Selling Shakespeare's first folio: is this the future of humanities research? | Higher Education Network | Guardian Professional
abernard102@gmail.com 2013-09-07
Summary:
While the humanities contribute in lower absolute terms to this figure than scientists, we, as academics, are the primary cause of this as we continue to publish in commercial venues (in order to satisfy conditions of hiring, firing and assessment). This, in turn, legitimises the extortion of our libraries who must hold a prestigious collection to 'compete'. Were we to work to lower the billions of pounds of shareholder profits built-in to serials subscriptions, perhaps through open access, research libraries would have fewer justifications for selling our national treasures. It is notable that many of the calls criticising the sale have come from Oxford University. According to a 2002 assessment by the college bursar of Lincoln College, Tim Knowles, '10 or so colleges each possess total 'endowments' (or portfolios of property and financial assets) which are large enough to generate an investment income in excess of £2m per annum'. If this is really such an important cultural and ethical issue, it would only require each of these ultra-wealthy colleges to give one 10th of their annual investment income to Senate House library to negate the need for the sale (although I'm sure some London colleges and other universities should also be doing their bit). In the case of this particular sale, however, the howling is worth it. It is not right that the first folio should fall into private hands. That said, if we as a united body of academics wish for public institutions across the country to be able to retain rare works of literature, art and culture, we must work to lower the inequality in funding between academic libraries. This must include re-thinking the financial burden that we generate for libraries in our own publication practices and putting our institutions into mutually beneficial situations, rather than competition ..."