in the Library Storage Facility have their purposes. In fact, two government-sponsored grants were given to two professors here who used materials stored for being “unimportant,” and that was just last year.
As to your statement “Loyola isn’t the only one,” is that a relevant critique? I would have gone elsewhere if I wanted a university that would downsize its library. I would have gone to Gonzaga, or the University of Chicago. But, I went to Loyola, because I value the physical reference materials. Just because everyone else is doing it, does that justify Loyola doing it? If every university does this, where will it end? How far will de-accession be allowed to go before no university library holds materials their students need? When there is no other university who possesses these materials to conduct inter-library loans with? What then? It’s a slippery slope to be sure, but I think it is wrong to approach this without a plan. That is my point.
As to the question “have you stepped foot in Cudahy? It’s like entering the 1950s.” First, Cudahy was built in 1969. Not 1950. Sure, the building may look old, but isn’t that part of its charm? If the whole campus looked like the IC and the IES, I think it would be a bit boring. Sure, it can be updated. But I don’t think that getting rid of the collection will be an upgrade. Why is that the first thing that came to your mind? We can upgrade buildings without completely stripping what makes them unique. But that’s another discussion.
Secondly, I’m a student here. I’m both an undergraduate student, pursuing two bachelors degrees with three minors and two honors distinctions, and a graduate student pursuing a masters degree. I do research. Very frequently, in fact. So yes, I have stepped foot in Cudahy. And I find that my research is better for it. Sure, I could rely on digital references. I do rely on those sources quite often. I’m a huge fan of JSTOR, personally. But there is only so far that digital references can take me. Some of the texts I have used for my research, even starting from my first year here, can only be accessed physically. Either due to publication restrictions or issues with digital access, some references that are integral to my research are not accessible online. And I’m certainly not the only one. Digital resources could only take me so far. I’ve spent hours going through books in the library to find that one crucial piece of evidence needed to clinch my essay or paper. And the satisfaction of finding that is so worth the time spent. I wouldn’t trade that for the world, no matter how much easier digital sources might be.
I appreciate the questions, truly. I’ve tried to be as up front about my intentions as possible in this website. But, as professors and faculty members have noted, there is only so much we can do with databases. Especially when some of the books in Loyola’s collections are so rare that only tens of them were printed. Especially when databases are being removed from our digital catalogue without any prior notice. Especially when, nationally, libraries are under attack for their right to freedom of speech, press, and expression. This is bigger than just the digital versus physical book argument. And it would be negligent to reduce it to something so trivial.
Again, I really do appreciate your questions. I hope I answered them well enough. Of course, I am willing to be proven wrong. In fact, I hope I am. I hope there is a plan that the administration will put forth that both advances our STEM capacities and protects our reference materials. That would be the best case scenario. But, unfortunately, administration has given me every reason to be skeptical. Which is why I’m asking questions. And why I tried to answer yours. I hope my answers were sufficient. All my best!