COLLABORATIVE COLLECTIONS: In academic libraries, collection development is becoming more of a team effort

Brian DeFelice

Dixon, J. A. (2019, August). COLLABORATIVE: COLLECTIONS: In academic libraries, collection development is becoming more of a team effort. Library Journal, 144(7), 36+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A595194907/GPS?u=mlin_s_thomas&sid=GPS&xid=f473f88d


In this article, Jennifer Dixon explores the difficulties that some academic libraries are having with keeping up with the demands of collection development, while also balancing limited budgets and increased demand on their physical spaces. This article explores how some academic libraries have found creative ways to enhance their collection development polices and practices by joining library consortia, sharing spaces, and digitization, and state wide repository. One very interesting element of the article is discussing the idea of "sharing spaces" which really is more of a shared repository for academic libraries. The Research Collections and Preservation Consortia (Re-CAP) services Princeton, Columbia, and New York Public Library by proving off site material storage that can be requested by member libraries. Re-CAP acts as an offsite repository, allowing member libraries to house books off site, but still have them technically in the collection. Patrons can request items that are off site, which are then delivered to the requesting library in an inter library loan delivery fashion.

Of course, not all libraries need to share space or offload physical collections to an off site local. Some can join local public library consortia which allows them to expand their collection without having to actually add additional books on the shelves. Rather than store collected materials in an off site warehouse, each library acts as it's own "warehouse" lending materials to other libraries upon request. Some academic libraries just join other academic library consortia, others, Like Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, MA opt to join public library consortia. Joining a consortia of either type can have an impact on collection development policy because some consortia have particular rules about lending and purchasing of materials. Some Library systems, like in Ohio, are working to create a state wide repository of materials for libraries of all types, to deal issues of limited space, funding, and enhancing resource sharing.

Cooperative Collection Development and ebooks

Micka, Tracy

INFO266, Fall 2016

Swindler, L. l. (2016). New Consortial Model for E-Books Acquisitions. College & Research Libraries, 77(3), 269-285.

Summary:

This article presents a sustainable model for the consortial acquisition of e-books and print titles needed to support multidisciplinary instruction and research. Using the model as a transitional program, the central goal was to shift the balance of monographic acquisitions to e-books over time, on a financially sustainable cost-neutral basis. The idea that ebooks and their print analogs complement one another for educational purposes is the underlying basis of the program.

How can they collectively acquire or share ebooks? Ebook sharing in a consortium is difficult, traditionally resulting in inequitable costs to the institutions involved, as price multipliers create limits to simultaneous access. Publishers, vendors, libraries, and users all have their own needs, some of which directly clash. Three important developments contribute to such difficulties: 1) changes in the means by which research libraries build collections; 2) eResources vastly expand the scale of a collection; 3) new metrics in measuring cooperative collection development in a digital environment (ILL doesn’t work for ebooks ).

One of the main principles for the model was to widely purchase multiple copies of ebooks, but limit print books to a single copy of a limited number of titles. Print books are stored offsite, and individual institutions have their own copies of eBooks. This acquisition mandate turned on its head the traditional notion of a successful shared collection as one that has a massive amount of unique titles. Since this new program is predicated on committing to automatically purchase the entire (monographic) output of participating publishers, success is measured by how efficiently money is spent to ensure each member institution can provide its users with immediate and unfettered access at a scale that would not be possible without the consortium. In this way, success is no longer measured by how many unique titles, but by how extensively titles have been duplicated within the consortium. Such metrics are based on the Association of Research Libraries’ call to think of collections as components instead of products (p. 273). As a result, the focus shifts from title-by-title purchasing decisions by individual subject librarians to wholesale block purchases dictated by policy-level decisions. Book vendors become critical partners for helping the consortium understand which publishers would work for their goals and for establishing new ways of sourcing, acquiring and processing ebooks and print books in tandem on a wholesale acquisition basis.

Problems encountered in the pilot program were numerous, and included:

• Failure to take full advantage of the book vendor’s profiling capabilities when deciding which print books were the most important to purchase
• Resource delivery mechanisms
• eBook platform response time
• Not always clear when print or eBooks had arrived / were available

Librarian & Patron Response

Interestingly, although patrons tend to report that they prefer physical books over ebooks, it was the librarians who tended to be more cautious / reluctant to duplicate eBooks. This is likely because users have come to expect instant access, and ebooks deliver this. Also, eBooks are a quick way for patrons to scope out if the title is even of interest, before having to go though the process of ordering the (off-site) print copy.

Shifting to eBooks is thus possible and acceptable, especially when you continue to purchase high-visibility/high-use titles and enable on-demand acquisition of print duplicates. Doing so through consortial cooperative collection development programs is also possible, with the following advice:

• Understand how your patrons use eBooks, the devil of purchasing decisions is in the details, remain flexible.
• The eBook publishing environment is unpredictable and evolving- again, remain flexible and willing to experiment
• Individual institutions will have to compromise sometimes in order to preserve the value of the consortium
• Librarians, publishers and vendors will have to to communicate with each other often and well
• Librarians will have to invest time  in educating staff and developing new metrics

My comments:

The basic ideas of this article are very instructive, though without a working background in acquisitions and only a basic understanding of the modern publishing environment, many of details are lost. The take-home is important, though: the program allowed the consortium to “bypass the perennial format fetish debates about e-books versus print books” (p 280), supporting what previous research has already found- that it’s a false dichotomy. The pilot program proved that what patrons say they prefer (physical books) and what they will come to accept and learn to use (ebooks), are two different things. It’s a whole new world- patrons, librarians, publishers and vendors are all adapting dynamically. The old paradigm has been shattered, so examples like this pilot program help us envision a new way forward.

Building a Collaborative Digital Collection: A Necessary Evolution in Libraries

Poster: Curtin, Shane

Wu, M. M. (2011). Building a Collaborative Digital Collection: A Necessary Evolution in Libraries. Law Library Journal, 103(4), 527-551.

Summary:

This article discusses the importance of collaborative digital collections for law libraries, and how collection development is influenced by storage practices and budget. The author describes her vision for a library that can grant access to its users regardless of “time, space, and resources…” She discusses the millions spent on collection development by law libraries throughout the country, and how some states have dramatically reduced costs through collaborative collection development. If each library commits  a small sum to the creation of a shared database, she contends, each library would each get hundred of times more than their money’s worth in access.

The explosion of legal resources and the constantly accelerating pace of the development and proliferation of laws no longer supports an institution by institution method of collection development: it is not an intelligence use of time or money. Each library, the author proposes, should focus its collection development on materials of local interest, while allowing the central branch of its consortium to obtain all of the general materials. Past attempts at consortium have failed because, according to the author, “local need… takes precedence over collective need” in the minds of most of the librarians invited to participate.
Following this is  an in-depth discussion of copyright law and the problem librarians face when truing to digitize their materials. A law known as 17 USC 108 puts substantial limits on the duplication rights of libraries. So why “recreate the wheel” the author asks.  If private companies like Google are already embrarking on such massive digitization projects, can we not just utilize their efforts? Of course, but it would be a risk; Resources provided by private institutions have fluctuating conditions, and their future is at the whom of those who control them.
The author concludes with a “call for collective action” to start building the law libraries of the future.

Evaluation:

All in all, this was a very interesting article. Law libraries are an interesting type of library to study, because the questions that dog standard reference collections (regarding the quick obsolescence of the resources) apply to the vast majority of things owned by law libraries.  While I support the goals of building a truly open access digital repository free from control by private entities like Google, I am a little skeptical of the feasibility of the project.  The sentiment is good —
 “If each library group committed to pre- serving a portion of the world’s existing, printed knowledge in cooperation with one another, they could reduce duplication of effort and ensure an unbiased preservation of materials. “ (p 545)
but could libraries ever work together on such a vast scale? While we are all bonded by the ALA, collaboration at this level for a sustained period of time is a big thing to ask, especially with so many institutions already strapped in terms of resources, financing and manpower.
Furthermore, digitization of law books is not even a good use of time- laws are always changing. Books on any one aspect of the law, like probate code, sometimes have several new editions or addendum’s per year, rendering the old versions instantly moot. While the evolution of laws is of historical importance and could be of use to scholars, most law library patrons are lawyers and in need of current information. If there any library materials that should be kept in digital format only, its those of law and science, which often become in obsolete even as the editor makes the final proof.  It seems prudent for law libraries to do away with hard copy versions of low-circ legal texts altogether, and subscribe instead to legal databases.

The article raised an interesting point I had not considered- the extent that out viewpoint about history are influenced by contemporary materials- The author says of her proposed digital database-

“Its creation would hopefully also allow libraries to prevent a great harm—the potential distortion of information. If users gravitate to online sources and only recent legal information is available online, then society’s perception of reality shifts to reflect only the information easily available. Part of our mission, therefore, should be to ensure that use of information is not determined solely by format, and the most effective way to achieve that goal is to place print and online documents on equal ground.”

The effort is similar to the rift in history between the world before and after writing, or the creation of audiovisual materials. Even in the short term, our view of the past is warped by medium- like the quality of  old time radio broadcasts and black and white films amplify the differences between the past and the present which are in truth, quite minute. Medium influences perception of content, and makes many unduly prideful of their own era, entrenched in the contemporary zeitgeist.

E-Resource Acquisitions in Academic Library Consortia

Turner, C. (2014). E-resource acquisitions in academic library consortia. Library Resources and

            Technical Services, 58(1), 33-48.

15pp

In his article, “E-Resources Acquisitions in Academic Library Consortia,” Turner discusses the shift that academic libraries have been experiencing over the past decade that is becoming more marked in recent years concerning acquisition and making access to e-resources. There is concern about duplication of items because of package deals that some libraries have not been able to avoid. There are also collaborative consortia aimed at reducing the cost of e-resources among libraries sharing resources. Though consortia demands are in sympathy with academic library needs, they do impose some of their own competing demands.