Hi there --
We too at Brandeis are not happy at all with the pricing model. We are a
Carnegie I classification but have an FTE under 5,000. For JSTOR the
Carnegie I fees are fair, since we do have several departments granting PhDs
and heavily involved in academic research (although one could certainly
argue that we have way fewer researchers than Harvard or UCLA, for example).
Art history here, however, is only offered at the undergraduate level
(albeit in an excellent program). It's absurd that we would have to pay
$40,000 for the initial fee and $20,000 per year for the subscription, while
schools with 2, 3, or more times the FTE and huge art departments with 10
times the art majors that we have could get by for much less given their
lower Carnegie status.
The logic (?) behind this equation of JSTOR and ArtSTOR pricing is utterly
askew. Instructors will use ArtSTOR images for courses beginning at the
freshman level, including broad art history surveys that can include 100 or
more students with every major or minor imaginable--this is not research at
a Carnegie I level. The more art courses a school offers, the more use
ArtSTOR will get--and the higher the FTE, the more art courses are taught
(as a rule). While these images will certainly have important research
value, they will primarily be used for instruction, just as slides and their
digital equivalents are now used in art classes. JSTOR articles, on the
other hand, do partly serve sophisticated undergraduate research for papers
(and true, an occasional article may be assigned for course reading--but NOT
research), but the primary user base by far is the graduate students and
faculty (who are absolutely in love with this resource at my institution).
Here a Carnegie basis for pricing is logical and fair.
And while the images in ArtSTOR will certainly have value for faculty
throughout the humanities, particularly those with interdisciplinary courses
or are thinking outside the box and want to bring images into their courses,
the primary users of this resource are going to be the faculty members and
teaching assistants for art history, plus slide and art librarians, which is
generally a very small number of users. This is a completely different
audience and user base than JSTOR, which because of its rich content, has
broad appeal across a wide range of disciplines and appeals to a
comparatively enormous user base.
I do hope the ArtSTOR folks will rethink this model. They've priced it
totally out of reach for us, and I suspect many other smaller universities
with a high Carnegie classification but small art departments that primarily
serve undergraduate education. Is that the point of this worthwhile project?
Regards,
Darwin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Darwin F. Scott
Creative Arts Librarian Leader, Electronic Resources Group
Brandeis University Libraries Music Review Editor, Notes (Music Library
Association)
P.O. Box 549110 / MS 045 phone: 781-736-4680
415 South St. fax: 781-736-4675
Waltham, MA 02454-9110 e-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://www.library.brandeis.edu/staff/creative_arts/dscott.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]
|