The debate of whether to change the name of in-house libraries to `resource
centres' or `information centres' etc. went on ad-infinitum in the early
eighties.  When I considered changing the name of the one I managed, I
realised that there were already four other groups, departments etc.  in our
organisation with information in their name.  All it would have done is
cause confusion.  In my experience, nobody ever seems to know what the
`centre' is,  if it is not a library.  The conversation usually goes like
this:-

First Person:
You'll find it in the Resource Centre, Information Centre, Learning Centre
etc.

Second Person:
What's that?

First Person:
Actually, its the library.

Second Person:
Oh, good.  Why don't  you call it that, if thats what it is?

First Person:
We thought it sounded more contemporary as we have lots of other things
apart from books.  People have such a narrow, antiquated  and  boring
conception of libraries.

It's the same argument about museums.  When so many are fascinating places,
why do you still hear the same old disparaging remarks about them?  Northern
Exposure (yes its back on in Australia for another airing) the ex-astronaut
was trying to decide what to do with his money.  He made some remark about
not wishing to donate it to something as stagnant as a museum!

Thanks for the positive remarks about libraries folks and forget the name
change - a rose by any other name just confuses people.....

Geraldine Rodwell
Reference Librarian, Research Library
Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia