Part 2 by David Randal Allen and Karen Allen

Extended Results of the SurveysCombining Answers from the Two Survey Groups


  • Aggregate respondent total from surveys = 82
  • Summary includes data received from pilot participants
  • Surveys = 2 (27 ARL group interviews; 55 Oberlin group electronic responses)
  • Institutions represented = 69 (18 ARL; 51 Oberlin)
  • Institutions submitting multiple responses = 7 (5 ARL; 2 Oberlin)

Percentages cited represent the portion of the respondent groups answering individual questions. While the percentage represents an aggregate of both respondent groups, all respondents did not answer all questions all of the time.

Please note: Respondent answers to open-ended questions have been edited for clarity. Grammar and punctuation errors made by the respondents have not necessarily been corrected.

1.0 ACCESS

[1.1] What are the major strengths of your recorded sound holdings? (open-ended question)

58 respondents (27 ARL; 31 Oberlin)

[N.B., Redundant responses have been excluded from the list below; numbers do not represent coding for the respondent institutions.]

ARL Responses:

  1. Classical music, ethnomusicology selections, lectures and speeches, performances by faculty, students and guest artists at music school from 1945 forward.
  2. The archives of the Ad Council; Carl Sandburg audio recordings (including some instantaneous discs he produced); campus events and other recordings including the radio station; oral histories.
  3. Music, foreign language lab, anthropology, ancient Near East, Oriental Institute.
  4. Western music, popular culture, jazz, oral history, holdings of local interest.
  5. Early popular music; jazz; classical; many cylinders; Latin 45s; opera; voices and speeches.
  6. Classical music, political science and cultural events, psychology, performing arts. The collections include 78s and cylinders to CDs and other digital formats.
  7. Western music, jazz, theatre, history, language.
  8. Recorded sound [holdings] are eclectic by design, including music, politics, labor, popular culture, sports, World War Two era broadcasting, journalism, and lots of voices, oral histories.
  9. Post-1950 concert jazz, other music, performance arts, labor and politics oral histories, speeches, and events.
  10. Speeches on public policy given at the Commonwealth Club of California meetings, 1944 to the present. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcast archive, circa 1951 to present. Smaller audio collections in primarily textual collections documenting political, social, and economic change in the 20th and 21st centuries; including pre-presidential radio addresses of Ronald Reagan, Ella Wolfe oral histories, speeches and lectures of Sir Karl Popper, etc.
  11. Classical vocal and instrumental music collection to support research and teaching. Collection broadened to include American popular and jazz music performances, and a variety of other genres, and spoken word recordings, on a variety of formats from cylinders to CD, magnetic and digital tape, commercially and privately produced.
  12. American poetry, history of science and technology in Silicon Valley, Mexican American history, and world government development (UN proceedings).
  13. Music, spoken word, poetry readings, congressional papers collections (including sound recordings), speeches, lectures, drama (including sound effects), Native peoples’ folklore and language recordings.
  14. Linguistics collections such as cylinder collection of Northwest Indians, Jewish story, Poetry, Drama, including sound effects.
  15. Unique spoken word; US political history; Politics of New York City; African American History; Yiddish Language; American dialects; poetry.
  16. Houston and Austin Symphonies, Radio Dramas from the 1940’s to mid 1960’s, off air recordings of New Orleans Radio Opera programs and NBC Radio Metropolitan Opera programs, Ross Russell’s Dial Records Bebop collection, Texas and Southwestern music, Radio Programs broadcast throughout the Southwest from the 60s, 70s, and 80s including programs on the Mexican American experience and Latin American news; collection of 1960s to date folklore (music and spoken word) relating to Texas, Operas performed in Dallas And Fort Worth, musicals and concerts performed by the Dallas and FT. Worth symphonies.
  17. Politics and government, music and oral histories
  18. Social protest items and poetry readings of writers.
  19. Western classical music, ethnographic music (East Asian genres), film and musical theatre, soundtracks, traditional and popular music.
  20. Yiddish language, Judaica, oral histories.
  21. Western classical music, American popular music, unique spoken word, US political history (New Deal, World Wars, Vietnam); New York City politics; journalism; philanthropy; arts; international relations and history (China, Middle East, Latin America, Africa); woman’s history; African American History; legal history; history of science and medicine; Yiddish language; American dialects; recordings of poetry and authors.
  22. Classical Music; Contemporary Art and Music from Nordic Countries; Polar expeditions studies (Admiral Richard E. Byrd Expeditions radio transcriptions disks, etc.). Cartoon research recordings (oral histories, Festival of Cartoon Art presentations), Literary recordings (James Thurber, William S. Burroughs), Theater research recordings.
  23. West European Classics; World Music; Jazz; American Music Theatre; Stage Plays; Poetry.
  24. Oral histories, National Labor Relations Board, union leaders and members; union conventions and labor leaders’ speeches; labor music; almost exclusively 20th C.
  25. Radio broadcasts, political and feminist; university collections, including lectures and interviews; oral histories; individual collections (e.g., Joyce Brothers).
  26. Jazz, popular music, vintage radio programs, rock ‘n’ roll, blues, country and opera.

Oberlin responses:

  1. Traditional Western music of the 20th century, World music collection with emphasis on the music of African cultures.
  2. New classical music, jazz, ethnomusicology collections
  3. Jazz, classical, romantic period, and American folk recordings. Also small collection of recordings to compliment courses on ‘The Mass’ and ‘Brahms’, as well as course on ‘Conducting’. LP recordings by women folk and early rock singers.
  4. Early music, Baroque, classical, Romantic, 20th-21st century music, jazz, world music, popular music.
  5. Western art music, Native American music, Asian music, Jazz, Quaker history
  6. Ethnomusicology, jazz, classical music.
  7. Documentation of American popular music ca. 1900-1940 (Paul Whiteman Collection) oral histories of college personnel and area residents covering the history of higher education and our local area.
  8. Folklore and folk music Literature Economics International and Domestic Political Science Religion College history.
  9. Western classical music jazz audio books rhythm and blues African music
  10. Folk music American literature Lectures by significant religious, cultural and political figures
  11. Classical music, modern music, world music, jazz and popular music. – Voice recordings of eminent literary and political figures.
  12. Classical music, western European art music, jazz, contemporary music
  13. Standard Western classical repertory; Jazz; range of musical genres by serious contemporary composers, American composers
  14. Early music; Keyboard music
  15. No particular major strengths; uneven collection based on the selection of materials by faculty at a small college
  16. Literature; Sewanee History

[1.2] Name up to five recorded sound collections or individual items of high importance in your library which are currently not accessible and why they are not accessible. (open-ended question)

54 respondents (27 ARL; 27 Oberlin)

[N.B., Redundant responses deleted; numbers do not represent coding for respondent institutions.]

ARL Responses:

  1. [UNIVERSITY] performances; musicals from private collectors not accessioned yet; over 12,000 operas; early music archive; ethnomusicology archive; also collection of [musical performer and composer] recordings.
  2. [American poet] material on obsolete formats; [non-profit organization] archives-although everything is there and physically accessible-in some cases we may not have the equipment to play backÉ. Some of the material is getting fragileÉ The collections cited would be ‘media obsolescent.’
  3. [Jazz Collection] from 20s and 30s; Field recordings on Edison cylinders – no machine; chamber music/new music – un-catalogued; [Jazz Collection] on videotape; and [folk songs] from 1974 to 1985 – ownership issues.
  4. [popular American] music (not accessible); [a Jazz Collection] (not processed, not catalogued); Oral history collections (accessible only via written transcripts).
  5. Cylinders, wax especially, is in need of a grant to preserve. Also have some tinfoil items in need of preservation.
  6. [UNIVERSITY] does preservation on demand, thus most everything is accessible. The [academic center] includes recordings from the 50s – 80s; symphony orchestra recordings – no preservation masters; collection of early 78s and wax recordings.
  7. Entire collection of [spoken word]; [UNIVERSITY] Poetry Collection; Opera; concerts; musical theatre; [jazz musician]; and, collection of dictating machine belts of [major political figure] dictating memoirs.
  8. Everything is accessible. Items on exotic formats need cataloging: news broadcasts from the 70s and 80s on 7-inch reels of magnetic tape; collection on glass discs. Cataloging is our biggest problem.
  9. Oral history of the American Left; Labor songs on tape; concert music.
  10. Audio [broadcast] archive not yet processed; É large in size, with increments still being received, processing ongoing.
  11. [Collections] have no or minimal bibliographic access because of limited staffing, the receipt of large collections, and the inability of traditional cataloging and methods of archival description to deal with processing very large collections of musical and other sound recordings. Other items: [music festival] tape archives – unplayable due to “Sticky-Shed Syndrome”; [opera performer] Collection – tapes are extremely fragile and should not be played except for preservation purposes; [instrumentalist] Collection of private test pressings – not catalogued and no finding aid is available; Transcription disc recordings [of radio broadcasts] are not catalogued; 78 rpm and LP collections are not catalogued.
  12. [NAME] papers – access restricted pending processing; [political activist] papers – access is restricted pending preservation reformatting; [national council] records -large size has impeded efforts to make accessible to researchers; [designer and futurist] collection – reformatting of this collection has begun but size of the collection means much of is still closed to researchers; [international organization] Audio Collection of 35,000 transcription tapes – size of this collection and the projected costs of preservation digitization have impeded efforts to make this collection accessible.
  13. While all recorded sound is accessible, some items require more time to serve than others due to their condition. Some of these collections include holdings from the [center for native languages]; [NAME] Poetry collection.
  14. All collections are accessible, some more easily than others, due to the need to process some items before handing them to users. This is due to some deterioration (especially sticky-shed among magnetic tape holdings).
  15. All collections are accessible-some more easily than others depending on their condition.
  16. Radio Drama series, oral histories with Texas themes, Mexico Folklore collection, and a collections of recordings featuring [mystery writer], [pop artist], and others located in the [UNIVERSITY]’s humanities center.
  17. Oral histories, language recordings in Yiddish, materials are generally less well controlled and usually scattered within collections of other media.
  18. First, is [historical figure] oral history – originals are fragile 2) [historical figure] oral history – no bibliographic control 3) [civil rights organization] – fragile, no bibliographic control 4) political oral histories in general – ca 4000 fragile recordings 5) popular arts oral histories in general – fragile early cassette format 6) [UNIVERSITY] Opera workshops – no bib control, no equipment to play outdated format.
  19. One is Classical MusicÉ. Not accessible because there are first generation (original) formats only. 2) [UNIVERSITY] history. These are accessible. 3) Polar studies (expedition transcription disks) these are accessible. 4) Literary recordings Levels of cataloging are not extensive. 5) Theatre research recordings. Levels of cataloging are not extensive.
  20. Various field recordings; Indian Music (field recordings); new music; Judaica Collections; [poetry and spoken word].
  21. [union oral histories] – tape degradation; [labor leaders] – tape degradation; [national labor organizations] – permissions;
  22. [broadcast shows and news]; [UNIVERSITY] Public Affairs Education Program; Alumni University Lectures; [UNIVERSITY] President interviews around [student unrest]; [1960s activists] project.
  23. Oral history recordings of World War II experiences, the home-front during WWII in [NAME] County, and student life.

Oberlin responses:

  1. Oral history documenting the college, World War II experiences on the home front, and student life. There are interesting only to this community providing an oral record of the institution..
  2. Everything in our collection is accessible to members of the faculty, staff, and students.
  3. We don’t carry any rare sound collections. None of our recordings are available to off campus users b/c of damage & theft.
  4. All holdings are currently accessible.
  5. Alumni Oral History; [NAME] Lectures; Public Affairs Symposiums
  6. Gift of Broadway musicals would be invaluable for voice instructors; but the collection remains uncatalogued; 2) gift from a former professor, his entire LP collection, also remains in storage until we can catalog each title.
  7. Portion of LP collection resides in off-site Depository; Gift (17,000 LPs) is accessible through the inventory list only.
  8. [NAME] Collection of Recorded Jazz.
  9. All of our sound collection is accessible.
  10. Almost everything is fully cataloged. However, the original, archival recordings of all the on-campus concerts, and most of these items are not currently cataloged at all. Also, do not currently loan any of materials through interlibrary loan.
  11. [NAME] radio transcription discs: need to be re-inventoried and re-transferred (older transfer project was not done well); wax cylinder collection – not reformatted, nor has availability through another institution or reprint recordings been researched; earlier oral history projects – no releases gathered at the time, nor were transcripts, use copies or dup. masters made
  12. Everything is accessible
  13. [NAME] ballad collection; [NAME] folk music collection; [NAME] writers school and conference; [NAME] Center lecture archives
  14. College music ensemble 78’s and 33 1/3 LPs – not cataloged; college historian talks- reel/reel, not cataloged, format not usable
  15. Recordings of informal discussion between students and [civil rights leaders] (2 tapes) – on large reel-to-reel requires reformatting (preservation and access copies on CD); Senior seminar lectures, 1966-1972, include wide variety of topics and many guest lecturers (ca. 300 tapes) – only bibliographic control is via local database in Special Collections; currently on various size reel-to-reel audiotape – requires reformatting (preservation copies on CD, access copies as needed)
  16. Not applicable; all recordings are accessible
  17. College recital/concert recordings – not cataloged yet; Collection of nearly 2000 vinyl jazz recordings – approx. 1/2 not cataloged yet
  18. Two audio CDs with copy of [NAME] collection housed in Special Collections – notation of the sound recordings is buried in the bibliographic information in the catalog record for the item and actually accessing the CDs from the Special Collection area is difficult; approximately 130 spoken word recordings that are not cataloged.
  19. [local] history collection.

[1.3a] How does your library promote the use of recorded sound? (open-ended question)

55 respondents (27 ARL; 28 Oberlin)

ARL Respondents

  1. Through [OPAC] and on-line exhibits featuring sound. The sound archives also has a strong community outreach program.
  2. Each area does this differently and has different reasons for promoting or not promoting. Archives are not eager for people to come and use all of very old recordings and equipment. Music library and the media center – geared to students-are accessible. Do try to respond to faculty and student requests for classroom or studio assignments.
  3. Not much promotion. None outside catalog, inventory lists. Some promotion of the [NAME] collection.
  4. On line catalog; bibliography; newsletters.
  5. Public web site, digital archives, oral history web site.
  6. Do not promote. The institution has international status. There is also a Web site.
  7. There is a Web site for special collections and performing arts; there are liaisons with faculty; and always press releases and publicity for new collections.
  8. The library does not promote itself. Scholars, teaching assistants, and professors are aware of what we have.
  9. The media come to us to use materials we hold in the [language lab]. We have a Web site, and a brochure. We have theatre and history scholars visiting us regularly to get the ‘nuances’ obtainable from sound unavailable from printed matter. We also have a number of public domain items posted on line.
  10. Catalogs mainly. We promote the special collections in general catalogs, newsletters, web pages.
  11. Collection level records for all collections are available. Finding aids with additional information on the recordings are available for many collections via the online state archive. Exhibit É was on display at the [NAME] pavilion [for 9 months]. A dedicated Web site for the [NAME] collection is available on the Web. More than five hours of [political figure]’s speeches have been published on audiocassettes É  which represents the opening of this audio archive.
  12. The [NAME] archive has a Website and brochures. The [NAME] publication programs produced several recordings from the collection. The staff participates in organizations such as ARSC.
  13. Electronic EAD finding aids to sound collections are available over the Web. -Faculty outreach through the library’s curatorial staff.
  14. With the use of recorded sound increasing, the need for promotion may not be that important. We promote via our Web pages and catalogs and report new holdings when new acquisitions occur.
  15. The media center holds more popular matter and is more self-promoting via its Web page and via professors and teaching assistants who speak about the audio holdings. Acquisition lists are provided and word of mouth generally brings interest in the collection thereafter.
  16. The music library is self-promoting, considering the extensive music program. New CD acquisitions are promoted on the library Web site; discussion with instructors and word of mouth among students
  17. There is some promotion including lectures and speeches by curators, Web pages, catalogs, otherwise-not much organized promotion. There is more use of CDs around the campus.
  18. Through the catalog and finding aids.
  19. There is some cataloging by item. Others processed as part of an archives, and merely listed in a finding aid.
  20. All students may borrow CDs for at least three days at a time. Otherwise, the library does not need to promote the collection. It promotes itself. Recordings can be browsed in the catalog.
  21. Finding aids, item level descriptions.
  22. Provides playback equipment. Cataloging availability. Item level and archival finding aids for some collections of unique materials.
  23. The library provides playback equipment for standard formats. – Most commercial recordings are catalogued. – Item level or archival finding aids for some collections of unique materials.
  24. Primarily through the library’s online public access catalog.
  25. One site listings; circulation of materials; also Music Library of Circulating Collections; Curator lectures and speeches; streaming audio for major courses.
  26. Described in guides and finding aids; online catalog records in local and national utilities; selected topics noted on the Internet; described in instructional sessions.

Oberlin responses:

  1. By word of mouth. I am often invited to give guest lectures in a variety of classes where music is pertinent, and encourage members of the class to make use of our collection (Latin American History, French literature, etc.) A small number of new releases are displayed on our new bookshelf.
  2. Librarians meet w/ faculty, explain to students how to look up recordings in the catalog
  3. Most acquisitions are at the suggestion of particular faculty for their use. All materials are listed in the public catalogue. No special promotion of materials
  4. Our classical collection is housed in a large glass enclosed room visible on the main floor. Our collection is not currently publicized or promoted. However, the project is in the early stages of being list in archival finding aides.
  5. We do not actively promote its use. It is a non-circulating collection and serves the needs of the music faculty in their teaching.
  6. The recording and score collections moved into the library nine years ago and immediately increased the limited hours of operation from 20 to 84 per week. By virtue of bringing the collection into the library (away from an overcrowded and out of the way location) began to see the foot traffic by non-majors and non-music faculty increase. Within a year of opening the Music Listening Room in the library began to provide a central location to fully catalog and house donations they had received and previously held in office closets and our cataloger makes sure each recording is fully cataloged down to individual tracks in the online catalog. Lastly, address new faculty, demonstrating how to search catalog for recordings they might need in class.
  7. Recordings circulate to the College faculty/staff and students. They also circulate in a limited way to [regional] faculty and students. Music electronic reserves are now available through Blackboard course pages. College faculty and students make suggestions for purchase which are fulfilled whenever possible.
  8. Have no programs at present to promote use of the collections. The [NAME] Collection was a gift that is in the process of being inventoried and cataloged. Other collections exist primarily to support curricular demand.
  9. Through the catalog
  10. Online catalog and streaming audio for reserves
  11. Subject lists full cataloging working directly with faculty website
  12. Listening stations with cd/audiocassette players in the library. Professors are encouraged to place audiocassettes on reserve, so students may listen to them in the library. Also have been assisting professors with using sound files in their Blackboard course pages.
  13. Online catalog. New acquisitions lists.
  14. Web presence. Word-of-mouth. Beginning stages of collaboration between Media Services and Special Collections to develop an audio/visual archive.
  15. Library fully catalogs all sound recording and audio books. Audiobooks have been assigned a special subject heading that facilitates collection browsing. Musical cds are cataloged with special pre-stamp descriptors such as Popular, Medieval, Jazz and Ethnomusicology, and shelved by these categories improving user access.
  16. Extensive analytics in library catalog; working with faculty in area studies to provide music related to curricula and courses; new acquisition lists and displays
  17. Music library highlights new additions to their collection on their webpage. Have also added a small collection of audiobooks we will promote in our library newsletter.
  18. Interest in recorded sound is generated via course requirements in the music and dance departments. Other academic departments also use the collection, as do performers (campus and community). The music librarian writes articles from time to time for campus newsletters to promote use of recordings, and the library brochure describes the collection. Bibliographic instruction provides staff with the opportunity to promote the use of the recordings, too.
  19. We promote thoughtful use of information, regardless of format when copyright/use restrictions allow, copies are provided for researchers and classroom use; web site for the [NAME] Collection in the process of developing a searchable database of our oral history transcripts and audio
  20. CD collection is cataloged in our OPAC. The LP collection, actually owned by the Music Department, is searchable from a card catalog in the music library.
  21. New acquisitions displays seem to encourage people to browse and check out CD’s. New CD lists in the OPAC will help as well. We have seen a significant increase in usage now that our facility has moved from the music building into a far more visible place in the main library.
  22. Access is available in the on-line catalog.

[1.3b] Are you seeing any increased demand for recorded sound in teaching?

78% of respondents answering this question said YES

42 respondents (18 ARL; 24 Oberlin; 40 skipped this question)

[1.4a] Estimate the number of sound recording objects that are in your collection:

59 respondents (26 ARL, 33 Oberlin)

50,001 or more =        15 respondents (14 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 30%

10,001 – 50,000 =       19 respondents (8 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 35 %

5,001 – 10,000 =         11 respondents (1 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 17 %

1,001 – 5,000 =             7 respondents (2 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 12 %

101 – 1,000 =                4 respondents (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 2 %

1 – 100 =                       3 respondents (3 Oberlin) 4 %

(23 skipped this question)

Taken separately, the ARL and Oberlin respondents differ widely with the majority of  ARL respondents reporting recorded sound collection counts above 100,000 and Oberlin respondents reporting collections of up to 50,000 recorded sound objects.

[1.4b] How do you count your collection?

a) by titles =  18 respondents (5 ARL; 13 Oberlin) 32 %

b) by items = 38 respondents (26 ARL; 17 Oberlin) 68 %

(24 skipped this question)

Respondents in both surveys cited lack of cataloguing of their collections as the reason for counting by items.

[1.4.c] If you count by items, does a four disc set equal:

a)    one item?              21 respondents (6 ARL;15 Oberlin) 44 %

b) four items?           24 respondents (17 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 54 %

c)     eight items?          1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

(34 skipped this question)

[1.4d] How do you count duplicates? (open-ended question)

Duplicates counted in inventory.   28 respondents (12 ARL; 26 Oberlin) 33%

Do not count duplicates.                   7 respondents (4 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

Duplicates are eliminated.                 4 respondents (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 10 %

Do not have duplicates.                     3 respondents (3 Oberlin) 4%

Keep separate duplicate inventory.   1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2%

Duplicates are dubs of originals.      1 respondent  (1 Oberlin) 2%

Did not answer.                                  38 respondents (4 ARL; 19 Oberlin) 37%

Respondents typically indicated their policy preference to be for not counting, or eliminating, duplicates from collection counts. But they indicated, this was not always practical, citing lack of cataloguing as the reason duplicates are included in totals.

[1.5] Other than your library in what units of your home institutions are sound collections held? (open-ended question)

Special Collections

Archives

Music department

Music library

Academic departments

Ethnomusicology department

Performing arts center

Athletic department

Computer research center

College radio station

Rare books and manuscripts

Law library

Administrative offices

Communications department

Media center

Off-site depository

Museum

[1.6] Estimate the percentage of your library’s unique and non-duplicate recorded sound objects that are:

a)    original music masters

0 – 25%           35 respondents (15 ARL; 20 Oberlin) 66 %

25 – 50 %          2 respondents (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4%

50 – 75 %          0 responses

75 – 100 %        0 responses

N/A                16 respondents (11 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 30 %

b)    field recordings

0 – 25%           33 respondents (12 ARL; 21 Oberlin) 60 %

25 – 50 %          2 respondents (2 Oberlin) 3 %

50 – 75 %          0 responses

75 – 100 %        0 responses

N/A                19 respondents (14 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 37 %

c)     commercial recording

0 – 25%             9 respondents (6 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 17 %

25 – 50 %          3 respondents (3 ARL) 4 %

50 – 75 %        12 respondents (4 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 20 %

75 – 100 %      21 respondents (6 ARL; 15 Oberlin) 38 %

N/A                11 respondents (8 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 21 %

d)    commercial, but rare

0 – 25%           35 respondents (16 ARL; 19 Oberlin) 65 %

25 – 50 %          3 respondents (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 6 %

50 – 75 %          2 respondents (2 ARL) 3 %

75 – 100 %        1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

N/A                13 respondents (7 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 24 %

e)     oral history

0 – 25%           35 respondents (11 ARL; 24 Oberlin) 65 %

25 – 50 %          3 respondents (3 ARL) 4 %

50 – 75 %          0 responses

75 – 100 %        3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

N/A                12 respondents (9 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 25 %

f)     other spoken word

0 – 25%           36 respondents (11 ARL; 25 Oberlin) 64 %

25 – 50 %          3 respondents (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 5 %

50 – 75 %          3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 5 %

75 – 100 %        6 respondents (5 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 11 %

N/A                  8 respondents (7 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 15 %

g)    natural history

0 – 25%           17 respondents (3 ARL; 14 Oberlin) 35 %

25 – 50 %          0 responses

50 – 75 %          0 responses

75 – 100 %        0 responses

N/A                30 respondents (20 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 65 %

h)    other

0 – 25%             7 respondents (3 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 22 %

25 – 50 %          1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 3 %

50 – 75 %          1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 3 %

75 – 100 %        0 responses

N/A                26 respondents (18 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 72 %

[1.7] Concerning the bibliographical status of your sound collection, estimate the percentage under:

a)    item-level cataloguing

0 – 25%               7 respondents (6 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 12 %

25 – 50 %            6 respondents (5 ARL; 1 Oberlin 11 %

50 – 75 %          11 respondents (4 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 20 %

75 – 100 %        22 respondents (4 ARL; 18 Oberlin) 38%

N/A                  10 respondents (7 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 19 %

b)    collection-level cataloguing

0 – 25%            10 respondents (9 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 40 %

25 – 50 %           3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

50 – 75 %           3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

75 – 100 %         5 respondents (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 10 %

N/A                19 respondents (9 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 38 %

c)     finding aid or inventory

0 – 25%             25 respondents (12 ARL; 13 Oberlin) 49 %

25 – 50 %            3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

50 – 75 %            7 respondents (5 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 12 %

75 – 100 %          3 respondents (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 6 %

N/A                  14 respondents (6 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 27 %

d)    accession record

0 – 25%             15 respondents (5 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 44 %

25 – 50 %          0 responses

50 – 75 %          0 responses

75 – 100 %        4 respondents (3 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 8 %

N/A                28 respondents (16 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 48 %

e)     no cataloguing or inventory

0 – 25%             20 respondents (8 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 41 %

25 – 50 %          6 respondents (3 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

50 – 75 %          1 respondent (1 ARL) 2 %

75 – 100 %        1 respondent (1 ARL) 2 %

N/A                21 respondents (11 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 43 %

f)     other

0 – 25%             2 respondents (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

25 – 50 %          0 responses

50 – 75 %          1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 3 %

75 – 100 %        1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 3 %

N/A                30 respondents (19 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 88 %

g) If other, please describe (open-ended question)

“Have not done serious cataloguing since the 1970s. We have what we call a list.”

 

 

“Cataloging is our biggest problem.”

 

 

“Accounting for items varies per collection.”

 

 

“Bibliographic control variesÉ”

 

 

“Éthere are variations in the state of inventoryÉ”

 

 

 

 

 

[1.8] If applicable, what are the barriers that prevent your library from having a full inventory of its audio collection? Please order by significance, most important first.

 

 

 

 

 

  1. a)    lack of funding

 

 

1          21 respondents (18 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 40 %

 

2          10 respondents (4 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 20 %

 

 

3            1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

4            1 respondent (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

5            1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

6            1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

7            1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

n/a      15 respondents (3 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 30 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    lack of staffing

 

 

1          18 respondents (12 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 34 %

 

2          17 respondents (11 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 29 %

 

 

3            1 respondent (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

4            0 responses

 

 

5            2 responses (2 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

6            0 responses

 

 

7            1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

n/a      16 respondents (3 ARL; 13 Oberlin) 29 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     lack of expertise

 

 

1          0 responses

 

 

2          4 respondents (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

3          3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 7 %

 

 

4          3 respondents (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

5          4 respondents (3 ARL, 1 Oberlin) 9%

 

6          2 respondents (2 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

7               0 responses

 

 

n/a      30 respondents (14 ARL; 17 Oberlin) 66 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    lack of descriptive standards

 

 

1          1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

2          1 respondent (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

3          2 respondents (2 Oberlin) 3 %

 

 

4          3 respondents (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

5          4 respondents (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 9 %

 

6          2 respondents (2 ARL) 3 %

 

 

7          0 responses

 

 

n/a      34 respondents (17 ARL; 18 Oberlin) 73 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. e)     lack of equipment

 

 

1          3 respondents (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

2          5 respondents (4 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 10

 

 

3          7 respondents (5 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 13 %

 

4          5 respondents (4 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 10 %

 

 

5          2 respondent (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

6          3 respondents (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

7          0 responses

 

 

n/a      25 respondents (10 ARL; 16 Oberlin) 51 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. f)     lack of space

 

 

1            4 respondents (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 10 %

 

 

2            2 respondents (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

3          11 respondents (8 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 25 %

 

4            6 respondents (3 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

5                 0 responses

 

 

6                 1 respondent (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

7            0 responses

 

 

n/a      27 respondents (11 ARL; 17 Oberlin) 45 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. g) other

 

1          4 respondents (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

 

2          1 respondents (1 Oberlin) 3 %

 

 

3          0 responses

 

 

4          0 responses

 

 

7                0 responses

 

 

8                0 responses

 

 

7          1 respondent (1 ARL) 3 %

 

 

n/a     31 respondents (19 ARL; 13 Oberlin) 82 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. h)    other, please describe:

 

 

12 respondents (5 ARL; 7 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

“Space is a severe problemÉ making it difficult to respond to requests”

 

 

“Unclear [about] copyright status of recordingsÉof lectures, readings.”

 

 

“Collections are newly acquired and [not yet] inventoriedÉ”

 

 

“[Providing access to] detailed inventory É is a low priority.”

 

 

“Time. Other priorities continually bump cataloguing projectsÉ”

 

 

 

 

 

[Errata: Upon completion of the pilot, questions 1.9 and 1.10 were moved to the top of the survey (positions 1.3a and 1.3b of this text). Questions were not renumbered in order to track responses from the pilots and two surveys.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1.11] How often are rare, non-duplicate titles in your recorded sound collections requested?

 

 

 

 

 

1 – 10 titles          35 respondents (20 ARL; 15 Oberlin) 75 %

 

11 – 50 titles         8 respondents (2 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 16 %

 

 

51 – 100 titles       1 respondents (0 ARL, 1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

101 – 500 titles     4 respondents (0 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 7 %

 

 

500 + titles            0 responses

 

 

 

 

 

are requested per:

 

 

week                      12 respondents (11 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 24 %

 

 

month                   8 respondents (5 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 16 %

 

year                       30 respondents (9 ARL; 21 Oberlin) 60 %

 

 

 

 

other answer:       (open-ended question)

 

 

28 respondents (20 ARL; 8 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

“We do not keep statisticsÉ”

 

 

“By not cataloguing, there is no access if the piece is unprocessed or never been catalogued. É the rare, non-duplicate titles are probably the most under-reported.”

 

 

“There is little knowledge of our unique holdings outside the repository.”

 

 

“Demand É is low in part due to low patron expectations and long turn around times to make requested materials available.”

 

 

“It is rare that we receive requests for rare, non-duplicate materials.”

 

 

“I have no way of knowing.”

 

 

“They are never requested.”

 

 

 

 

 

ARL libraries report a higher frequency of requests of sound recording objects on a weekly basis versus a yearly frequency of activity among Oberlin respondents.

 

 

 

 

[1.12] If applicable, what barriers to access do your users face? Please number them in order of significance, 1 through 10.

 

 

 

 

 

  1. a)    lack of bibliographic control

 

 

1          21 respondents (10 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 47 %

 

2          8 (3 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

3          2 (2 ARL) 5 %

 

 

4          2 (2 ARL) 5 %

 

 

5          4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 9%

 

 

6          2 (2 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

7          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

8          0 responses

 

 

9          0 responses

 

 

10        5 (1 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 11  %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    lack of playback equipment

 

 

1          9 respondents (5 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 28 %

 

2          3 (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 9 %

 

 

3          5 (2 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 14 %

 

 

4          3 (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

5          5 (5 Oberlin) 14 %

 

 

6               2 (2 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

7          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

8          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

9          1 (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

10        4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 13 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     lack of reference staff

 

 

1          2 respondents (2 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

2          7 (5 ARL, 2 Oberlin) 26 %

 

3          4 (2 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

4          1 (1 ARL) 4 %

 

 

5          5 (2 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 16 %

 

 

6          4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

7          2 (2 Oberlin) 6  %

 

 

8          0 responses

 

 

9          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

10        4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 13 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    lack of technical staff

 

 

1          2 respondents (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

2          5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 16 %

 

3          3 (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 10 %

 

 

4          4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

5          4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

6          4 (3 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 13 %

 

 

7          3 (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

8          3 (3 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

9          1 (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

10        5 (1 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 14 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. e)     lack of technical expertise

 

 

1          2 respondents (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

2          4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 17 %

 

3          1 (1 Oberlin) 2%

 

 

4          3 (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

5          2 (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

6          3 (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

7          2 (2 ARL) 11 %

 

 

8          3 (3 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

9          4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 17 %

 

10        4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 13 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. f)     lack of funding

 

 

1          11 (7 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 35 %

 

2          8 (4 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 25 %

 

 

3          4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

4          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

5          3 (3 Oberlin) 7 %

 

 

6          0 responses

 

 

7          2 (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

8          2 (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

9          0 responses

 

 

10        2 (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. g)    lack of reference copies

 

 

1          4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

2          7 (5 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 23 %

 

3          5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 16 %

 

 

4          4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

5          3 (1 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

6          3 (3 Oberlin) 8%

 

 

7          1 (1 ARL) 3%

 

 

8          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

9          1 (1 Oberlin) 3 %

 

 

10        4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. h)    lack of space

 

 

1          5 (1 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

2          2 (2 ARL) 8 %

 

 

3          4 (4 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

4          4 (3 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 14 %

 

 

5          1 (1 Oberlin) 2%

 

 

6          5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 17 %

 

7          3 (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 10 %

 

 

8          0 responses

 

 

9          3 (3 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

10        5 (2 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 15%

 

 

 

 

 

  1. i)      remote storage

 

 

1          5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 16%

 

2          5 (2 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

3          5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 16 %

 

4          1 (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

5          2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

6          0 responses

 

 

7          1 (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

8          2 (2 ARL) 8 %

 

 

9          1 (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

10        11 (3 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 33 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. j)      intellectual property rights

 

 

 

 

 

1          4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

2          6 (2 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 16 %

 

 

3          7 (4 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 21 %

 

4          3 (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 10%

 

 

5          4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12%

 

 

6          2 (2 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

7          0 responses

 

 

8          2 (2 ARL) 6 %

 

 

9          1 (1 ARL) 3%

 

 

10        7 (2 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 19 %

 

 

 

 

 

k ) other barriers, please describe:

 

 

 

 

 

22 respondents (12 ARL; 10 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

“Overall response is: Lack of bibliographic control and concern for preserving originals.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Funding would solve everything, so it is 1. Unclear property rights is 2 because it does not make sense to catalog anything until we are sure that we will be able to use it, so bibliographic control is logically 3. We often have trouble finding a place to sit so I decided that lack of space should be a 4.”

 

 

 

 

 

“There are variations in the state of inventory depending on individual collectionsÉ “

 

 

 

 

 

“Preservation concerns”

 

 

 

 

 

“Lack of publicity about what we hold.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Deterioration of magnetic tape.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Need technical staff to make copies from damaged originals.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Our collection is in the LP format – few of our patrons have turntables. Therefore, the collection is rarely used.”

 

 

 

 

 

[1.13] In percentages, what is the breakdown of users of your audio collection?

 

 

  1. a)    Undergraduates

 

 

0-20 % 12 (9 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 21 %

 

 

20-40                 6 (4 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 9%

 

 

40-60                 9 (2 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

60-80               16 (6 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 27 %

 

80-100                   10 (1 ARL; 9 Oberlin) 16 %

 

 

n/a                    6 (5 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    Graduates

 

 

0-20 %            20 (10 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 40 %

 

20-40               12 (11 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 22 %

 

 

40-60                 3 (3 ARL) 6 %

 

 

60-80                 0 responses

 

 

80-100               0 responses

 

 

n/a                  15 (3 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 32 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     Faculty

 

 

0-20% 26 (12 ARL; 14 Oberlin) 46 %

 

20-40               13 (7 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 22 %

 

 

40-60               10 (2 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 17 %

 

 

60-80                 2 (2 Oberlin) 3 %

 

 

80-100               0 responses

 

 

n/a                    6 (5 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 12 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    visiting scholars

 

 

0-20 %            22 (8 ARL; 14 Oberlin) 45 %

 

20-40                 5 (5 ARL) 10 %

 

 

40-60                 5 (5 ARL) 10 %

 

 

60-80                 2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

80-100               1 (1 Oberlin) 2 %

 

 

n/a                  14 (7 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 27 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. e)     alumni

 

 

0-20 %            20 (10 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 40 %

 

20-40                 1 (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

40-60                 0 responses

 

 

60-80                 0 responses

 

 

80-100               0 responses

 

 

n/a                  25 (15 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 50 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. f)     public

 

 

0-20                 27 (12 ARL; 15 Oberlin) 53 %

 

20-40               8 (5 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

40-60               1 (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

60-80               0 responses

 

 

80-100             0 responses

 

 

n/a                  15 (9 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 29 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. g)    media/corporate

 

 

0-20                 20 (13 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 37 %

 

20-40               1 (1 ARL) 2 %

 

 

40-60               2 (2 ARL) 4 %

 

 

60-80               0 responses

 

 

80-100                   0 responses

 

 

n/a                  27 (11 ARL; 16 Oberlin) 57 %

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1.14] Have you made recorded sound objects available on:

 

 

 

 

  1. a)    the Internet?

 

 

Yes            17 (12 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 31 %

 

 

No             41 (14 ARL; 27 Oberlin) 69 %

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    an Intranet?

 

 

Yes            17 (6 AL; 11 Oberlin) 29 %

 

 

No             39 (18 ARL; 21 Oberlin) 71 %

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     CD-R?

 

 

Yes            29 (21 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 53 %

 

No             29 (5 ARL: 24 Oberlin) 47 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    CD-ROM?

 

 

Yes            17 (10 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 32 %

 

 

No             37 (15 ARL; 22 Oberlin) 68 %

 

 

 

 

  1. e)     DVD?

 

 

Yes            14 (7 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 27 %

 

 

No             40 (16 ARL; 24 Oberlin) 73 %

 

 

 

 

  1. f)     Analog media?

 

 

Yes            44 (22 ARL; 22 Oberlin) 80 %

 

No             12 (3 ARL; 9 Oberlin) 20 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. g)    Other answer:

 

 

13 (7 ARL; 6 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

“Rights present a barrier to placing items on the Internet”

 

 

Also making transfers to DAT format.

 

 

Four respondents mentioned development of electronic reserves.

 

 

 

 

 

2.0 Rights

 

 

[2.1] Do you have challenges with legal compliance and:

 

 

  1. a) Your right to preserve unpublished holdings?

 

Yes      8 (5 ARL, 3 Oberlin) 14 %

 

 

No       50 (21 ARL; 29 Oberlin) 86 %

 

 

  1. b) Your right to preserve rare commercial recordings?

 

Yes      13 (9 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 25 %

 

 

No       45 (17 ARL; 28 Oberlin) 75 %

 

 

  1. c) Privacy rights of oral history recording subjects?

 

Yes      19 (13 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 36 %

 

 

No       37 (12 ARL; 25 Oberlin) 64 %

 

 

  1. d)    Your right to offer access to commercial recordings?

 

 

Yes      27 (15 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 48 %

 

 

No       31 (11 ARL; 20 Oberlin) 52 %

 

 

  1. e) Your right to offer access to unpublished recordings?

 

Yes      20 (14 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 36 %

 

 

No       32 (12 ARL; 20 Oberlin) 64 %

 

 

  1. f) Describe other impediments:

 

 

16 respondents (12 ARL; 5 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

ARL respondents:

 

“Looking at my understanding of copyright law, limited as it is, you are allowed to make one copy of something for preservation purposes. It is the access that really is the question down the line.”

 

 

 

 

 

“There are no challenges based on our understanding of Ôfair use.'”

 

 

 

 

 

“We worry about Ôfair use’ and copyright law because everything is changing so fast, there is a lot of confusion about which direction to go.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Lack of clarity of copyright law is the biggest issue. Documentation is the greatest problem in identifying rights.”

 

 

 

 

 

“In many cases, determining the copyright holders of particular sound recordings is not possible with our current resources.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Determining copyright holders is not possible in many cases.”

 

 

 

 

 

“There are a number of unprocessed gift collections for which we do not know the status of rights.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Digital access to recordings is highly problematic.”

 

 

 

 

 

” We must be concerned with the failure of collection users to comply fully with their copyright compliance obligations when using research duplicates which we have created.

 

 

 

Oberlin respondent:

 

 

“Have had challenges by students to download music onto the laptop computers which I constantly remind them is not legal.”

 

 

 

[2.2 ] Estimate the percentage of your recorded sound collection that includes documentation that could be useful in sorting out ownership or copyright issues:

 

 

0 – 20 %          13 (4 ARL; 9 Oberlin) 21%

 

20% – 40%         5 (4 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 9 %

 

 

40% – 60%         9 (4 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

60% – 80%       10 (6 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 17 %

 

 

80% – 100%       9 (5 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 16 %

 

 

N/A                17 (4 ARL; 13 Oberlin) 22 %

 

 

 

[2.3] If your library has items from its audio collection on the Internet:

 

 

  1. a)    Did you consult an attorney about the risk?

 

 

Yes            14 (10 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 49 %

 

 

No             12 (5 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 51 %

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    Did you post the audio without legal consultation?

 

 

Yes              9 (5 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 36 %

 

 

No             16 (9 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 64 %

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     Are you confident you have obtained all necessary legal permission (clearances)?

 

 

Yes            18 (10 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 69 %

 

No               8 (5 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 31 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    Are offerings restricted to public domain matter?

 

 

Yes            7 (5 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 27 %

 

 

No             18 (10 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 73 %

 

 

3.0 Preservation

 

 

[3.1] Define the values of a sound recording that make it worthy of preservation.

 

 

54 respondents (27 ARL; 27 Oberlin) [duplicative answers deleted below]

 

 

 

ARL respondents:

 

  1. [UNIVERSITY] has a large collection of electronic reserves deemed worthy of preservation because they have been requested. Otherwise, you will get a different answer to this question from everyone you ask.
  2. This is a big question. It really depends on the intellectual value and artifactual value ascribed to the piece by the collection managers and the individuals in our library that are responsible for that item. However, uniqueness would be one thing that would make it worthy. Potential for use, a hard thing to judge, but we do it all the time. Those are probably the two biggest. The third I would say is the stability of the media and the ability to locate playback equipment.
  3. Uniqueness, research value, need for preservation.
  4. Music – unique or rare; instantaneous recordings that are fragile; local history value; inability to replace. Oral history collection is all worthy of preservation.
  5. Format, performer, content value, teaching value, language.
  6. Historical value; rarity; research interest.
  7. Importance of the performer. Fragility, such as lacquer-coated instantaneous discs and cylinders. Value to instruction is important, too.
  8. Must be old or rare and make some contribution to scholarly knowledge. We have examples of some of the first recordings, including the voice of Florence Nightingale from 1890, up to Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart, and others. Hearing these voices adds another dimension to our understanding of who these people were.
  9. 1) Content, research value 2) scarcity 3) quality of sound
  10. Given our collection policy, which focuses on political, economic, and social change in the 20th and 21st centuries, we collect and preserve recordings that include oral histories and speeches of people who have made an impact on this period.
  11. Recordings of music document differences in performance practice for classical music and are the primary sources for the creation of jazz and popular music. Recordings of radio broadcasts document live musical performance, drama, news, and cultural events that do not appear in written sources. Recordings of musicians readers, lecturers, politicians, etc. provide an exact rendering of their work that convey nuances and meaning that cannot be represented through a transcript of the event or through notated music. Recordings of prominent performers and other people whose contributions are historically and culturally significant are primary candidates for preservation, but also the work and oral histories of ordinary people document life and events from previous decades. Some recordings are on media whose physical properties deteriorate faster than other such as acetate discs, acetate tapes, and some Mylar tapes. Others are recorded on formats for which the machines for playback are obsolete and are not easily used such as cylinders, wire recordings, and early-computerized sound.
  12. High use; Unique; Research value; State of Preservation
  13. Content, uniqueness, user interest, sound quality, historical value, value to teaching.
  14. Value of content, usefulness to teaching, uniqueness, historical value, user interest, and sound quality.
  15. Content, uniqueness, historical value, potential curricular use, user interest, sound quality.
  16. Uniqueness, historical value, condition of original.
  17. Uniqueness.
  18. Significance of content.
  19. Content, uniqueness, relevance of content to mission of the library.
  20. In the music library, sound recordings are neither more nor less worthy of preservation than other formats. It is the content that matters.
  21. Uniqueness or comparative rarity; content value for research and teaching; sound quality; lack of stability of the medium.
  22. Uniqueness or comparative rarity; content value for research and teaching; sound quality; lack of stability of the medium. Unique historical conversation that cannot be replicated or has not existed in that form previously; is autobiographical in nature but historically focused.
  23. Uniqueness or comparative rarity; content values for research and teaching; sound quality; lack of stability of the medium; documentation of a musical work; aesthetic documentation of a performance; oral histories—unique historical conversation that cannot be replicated and has not existed in that form previously; autobiographical in nature but historically focused.
  24. 1) recordings of well-known musicians, faculty, and the important performances of contemporary music. 2) Oral history. 3) Unique recordings of primary sources, such as the [expedition] recordingsÉ. 4) Unique recordings of interviews with prominent persons from the theatre.
  25. Unstable materials; poor condition; damaged materials.
  26. Archival significance.
  27. Unique documentation of a core subject or under documented subject; potential research value.

 

 

 

Oberlin responses:

 

  1. Of historical interest to the institution. Of historical interest to the state or nation. Collections or rare cultural recording made commercially. Out of print.
  2. Some combination of: Uniqueness; quality; enduring historical value (e.g. as a historical “record” of the College, or a voice recording of eminent individual.
  3. Best recording; number of pressings/copies made; artist or speaker prominence
  4. Selection and requests.
  5. Quality of sound, performer/speaker, uniqueness.
  6. It represents a unique performance/event of a creative work by an artist.
  7. Rarity; value of content; obsolescence of medium; amount of use.
  8. In general: 1) Intellectual, artistic, or cultural content 2) Format (obsolete formats, errors in pressings, etc.)
  9. Unique or original recording of a campus event. Popular out of print title.
  10. For our situation: 1. Importance to institutional history 2. Importance to the curriculum 3. Rarity; no means of obtaining a replacement copy in original medium or new medium (for commercial recordings).
  11. Rare or unique status; preservation condition of the original; manner in which the item/content relates to research goals of our institution and the larger scholarly community; amount of use the item is likely to receive
  12. Local, on-campus concerts or a heavily used item that is no longer commercially available
  13. Cultural Historical Pedagogical Rareness Relates to the college
  14. Preservation-worthy criteria: 1. Representative of an important artist or artistic form or period. 2. Rare or rarely in good condition. 3. For a collection, comprehensive or representative of the material collected.
  15. Relative rarity historic performance/importance of performer or conductor.
  16. A sound recording of a noteworthy performance or the speaker/singer/conductor provided rare insight into a body of work. It would also be valuable to house somewhere one recording of every single published work of music.
  17. We have not undertaken any preservation measures for our sound recordings. At this point I would only approve making a preservation copy of a sound recording held in the Archives that is of a lost or no longer used format.
  18. Uniqueness that is of some historical, social, or scientific significance
  19. Our non-commercial recordings are local projects, for example oral histories of alums who lived through [a power plant accident].
  20. Much depends on local context. All unique/rare recordings cannot be preserved, so one needs to consider the item’s relevance to local history, to the curriculum, to the collection in which it sits, as well as other cost/time/staff factors.
  21. Speakers or performances of historical importance to college.
  22. Rarity, intellectual significance, unstable recording medium
  23. The nature of the work and the quality of the performance.
  24. One of a kind interviews. Age of material. Stability of recording format.

 

 

 

Keyword = # of appearances in responses to question 3.1:

 

unique, uniqueness = 25

 

 

history, historic, historic value = 21 (not, oral history)

 

 

rare, rarity, rareness = 17

 

 

content = 15

 

 

music = 12

 

 

quality = 10

 

 

research, research value = 9

 

 

sound quality = 6

 

 

teaching, teaching value = 6

 

 

content value, value of content = 6

 

 

culture, cultural = 5

 

 

oral history = 3

 

 

intellectual, intellectual value = 3

 

 

scholar, scholarly = 2

 

 

curriculum, value to the curriculum = 2

 

 

 

 

 

[3.2] In your inventory of preservation-worthy sound recordings, estimate the percentage that are:

 

 

 

 

  1. a)    original or master recordings

 

 

0-20%             16 (5 ARL, 11 Oberlin) 28 %

 

20% – 40%         5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

40% – 60%         4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 7 %

 

 

60% – 80%         8 (5 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 15 %

 

 

80% – 100%     13 (6 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 22 %

 

 

n/a                  11 (6 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 20 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    rare commercial recordings

 

 

0-20% 27 (10 ARL; 17 Oberlin) 48 %

 

20% – 40%         7 (3 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 13 %

 

 

40% – 60%         5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 9 %

 

 

60% – 80%         2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 3 %

 

 

80% – 100%       0 responses

 

 

n/a                  15 (10 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 27 %

 

 

 

[3.3] What percentage of your preservation-worthy sound has been copied to:

 

 

  1. a)    duplication masters

 

 

0-20%       24 (13 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 45 %

 

20% – 40%       4 (2 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 7 %

 

 

40% – 60%       4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 7 %

 

 

60% – 80%       0 responses

 

 

80% – 100%     2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 3 %

 

 

n/a                  21 (8 ARL; 14 Oberlin) 38 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    listening copies

 

 

0-20%        28 (13 ARL; 15 Oberlin) 50 %

 

20% – 40%       3 (3 ARL) 5 %

 

 

40% – 60%       7 (3 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 13 %

 

 

60% – 80%       0 responses

 

 

80% – 100%     0 responses

 

 

n/a                  18 (6 ARL; 13 Oberlin) 32 %

 

 

 

 

[3.4] What percentage of your preservation-worthy sound inventory is accessible for listening?

 

 

 

 

 

0-20%                9 (4 ARL; 5 Oberlin) 17%

 

 

20% – 40%         2 (2 ARL) 1 %

 

 

40% – 60%      16 (8 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 32 %

 

60% – 80%         4 (1 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 8 %

 

 

80% – 100%  22 (10 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 42 %

 

 

 

[3.5] Of those items of recorded sound for which you do not have listening copies, what percentage is denied access for preservation reasons?

 

 

 

 

0-20% 37 (15 ARL; 22 Oberlin) 71 %

 

20% – 40%         5 (1 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 9 %

 

 

40% – 60%         2 (2 ARL) 4 %

 

 

60% – 80%         3 (2 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 6 %

 

 

80% – 100%    5 (5 ARL) 10 %

 

 

 

 

[3.6] What percentage of your recorded sound collection lacks appropriate playback equipment, presenting a barrier to preservation?

 

 

 

 

 

0-20% 43 (19 ARL; 25 Oberlin) 81 %

 

20% – 40%         2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

40% – 60%         6 (3 ARL; 3 Oberlin) 11 %

 

 

60% – 80%         2 (2 ARL) 4 %

 

 

80% – 100%       0 responses

 

 

 

 

 

[3.7] Have you undertaken a recorded sound preservation project in the last 5 years? If so, what was the reason? Please explain: [open- ended question]

 

 

 

 

 

36 respondents (27 ARL; 19 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

ARL responses:

 

 

“Our digitization is viewed more as a service to the school of music and faculty and students, but it is indeed preservation.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Reformatting some oral historiesÉ because the original cassettes were deterioratingÉ”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes. To restore deteriorating masters.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Preservation is on demand. We have 100s of thousands of hours of material to go. We are seeking grant money to copy all 8,000 of our cylinders.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes,É.re-record some Edison recordings. We are constantly migrating everything to digital.”

 

 

 

 

 

” We have raised $250,000 from private sources for a conservation laboratory that will include digital audio equipment.”

 

 

 

 

 

“[Recordings] of [a jazz festival] and individual items that were determined to be at risk of deteriorating [have been preserved].”

 

 

 

 

 

Special Collections has undertaken three small sound preservation projects in the last eight years. The impetus was to provide access and preserve high use and unique audio records. An equally important goal was to develop project plans and standards for digitizing spoken work audio.

 

 

 

 

 

“Reformatting of open reel tapes, transfer of cylinder recordings to other formats, processing of tapes with ‘sticky-shed’.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Reformatting of spoken word poetry LPs; audio from video tapes copied and preserved; [NAME] Linguistics collection – cylinders duplicated; Mozart Vocal music – open reel tapes preserves and duplicated.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Reformatting of the Vocal Series from open reel. Very few items are not considered accessible.”

 

 

 

 

 

” We operate an ongoing preservation process as sound objects are requested. Collections are 100 percent accessible. Recorded sound objects are never denied when specifically requested. Only about 1 percent of objects are lacking appropriate playback equipment.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes. [We reformatted] a collection [from the] 1950s to 1970s, ca 5,000 hours, carried out 1998 to present. Reason for project: deterioration of media.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Eisenhower Era political Histories, 1000 hours, carried out 2002 to present.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Composers Tapes, 1960-1990, 320 hours, carried out in 1997-98 2) Composer forum tapes, 600 hours, carried out 1998-99 Reason for projects: Deteriorating conditions.”

 

 

 

 

 

“We have cleaned our collections of transcription disks (2,000) and placed them in acid free containers. We have created duplicate cassettes and reel-to-reel copies of original cassette recordings of unique theatre personnel interviews. We have created duplicates of reel-to-reel tapes of literary value, and created use cassette copies of same.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes. [We copied a collection] of Indian music. [In addition at our institution is also a long term] digital library initiative.”

 

 

 

 

 

Oberlin responses:

 

“We have not. We need to.”

 

 

 

 

 

“[The institution has done a] format transfer of U-matic, reel to reel, and Beta to VHS holdings.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes: [We have done a survey of a song collection] to assess state of collection and provide foundation for future preservation work and grant applications.”

 

 

 

 

 

“In 1998 [the institution sent out] a small group of reel-to-reel tapes of College recital performances [to a private company] where they were rewound and repackaged.”

 

 

 

 

 

“[The institution] is developing a web-based project to make oral history material available.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes. Some of our old on-campus concerts were recorded onto reel-to-reels, and we converted them to audiocassette.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yes, we had an opportunity to take advantage of a sound engineer using funds out of our operational budget.”

 

 

 

 

 

“[Preservation is under way for a] retrospective conversion of LP collection; collection of oral history interviews with jazz musicians and will be transferring to DVD with master and use copies.”

 

 

 

 

 

4.0  Funding and Resources

 

 

[4.1] What is the number of FTEs in your institution assigned to your recorded sound collection?

 

 

 

 

  1. a)    audio engineer(s)

 

 

 

 

 

Of 41 respondents (21 ARL; 20 Oberlin) to this question, 30 reported 0 audio engineers; 11 respondents who reported employees did so at an average of 0.73 FTEs.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARLs reported 2 audio engineers

 

 

3 ARLs reported 1 audio engineer

 

 

4 ARLs reported .5 or fewer audio engineers

 

 

14 ARLs reported 0 audio engineers

 

 

2 Oberlins reported 1 audio engineer

 

 

2 Oberlins reported .5 or fewer audio engineers

 

 

16 Oberlins reported 0 audio engineers

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    curator(s)

 

 

 

 

 

Of 45 respondents (23 ARL; 22 Oberlin) to this question,  16 reported 0 curators; 29 respondents who reported curator positions did so at an average of 0.9 FTEs.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARLs reported 3 curators

 

 

4 ARLs reported 2 curators

 

 

2 ARLs reported 1.5 curators

 

 

5 ARLs reported 1 curator

 

 

6 ARLs reported .5 or fewer curators

 

 

6 ARLs reported 0 curators

 

 

2 Oberlins reported 2 curators

 

 

3 Oberlins reported 1 curator

 

 

5 Oberlins reported .5 or fewer curators

 

 

12 Oberlins reported 0 curators

 

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     cataloguer(s)

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 49 respondents (23 ARL; 26 Oberlin) to this question, 14 reported 0 cataloguers. Those reporting staffing of the position did so at an average of 0.59 FTEs.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARLs reported 5.5 cataloguers

 

 

2 ARLs reported 2 cataloguers

 

 

1 ARLs reported 1.75 cataloguers

 

 

3 ARLs reported 1 cataloguer

 

 

7 ARLs reported .5 or fewer cataloguers

 

 

9 ARLs reported 0 cataloguers

 

 

1 Oberlins reported 3 cataloguers

 

 

1 Oberlins reported 2 cataloguers

 

 

2 Oberlins reported 1.5 cataloguers

 

 

3 Oberlins reported 1 cataloguer

 

 

2 Oberlins reported .75 cataloguers

 

 

13 Oberlins reported .5 or fewer cataloguers

 

 

5 Oberlins reported 0 cataloguers

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    student staff

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 44 respondents to this question (22 ARL; 22 Oberlin), 14 reported 0 student staff. Respondents reporting student staff did so at an average of 1.14.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARL reported 6 student staff

 

 

1 ARL reported 5 student staff

 

 

1 ARL reported 3 student staff

 

 

6 ARLs reported 2 to 2.5 student staff

 

 

3 ARLs reported 1 to 1.5 student staff

 

 

5 ARLs reported .5 or fewer student staff

 

 

6 ARLs reported 0 student staff

 

 

1 Oberlin reported 6 student staff

 

 

3 Oberlins reported 3 student staff

 

 

1 Oberlins reported 2 student staff

 

 

5 Oberlins reported 1 to 1.5 student staff

 

 

2 Oberlins reported fewer than .5 student staff

 

 

10 Oberlins reported 0 student staff

 

 

 

 

 

  1. e)     reference staff

 

 

 

 

 

There were 46 respondents (22 ARL; 24 Oberlin) with 18 reporting 0 reference staff. The respondents reporting reference staff did so at an average of 0.55.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARL reported 3.5 reference staff

 

 

1 ARL reported 3 reference staff

 

 

1 ARL reported 1.7 reference staff

 

 

5 ARLs reported 1 reference staff

 

 

9 ARLs reported .5 or fewer reference staff

 

 

6 ARLs reported 0 reference staff

 

 

2 Oberlins reported 4 reference staff

 

 

3 Oberlins reported 1 reference staff

 

 

1 Oberlin reported .75 reference staff

 

 

6 Oberlins reported .5 or fewer reference staff

 

 

12 Oberlins reported 0 reference staff

 

 

 

 

 

  1. f)     preservation specialist(s)

 

 

 

 

 

Of the 41 respondents to this question (20 ARL; 21 Oberlin),  27 reported having 0 preservation specialists. Respondents reporting preservation specialists did so at an average of 0.1.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARLs reported 1 preservation specialist

 

 

3 ARLs reported .5 preservation specialists

 

 

6 ARLs reported .25 or fewer preservation specialists

 

 

11 ARLs reported 0 preservation specialists

 

 

1 Oberlins reported .25 preservation specialists

 

 

4 Oberlins reported .1 preservation specialists

 

 

16 Oberlins reported 0 preservation specialists

 

 

 

 

 

  1. g)    other

 

 

 

 

 

21 respondents (14 ARL; 7 Oberlin) reported other employees and made other comments.

 

 

 

 

 

1 ARL reported 1 general clerical staff position.

 

 

1 ARL reported that this question [4.1] was difficult to answer because audio engineers and other audio specialists exist in other parts of the university. While they are available as needed, they cannot be counted as library or special collection staff.

 

 

1 Oberlin reported a 0.5 music librarian

 

 

1 Oberlin reported that all recorded sound is the responsibility of individual department heads in consultation with the music librarian.

 

 

 

 

[4.2] Is your budget for preservation and access of sound recordings a specific line item?

 

 

 

 

 

ALL =                         Yes      3 respondents (3 ARL; 0 Oberlin) 5 %

 

 

No       55 respondents (23 ARL; 32 Oberlin) 95 %

 

 

 

 

ARL =                         Yes      3 respondents 11 %

 

 

No       23 respondents 89 %

 

 

 

 

Oberlin =         Yes      0 respondents 0 %

 

 

No       32 respondents 100 %

 

 

 

 

 

[4.3] Estimate the percentage of your budget for preservation and access (not including acquisitions) from:

 

 

 

 

  1. a)    dedicated funds

 

 

0 – 25 %          16 (4 ARL; 12 Oberlin) 28 %

 

25 – 50 %        2 (2 ARL) 1 %

 

 

50 – 75 %        2 (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) 4 %

 

 

75 – 100 %      5 (3 ARL; 2 Oberlin) 9  %

 

 

n/a                  31 (15 ARL; 18 Oberlin) 58  %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    soft money

 

 

0 – 25 %          15 (4 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 26 %

 

25 – 50 %        1 (1 Oberlin) 1 %

 

 

50 – 75 %        2 (2 ARL) 4 %

 

 

75 – 100 %      11 (11 ARL) 23 %

 

 

n/a                  25 (8 ARL; 20 Oberlin) 46 %

 

 

 

[4.4] What is the size of your budget for preservation and access of sound recordings?

 

      • 50 respondents (27 ARL; 23 Oberlin) answered this question.
      • 21 respondents reported annual spending at a grand total of $1,367,800  ($1,342,000 ARL or an average of $51,600 per responding ARL institutions;  $34,800 Oberlin or an average of $1,500 per responding Oberlin institution) or an average of $27,300 among all responding institutions, excluding those answering “$0.00” or “not known.”

 

 

 

        • 28 respondents (13 ARL; 15 Oberlin) said $0.00
        • 6 respondents (3 ARL; 3 Oberlin) answered “Not Known”
        • 1 respondent (1 Oberlin) reported of $800
        • 2 respondents (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) reported $1000.
        • 1 respondent (Oberlin) reported  $2,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $3,000
        • 2 respondents (1 ARL; 1 Oberlin) reported $5,000
        • 1 respondent (Oberlin) reported $25,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $30,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $30,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $35,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $50,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $85,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported $100,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported  $300,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported a budget of $330,000
        • 1 respondent (ARL) reported a budget of $400,000

 

Three ARLs and 0 Oberlins in 4.2 reported a formal “budget” for sound recording preservation and access; most work from grant money or calculating a percentage of the value of existing salaries toward sound recording activities.

 

 

5.0 Policy

 

 

[5.1] Does your library or institution have a written policy for

 

 

  1. a)    preservation or original sound recordings

 

 

Yes            10 (8 Arl; 2 Oberlin) 20 %

 

 

No             45  (16 ARL; 29 Oberlin) 80 %

 

 

 

 

  1. b)    inventory control

 

 

Yes            20 (12 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 38 %

 

 

No                         35 (12 ARL; 23 Oberlin) 62 %

 

 

 

 

  1. c)     bibliographic control

 

 

Yes            39 (16 ARL; 23 Oberlin) 72 %

 

No             16 (8 ARL; 8 Oberlin) 28 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. d)    property rights

 

 

Yes            25 (11 ARL; 14 Oberlin) 49 %

 

 

No             28 (11 ARL; 17 Oberlin) 51 %

 

 

 

 

  1. e)     privacy rights (especially with spoken work/oral history holdings

 

 

Yes            22 (11 ARL; 11 Oberlin) 45 %

 

 

No             30 (11 ARL; 19 Oberlin) 55 %

 

 

 

 

  1. f)     appraisal of recordings

 

 

Yes            10 (6 ARL; 4 Oberlin) 21 %

 

 

No             40 (14 ARL; 26 Oberlin) 79 %

 

 

 

 

  1. g)    de-accessioning

 

 

Yes            17 (10 ARL; 7 Oberlin) 37 %

 

 

No             32 (10 ARL;  22 Oberlin) 63 %

 

 

 

 

  1. h)    dealing with duplicates

 

 

Yes            16 (10 ARL; 6 Oberlin) 35 %

 

 

No             34 (11 ARL; 23 Oberlin) 65 %

 

 

 

 

  1. i)      collection development plan

 

 

Yes            34 (20 ARL; 14 Oberlin) 69 %

 

No             18 (2 ARL; 16 Oberlin) 31 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. j)      disaster preparedness and/or recovery

 

 

Yes            43 (22 ARL; 21 Oberlin) 80 %

 

No             12 (2 ARL; 10 Oberlin) 20 %

 

 

 

 

 

  1. k)    other, please describe:

 

 

 

 

 

13 respondents (8 ARL, 5 Oberlin)

 

 

 

 

 

ARL responses:

 

“Recording fees”

 

 

” Policies vary among units.”

 

 

“Anything not covered with a written policy is covered by a blanket policy.”

 

 

“Nothing has been specifically written to cover sound recordings.”

 

 

“General policies of the library apply.”

 

 

 

 

 

Oberlin responses:

 

“For e) privacy rights: copyright permissions only.”

 

 

“All policies from library policy dealing with printed holdings.”

 

 

“[We also have a] duplication policy [for patron requests].”