But here are some interesting bits. I was hoping to cite only those that avoid the passive, but that just isn’t always possible.

1. “ . . . develop a rigorous research agenda. . . .” For me, the emphasis should be on “rigorous”.

2. “The research library should be redefined as a multi-institutional entity.” This is happening quickly in some areas, more slowly in others. We have an agreement in Ontario that effectively functions as a province-wide policy for print serials holdings for the 20 member libraries of OCUL, but we’re nowhere near consideration of the strategies itemized in this document, which if implemented here would effectively lead to a single provincial library.

3. “Greater collaboration among librarians, information technology specialists, and faculty on research project design and execution should be strongly supported.” I cite this recommendation with interest because what they’re talking about in the context of collaboration are the core elements of a new position I have recently taken on: scholarly publishing, institutional repository development, data curation, and digital resource development. The emphasis here is on faculty research.

Finally, 4. “More funds should be allocated for experimental projects and new approaches,” which dovetails nicely with 8. “Institutions should use studio and design experiences as the basis of a new library school curriculum.” I’d like to bend recommendation 8, though, and apply it to the notion of pursuing experimentation embedded in recommendation 4. Libraries are a built environment physically, virtually, and conceptually. The librarian-as-designer gets to experiment with and ultimately decide how to build (and renovate, and tear down, and rebuild). Exciting!

Incidentally, Part II of No Brief Candle consists of eight essays by conference participants.