Opinion paper: access versus holdings.

Explores how the national aspiration of “universal access” to information compares with what is actually happening in practice. Outlines some of the issues which emerge in the debate over access versus holdings, and presents some data from Cranfield University to shed some light on it. The Library and Information Commission’s 20-20 Vision Statement (1997) has rightly emphasized that libraries “provide universal access to the products of the human mind”. This has been echoed by the Library Association’s manifesto statement (1997) that “information is the lifeblood of a democratic society”, and more recently the Labour Government’s commitment to a Freedom of Information Act. The Commission’s statement uses the phrase “universal access” which implies that UK citizens will not be denied access to information by price or other barriers erected by the multiplicity of bodies involved in its provision. What I now wish to explore is how these national aspirations square with what is happening at the library coal face where the emphasis is inevitably on meeting the information needs of the key client groups that a specific library is intended to serve. However, the Anderson Report (Joint Funding Councils’ Libraries Review, 1994) and the subsequent LINC/SCONUL Anderson conference (Wressell and associates, 1997) both reinforced the view that “it is neither feasible nor desirable to expect each institution’s library to provide for all the research needs of its staff and students”. This statement of course can be applied to the entire UK library sector but as we move away from local holdings we need to be clear about a number of issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]