 |
 Quick insight into information-investment
issues for presidents, CAOs, and other
campus leaders from the Council on Library and Information Resources
(CLIR)
Number 15, March/April 2003
The Issue for Presidents and CAOs:
Build A New Library Or A New Library Model?
|
Summary: Three liberal arts colleges near each other
saw two basic options for their libraries. They could go
on operating as now, run out of space in five to ten years,
and hope to afford new buildings. Or the three could collaboratively "de-duplicate" and
weed low-use material, add compact shelving and off-site
storage, explore digital formats for reducing space needs,
and buy cooperatively to save money for creating a joint
collection better than each school could offer individually.
Their study of options indicates that such measures might
work if faculty are closely consulted and accept benefit
trade-offs. |
The Study
|
With a planning grant from the Mellon Foundation,
the Tri-College Library Consortium formed by Bryn Mawr, Haverford,
and Swarthmore studied two central questions:
- Could they overcome library space problems caused by growing
collections and increasing demands for media, teaching, and
student study areas?
- Could they take advantage of their unified online catalog
and other cooperative projects to create a "research-quality
collection" out of their combined holdings?
The following findings should not be assumed to apply to colleges
besides the three that made the study but may help others think
about their individual situations.
|
The Findings
|
Here are some Tri-College findings about collections
acquisition and use:
- Three-fourths of their collections combined rarely circulated,
and more than half their volumes had not been checked out
in ten years.
- Forty percent of their titles were held by more than one
school's library, and in the most recent academic year, 80%
of purchases by one school through its approval program duplicated
purchases of other schools.
- From 20% to 37% of borrowings already were crossing college
borders.
Here are some Tri-College findings about electronic-publishing
trends:
- Although e-books "are not yet a viable substitute for regular
books," they have value as reference books, as reserve readings,
and as browsing copies.
- Print-on-demand, if publishers adopt it, might reduce library
needs to purchase traditional books that might otherwise
not long be available.
- When confident in e-journal publishers' reliability, libraries
might gain space by eliminating duplicate printed sets.
Here are some Tri-College findings about student
and faculty use:
- Unless electronic browsing capabilities and e-text quantities
can be increased, students and faculty will continue to want
to browse books on shelves.
- Duplication-reduction decisions must take into account
on-campus needs for books that provide immediate class support.
- Acquisition decisions must take into account significant
variations among academic disciplines in the use of electronic
information.
Here are some Tri-College findings about space
planning options:
- Space savings from switching to digital from paper reference
works, government documents and journals are increasing,
albeit faster in sciences than in social sciences and humanities.
- Weeding duplicate copies not circulated in more than a
decade can save substantial space but may entail substantial
labor costs and requires care and consultation with faculty.
|
A Possible New Model
|
The three colleges are considering creating
from their separate liberal arts collections an "integrated
research collection." That will require expanding the decision-making
structures and communication tools that they jointly use now.
They think the following areas are most important for collaborative
resolution:
- resolving differences in collection-development decision-making
- coordinating acquisition-approval plans
- developing central management and faculty communications
for weeding
- improving virtual browsing as a substitute for shelf browsing.
|
Additional Information
|
The
Tri-College report is available free on CLIR's Web site at http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub115/pub115.pdf. |
Correction
We regret that "not" was inadvertently omitted from
a statement in CLIRinghouse #13 that should have read: 15.7% believed
strongly or moderately that "the Internet has not changed the way
I use the library."
|