Print

---

> Scientific information has always needed to be
> current information most in research libraries.
> However.....trends for humanities and social
> sciences  are interestingly different.
> [ etc. ]

Then again you've got the interesting line of reasoning
( I came across it again not too long ago, but can't
now remember just where ) that older work in the
social sciences is *in principle* more relevant for
current social sciences researchers than older work
in the humanities is for current humanities researchers.
I bring it up only because it is probably counter-
intuitive for many persons ( including apparently a
highly placed social sciences library director within
the university library system where I worked for
many years, who was especially fervent in throwing
away older publications, including unique copies of
key publications in the history of their disciplines ).

The same line of reasoning applies to foreign-language
social sciences titles' being *in principle* more critical
to social sciences research than are foreign-language
humanities titles to humanities research -- a paradoxical
situation to the extent that e.g. English-language social
sciences researchers seem far less inclined  ( and
able ? ) than are their humanities colleagues to pay
serious attention to even the current non-English-
language literature in their respective fields. And of
course one still sees in the social sciences far less than
in the natural and life sciences the phenomenon that a
great many non-anglophone researchers nonetheless
normally publish their work in English. This is also not
likely to change in the near future.

I would assume ( or at least hope ) that an institution
like Harvard, anyway, wouldn't allow this kind of
intuition or paradox to have an effect on its choices
of what to acquire or to preserve. Google or no
Google.


- Laval Hunsucker
  Breukelen, Nederland