Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LISTSERV.BYU.EDU
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - OPENCAFE-L Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

OPENCAFE-L Archives

OpenCafe-l

OPENCAFE-L@LISTSERV.BYU.EDU

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
OPENCAFE-L Home OPENCAFE-L Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Re: The source of money (Re: [OPENCAFE-L] European Policy Shifts)
Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 8 Mar 2024 11:34:19 -0500
text/plain (6 kB) , text/html (16 kB)
The donor restrictions are also negotiable. The degree of restriction is 
not relevant to this discussion.

As for "conduit", I wonder how many librarians feel they are money pipes 
between their institution and the publishers.

Jean-Claude

On 2024-03-08 08:56, Rick Anderson wrote:
>
> At the risk of being drafted into the monastic orders, I’ll respond 
> once more on this thread and then stop.
>
> Donor funds are actually a very interesting case in the context of 
> this discussion – because they’re usually far more restrictive than 
> institutionally-allocated funds are. Whereas a university typically 
> says to its library each year “Here’s $X for collections, and $X for 
> personnel, and $X for operations (etc.)”, a donor is much more likely 
> to say “Here’s $X which, in honor of my late father, you may use to 
> purchase 15^th -century Persian texts in Greek translation.” (And if 
> that sounds like an exaggeration, I would suggest that you haven’t 
> spent much time raising money for libraries.)
>
> It's not unheard of, but relatively rare, for a donor (or a host 
> institution) to give money to a library and say “Do whatever you want 
> with this money.” Generally, both donors and host institutions provide 
> funds to libraries so that the library will do things that the donors 
> and the institutions want done. For the library to accept those funds 
> and then use them to pursue a different agenda isn’t “courageous”; 
> it’s dishonest and unethical.
>
> (In case anyone might find it interesting and/or amusing, I wrote a 
> brief piece in /Library Journal/ ten years ago on the vagaries of 
> gifts in libraries, called “Kitten in a Beer Mug: The Myth of the Free 
> Gift”: 
> https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/kitten-in-a-beer-mug-the-myth-of-the-free-gift-peer-to-peer-review 
> <https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/kitten-in-a-beer-mug-the-myth-of-the-free-gift-peer-to-peer-review>.)
>
> ---
>
> Rick Anderson
>
> University Librarian
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> (801) 422-4301
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> *From: *Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Friday, March 8, 2024 at 1:50 AM
> *To: *Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>, 
> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPENCAFE-L] The source of money (Re: [OPENCAFE-L] 
> European Policy Shifts)
>
> I have been involved closely enough with libraries and consortia (CRKN 
> in this case) to know the degrees of freedom libraries have once they 
> take hold of their budget from their overarching institution. Arguing 
> that libraries are not the source of their money is Jesuitical at 
> best. Yes, the money is allocated by someone else - a university, 
> whatever - and yes they have to report to someone in the 
> administration, once the money is spent. But they can also raise money 
> - my wife was doing that brilliantly at McGill - and they are not just 
> conduits.
>
> That is what lucidity (and courage) mean,
>
> Jean-Claude
>
> On 2024-03-07 08:51, Rick Anderson wrote:
>
>     I realize that the differences between this odd caricature of my
>     previous message and what I actually said are obvious and don’t
>     require a detailed rebuttal.
>
>     But I do want to emphasize that by pointing out the fact that
>     libraries are not the source of the funds that they inject into
>     the scholcomm system, I neither said nor implied that librarians
>     are either “powerless” or not “strong.” Nor did I characterize
>     examples of libraries “successfully redirecting money towards
>     various openness initiatives” as “marginal”; I actually called
>     them “very impressive.”
>
>     Yrs. in lucid thinking,
>
>     Rick
>
>     ---
>
>     Rick Anderson
>
>     University Librarian
>
>     Brigham Young University
>
>     (801) 422-4301
>
>     [log in to unmask]
>
>     *From: *Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Date: *Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 2:48 AM
>     *To: *Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]"
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [OPENCAFE-L] The source of money (Re: [OPENCAFE-L]
>     European Policy Shifts)
>
>     On 2024-03-06 16:32, Rick Anderson wrote:
>
>         /This is a very common misconception among people who don’t
>         work in libraries, and for some reason it’s proven very
>         difficult to dislodge. The actual reality is that libraries
>         are not sources of money at all; they’re conduits through
>         which money flows. The source of that money is the libraries’
>         host institutions./
>
>     Rick makes a gallant attempt to demonstrate the powerlessness of
>     librarians within their institutions. What he is really referring
>     to is an instance of institutional politics where librarians,
>     while not in a dominant position, nonetheless enjoy a degree of
>     power and some ability to negotiate. What I am referring to is
>     that when librarians become aware of their real power (which is
>     not all that great, but, once again, is not zero), they have to
>     think lucidly on how they can put some direction and coherence on
>     their conduits.
>
>     If I were to believe that librarians are truly passive conduits, I
>     would pity them deeply. I have too much knowledge about,
>     admiration for and faith in that profession to know that
>     librarians can do more than what Rick states. He himself admits
>     that it exists. He tries to reduce this to marginal exceptions,
>     but that is another question that some evidence-based scholars can
>     solve, I believe. One only has to think about the book-banning
>     efforts in the US and how librarians react. This is a strong and
>     generally courageous profession.
>
>     Jean-Claude
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
>     <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L>
>
>
>     To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
>     [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives 
> <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L> 
>
>
> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: 
> [log in to unmask]
>

########################################################################

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]

########################################################################

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.BYU.EDU CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV