In Japan, public libraries have long been managed by the local governments, however, organizations including private companies began to manage them with the introduction of the designated administrator system in 2003. Nevertheless, whether local governments should apply this system to public libraries is under discussion and some argue that it degrades libraries’ service. To provide basic data for such discussions, we clarify the difference between public libraries managed under the designated administrator system (henceforth “DAS libraries”) with libraries managed directly by local government (henceforth “LG libraries”) focusing on reference service. We obtained data about what services each library provides and how many reference questions each library received from a study “Issues and Perspectives on Reference Services in Libraries of Japan (2013)” made by National Diet Library. Moreover, in order to clarify the change of the number of reference questions received after introduction of the designated administrator system, we obtained time series data from “Statistics on Libraries in Japan” made by Japan Library Association.

The results show that LG libraries tend to answer users’ questions directly, while DAS libraries tend to develop environment where users can find answers for themselves such as providing PCs connected to the Web and giving lecture classes on information skills. Moreover, it is shown that DAS libraries received more reference questions than LG libraries and the number of reference questions tended to increase after the introduction of the designated administrator system in DAS libraries.

The aim of this study was privatization (Shitei-kanrisya-seido) process for public library in Japan. Privatization process has many problems which bidding methods, release of information. The method of this study was conducted by the nationwide survey. This survey consisted of a questionnaire and interview which was distributed to 137 local governments. As the result, the following points were concluded. (1) Local government must be defining the ordinance for release of information which ensuring transparency. (2) Bid method can evaluate the operational aspects by evaluating the bidder by the evaluation item that is not in the price.

The purpose of this research is to examine the disparity in expenses for collections between academic libraries at public universities. While digitization and the rising prices of materials proceed simultaneously, we examine how the disparity between university libraries is transforming. Public universities are managed individually by local governments. Therefore, studies examining the disparity between public universities are absent thus far. We need to investigate the relationship between academic libraries and our society in the digital age. To achieve the purpose of this study, we used the annual data of each academic library included in the “Japanese Library.” We analyzed the disparity between universities and their hierarchies in terms of expenses related to identified variables (expenses for books, printed journals, and e-journals) for each library. The main findings are as follows.

First, disparity between universities and university hierarchies in expenses for books and printed journals is equal to the disparity between the entire cost of the university. Second, disparity between universities and the university hierarchy in expenses for e-journals is greater than that between the entire cost of the university. To further clarify the status of the disparity between public university libraries, more detailed research is required in the future.

Despite the growing trends of openness of research data in the world, the problems on the research data management system in Japan have been pointed out continuously. Leading to the clarification of the causes of this situation, this study took a survey on how the policy measures for research data were deliberated and to what extent they were implemented, on the basis of the policy documents on scientific and technological information in Japan from FY 1960 to 2015. Based on this survey, reasons about the difficulties in forming policy measures for research data management are discussed.

The plan of “data center” was deliberated by early 1970s, and from late 1970s to 1990s, policy measures for research data was investigated under the framework of “numeric data” or “factual data”. However, the policy measures were not implemented satisfactory in those periods. After 2000, research data has been described as a part of “research information infrastructure” or “intellectual infrastructure”, and comprehensive plan or policy measures for research data has not been described in the policy documents independently.