<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
p.NoSpacing, li.NoSpacing, div.NoSpacing
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold'>NFAIS Enotes, September 2010</span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold'>Written and Compiled by Jill
O’Neill</span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold'>Scholarly Endeavors, Part II </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>In August of 2010, the Apollo Group put out a position
paper entitled <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Higher Education at a
Crossroads</span></i>. If you are unfamiliar with the organization, the Apollo
Group is the parent company of for-profit educational institutions such as the
University of Phoenix (U.S.) and </span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Meritus</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>University</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> (</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Canada</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>), as
well as other proprietary entities aimed at offering degrees to working adults.
The position paper emphasizes that the educational models in place at these
proprietary institutions are better suited to a non-traditional student
population (older, self-supporting, balancing work and dependents, etc.). It
further underscores the idea that for-profit institutions are absolutely
necessary to enabling the </span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>United States</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> to
build an appropriately educated workforce. Page 22 of the report states that in
order to meet President Obama’s national education goal, “<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>the system will need to accommodate 13.1 million
graduates. At a time when states are having difficulty even maintaining
budgetary resources for higher education and are cutting both faculty positions
and student enrollment capacity, how can states afford to educate tens of
millions of additional students and produce 13.1 million additional college
graduates</span></i>?” The report comes up with a figure of $794 billion
in federal, state, and local support that would be required to meet the need
for the educated workforce referenced by Obama in his speech on economic growth
at Texas A&M on August 9. The President had noted that “Over the next
decade, nearly eight in ten new job openings in the </span></font><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>U.S.</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> will
require some workforce training or postsecondary education. And of the thirty
fastest growing occupations in </span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>America</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>, half
require at least a 4-year college degree.” (See <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>Higher Education at a CrossRoads: </span></i></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'><a
href="http://www.apollogrp.edu/Investor/Reports/Higher_Education_at_a_Crossroads_FINALv2%5b1%5d.pdf">http://www.apollogrp.edu/Investor/Reports/Higher_Education_at_a_Crossroads_FINALv2[1].pdf</a>
and <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Restoring </span></i></span></font><i><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;
font-style:italic'>America</span></font></i><i><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;font-style:italic'>’s
Leadership in Higher Education (Remarks by President Obama to </span></font></i><i><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;
font-style:italic'>Texas</span></font></i><i><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;font-style:italic'> A&M, </span></font></i><i><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;font-style:
italic'>August 9, 2010</span></font></i><i><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;font-style:italic'>)</span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'><a
href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM169_restoringamerica.html">http://www.politico.com/static/PPM169_restoringamerica.html</a>).</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>When the <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Chronicle of
Higher Education</span></i> reported on the publication of the position paper
in the context of a negative report from the Government Accountability Office
on recruitment practices by for-profit educational institutions, an interesting
discussion broke out in the comments (see: <a
href="http://chronicle.com/article/With-Statistics-Heavy-Report/124101/">http://chronicle.com/article/With-Statistics-Heavy-Report/124101/</a>).
Some respondents believed that the for-profit entities were justified in
putting forward a case for their existence, while others criticized the quality
of education provided by those institutions in training potentially at-risk
students (see the GAO at <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf</a>).
This is an old debate, one that suggests both a defensive posture on the part
of traditional institutions of higher education (IHE) that are seeking to avoid
any siphoning-off of revenues received through federal and state subsidies, and
an overly optimistic posture on the part of the for-profit entities. There are
rigorous constraints on budgets for most IHEs, just when the need for a more
educated work force is being stressed as integral to growing the economy. And because
of those constraints, one also sees discussions questioning whether research
activities should be funded (or dispensed with) across these institutions. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>A random tweet took me to a Georgia Tech faculty blog
posting that asked why universities should do research (see: <a
href="http://wwc.demillo.com/2010/07/05/why-universities-do-research/">http://wwc.demillo.com/2010/07/05/why-universities-do-research/</a>).
Rich Demillo, Distinguished Professor of Computing and Management at Georgia
Tech, noted that for many universities it was a losing proposition, noting that
one provost told him that for every research dollar coming in, they were
spending $2.50 due to an imbalance between man- hours spent on instruction vs.
man-hours spent on research. He noted as well that the hope of commercializing
and licensing intellectual property for most institutions was equally
unprofitable. Institutions are motivated to aspire to become Carnegie I schools
more out of “institutional envy” than any other motive, even though
innovative IHEs may find other ways of thriving. His point (amidst
Georgia’s significant educational funding crisis) was that differences
between teaching universities and research universities should be recognized
and funded appropriately without penalizing the institution for being one or
the other. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Another academic (also from the Georgia Tech community)
noted in January that perhaps there were, in fact, things that the for-profit
educational institutions could do more successfully and/or more economically
than Georgia Tech (see: <a
href="http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/an-educational-extinction-event/">http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/an-educational-extinction-event/</a>).
If the role of the university is to educate, socialize and aid students in
building effective professional networks, then the </span></font><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>University</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> of </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Phoenix</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> might
well be more suited to doing that in an online environment while the likes of
Georgia Tech refocused its attention on research and innovation. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>In an article in <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Forbes</span></i>
discussing the potential of online learning for higher education in the </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>US</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>, Taylor
Walsh noted that the </span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>University</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> of </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>California</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> had
announced a pilot project for a “<i><span style='font-style:italic'>large
slate of online introductory courses across its ten campuses. If they pass
muster at the culmination of the pilot, these Web courses could eventually be
used to teach the universities’ own undergraduates or expand the UC
student body by appealing to new audiences, easing bottlenecks in crowded
campuses or providing a desperately needed revenue stream</span></i>.”
She concludes that until prestigious institutions such as Yale and the
University of California find a way to fully embrace online distance learning,
their economic models will be questioned (see: <a
href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/01/online-classes-internet-technology-opinions-best-colleges-10-walsh.html">http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/01/online-classes-internet-technology-opinions-best-colleges-10-walsh.html</a>).</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Why are universities clinging to what appears to be
something of an out-moded economic model? According to an op-ed appearing in <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>Inside Higher Ed</span></i>, “<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>the main reason is that universities do not want to
admit to the public that student dollars and state funds are spent on other
things than instruction and related research. As many professors have told me,
they do not believe that the public would support the research mission of the
university, so the university has to hide how it spends its money</span></i>”
(see: <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/06/04/samuels">http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/06/04/samuels</a>). </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Lest you think that this is primarily a U.S.-centric
concern, European entities are also thinking about the problem. Frank Gannon,
Director General of the Science Foundation Ireland, the major funding agency
fueling research in higher education in Ireland, ruminated on issues of
appropriate funding when he referenced the mythical Roman deity, Janus, and the
necessityof mixing corporate and government funding of research in
universities (see: <a
href="http://frankgannon.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/society’s-janus-view-of-researchers/">http://frankgannon.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/society’s-janus-view-of-researchers/</a>).
The duality, as he points out, leads to <u>mixed</u> public trust in scientific
results, contaminated as such findings may be by commercial interests or
political ideologies if either funding source is permitted to dominate. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Within the framework of scholarly publishing, it is
understood that the formal auspices under which any research is done tends to
influence how results from that research will be framed, disseminated, and publicized
to a broader audience. That understanding is less wide-spread outside the
information community.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>During the month of August, I noted a higher-than-usual
volume of noise about the concept of peer-review and its purpose. There were
articles in the <i><span style='font-style:italic'>New York Times</span></i>
and in the <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Chronicle of Higher Education</span></i>,
as well as entries by various contributors to the Scholarly Kitchen blog. What
made me sit up and pay closer attention however was a screed that appeared in
the </span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>UK</span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> science and technology publication,
<i><span style='font-style:italic'>Spiked</span></i>. Two authors of a somewhat
controversial book, <i><span style='font-style:italic'>The Spirit Level:
Why Equality is Better for Everyone</span></i>, had responded to three
semi-professionally published critiques of their work and then announced that
any future discussion of the book’s findings would only receive response
if such discussion were published in a peer-reviewed journal.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>The Editor of <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Spiked</span></i>
called that “an extraordinary condition on future debate about their book.”
His editorial made the point that peer-review was (strictly speaking) not
a judgment made by the author’s peers of whether a finding was the final
word on a subject. It was rather an indicator of whether or not the primary investigator
had done a proper write-up of a research inquiry fit for publication –
that is, found to be grounded in the literature, performed through a proper
protocol or methodology, with findings that had not been fabricated. “<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>There is a censorious dynamic at play here, as a
divide is erected between those who are peer-reviewed and those who are not,
between those who we should listen to and engage with and those we should look
down our noses at – in effect between those who say mainstream, acceptable
things and those who spout off-the-wall, experimental stuff</span></i>” (see:
<a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9383/">http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9383/</a>).
</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>It is the phrase “censorious dynamic” to which
I would draw your attention, not because it conjures up the notion of censorship
(likely the author’s intent), but because there is always a conflict
between those whose investment of time and study gives them the elevated status
of authoritative credentials and the resentment of those who know themselves to
be less-well-educated on a topic, but who don’t believe themselves to be
incapable of understanding, if offered the opportunity to learn. The
expectation is that there will be an interactive exchange in order for both
sides to understand.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>That conflict is at the heart of our concept of the
Academy and the investigative process. Like so many social processes,
peer review is a series of human exchanges, hampered by social ineptitude as
much as by professional reticence. Kent Anderson on the Scholarly Kitchen blog
put it most bluntly when he wrote about recent instances where bad science was
published in ostensibly respectable publications. He said “<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>The entire scientific publishing genre is losing
credibility with the public, putting the article, the journal, and the peer
review process at risk</span></i>” (see: <a
href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/08/02/left-handed-cancer-box-springs-scientific-american-branding-and-trust/">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/08/02/left-handed-cancer-box-springs-scientific-american-branding-and-trust/</a>).</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>The conflict is evident not just in discussions of science
and peer-review, but also in discussions of the roles of libraries in the
Digital Age. How much does society need gateways and guardians? And at what
point in the process, ought such filters to be introduced or withdrawn? </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>At some point, I was directed to a research project known
as the Liquid Journal (<a href="http://project.liquidpub.org/">http://project.liquidpub.org/</a>).
The project is funded by the European Union and supported by a variety of
international entities including the commercial </span></font><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>STM</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>
publisher, Springer Science. <span class=apple-style-span><font color=black><span
style='color:black'>The founders believe that the production processes
surrounding the creation of scientific knowledge is inefficient, with specific
reference to the need for creating formal written materials (articles) and the
peer-review process required to vet those materials. Essentially the project
wants to take the creation of scientific knowledge out of the realm of the
formally published article as formed in a print environment, and into the realm
of something more closely approximating a real-world laboratory where data and
simulations are made re-usable. The organization calls for the development of
“novel services and business models” (see a useful descriptive
paper at: </span></font></span><font color=black><span style='color:black'><a
href="http://www.almaweb.unibo.it/all/doc/upl/s1/pdf/WOAPAPERSITO/6/8.7.%20Camussone%20Cuel%20Ponte.pdf">http://www.almaweb.unibo.it/all/doc/upl/s1/pdf/WOAPAPERSITO/6/8.7.%20Camussone%20Cuel%20Ponte.pdf</a>).</span></font></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>The entry pointing me to the Liquid Journal project was
from the BMJ Group Blog where Richard Smith, a Public Library of Science Board
Member, praised the initiative, but recognized that its success would be
hampered by the scientific community’s conservatism, the reward system
that connected high-impact publications with tenure, and by the collective
inertia of the publishing community itself (commercial publishers as well as
scientific societies; see: <a
href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/08/05/richard-smith-enter-the-%E2%80%9Cliquid-journal%E2%80%9D/">http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/08/05/richard-smith-enter-the-%E2%80%9Cliquid-journal%E2%80%9D/</a>).</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Smith believes that a pre-publication peer review process
is no longer effective, and believes (perhaps unsurprisingly) that the most
effective peer-review process happens after an article has received maximum
exposure within the knowledge community. “Much better to have posted the
paper on the Web and let the world decide its importance or lack of it and for
the reviewers to have got on with researching.”</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Post-publication peer-review is not always satisfactory,
either. UCLA Professor of Emergency Medicine, David Schriger, wrote in <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>The British Medical Journal</span></i> that “<i><span
style='font-style:italic'>The solution to the absence of effective
post-publication reviews does not lie within its mechanisms; it requires a
fundamental reworking of what research is performed, how it is presented, and
how it is assimilated into current knowledge. We need fewer papers that are of
higher quality and importance. We also need a change in culture to value public
discussion if we are to re-engage the medical research community in the kind of
post-publication review process that patients deserve.”</span></i>
That is a call to action difficult to resist (see: <a
href="http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c3803.full">http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c3803.full</a>).
</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>I sense a number of questions arising for which there are
few available answers, but which have significance for the services offered by
NFAIS members: </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<ul type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Has the economic model of education and research
housed and funded within a single institution been exhausted?</span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Ought the two functions to be separated for purposes
of ensuring that both remain economically viable across a range of
institutions?</span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>How might societies (i.e. governments) best re-allocate
funding resources for instructional and research efforts across the
spectrum of available providers? </span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>If instruction and research become divorced, what
will the cascade effect for information providers be? </span></font></li>
</ul>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>That we have to frame such questions suggests that the
process by which the Western world generates research and subsequent
authoritative knowledge is near to being re-engineered for greater efficiency
and productivity. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>However those questions may get answered, the markets will
continue to shift.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>*******************************</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=NoSpacing><b><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia;font-weight:bold'>Early bird registration discounts for the
2011 NFAIS Annual conference end on January 7<sup>th</sup>. </span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> Until
then savings of up to $100 off the full registration fee are available and
NFAIS members registering three or more staff at the same time receive even
greater savings (for details see the registration form at <a
href="http://nfais.brightegg.com/page/295-register-for-2011-annual-conference">http://nfais.brightegg.com/page/295-register-for-2011-annual-conference</a>).</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><b><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:
bold'> </span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><b><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia;font-weight:
bold'>2010 SPONSORS</span></font></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Accessible
Archives, Inc.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>American
Psychological Association/PsycINFO</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>The British
Library</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>CAS</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Copyright</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Clearance</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Center</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>CrossRef</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Data Conversion
Laboratory</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Defense</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Technical</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Information</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Center</span></font><font
size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> (DTIC)</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Getty Research
Institute</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>H. W. Wilson</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Information
Today, Inc.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Office of
Scientific & Technical Information, DOE</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Philosopher’s
</span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Information</span></font><font size=2 face=Georgia><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'> </span></font><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Center</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>ProQuest</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Really
Strategies, Inc.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Temis, Inc.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Thomson Reuters
Healthcare & Science</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Thomson Reuters
IP Solutions</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=2
face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Georgia'>Unlimited
Priorities Corporation</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Jill O'Neill</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>Director, Planning & Communication</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>NFAIS</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>(v) 215-893-1561</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoAutoSig><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'>(email) jilloneill@nfais.org</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Georgia><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Georgia'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>