Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Academic libraries are currently undergoing fundamental change. Digitisation, open access, research data management, artificial intelligence, changing learning and research practices, and the transformation of the publishing system are broadening their remit whilst simultaneously raising users’ expectations of them. In international professional discourse, this development is often described as a transition from a collection-centred library to one that is more service- and workflow-oriented. (Dempsey and Malpas 2018; Pinfield, Cox and Rutter 2017; Lavoie and Bryant 2026) This brings with it new opportunities. Libraries can develop new services, align themselves more closely with research and learning processes, and expand their role as an infrastructure for academic communication. At the same time, an institutional tension is emerging. Library services are increasingly breaking down into individual services, some of which could also be provided by other organisational units. This makes the question of what enables the library to remain recognisable as a library all the more pressing. This article proposes framing this question using the concept of the ‘functional identity continuum’. This does not imply a static adherence to traditional forms, but rather an interconnection between collection, selection, cataloguing, contextualisation, access, space, preservation, outreach and institutional responsibility. From this perspective, the library of the future remains a plausible institutional form only if it sustainably integrates new services and anchors them to a core library function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rafael Ball (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: