Title Index by IndexTitle : P

• Patron-Driven Acquisitions and the Development of Research Collections: The Case of the Portuguese Canadian History Project (RLI 283, 2013)
  Title: Patron-Driven Acquisitions and the Development of Research Collections: The Case of the Portuguese Canadian History Project
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2013-10-22
• Pipelines and Partnerships in Diversity at the National Library of Medicine (RLI 286, 2015)
  Title: Pipelines and Partnerships in Diversity at the National Library of Medicine
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2015-04-22
• Planning for Digital Accessibility in Research Libraries (RLI 302, 2021)
  Title: Planning for Digital Accessibility in Research Libraries
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2021-12-22
• Practical Consequences of the Elimination of Net Neutrality for the Research and Education Community: A Speculation (RLI 293, 2018)
  Title: Practical Consequences of the Elimination of Net Neutrality for the Research and Education Community: A Speculation
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2018-04-20
• Print Disabilities, Libraries, and Higher Education (Dec. 2012)
  Title: Print Disabilities, Libraries, and Higher Education
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2013-06-04
• Print Retention Decision Making, SPEC Kit 337 (October 2013)
  Title: SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013)
  Author(s): Britton, Scott; Renaud, John
  Keyword(s): print collection management%3B last copy agreement%3B on-site shelving%3B off-site shelving%3B collaborative shelving%3B deaccessioning
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit examines research libraries’ print retention decision making strategies related to storage of materials in three different types of facilities or circumstances: on-site, staff-only shelving; remote shelving; and collaborative retention agreements. The survey also examined the decision making and practices surrounding the deaccession of library material. For each retention or deaccession strategy, the survey includes questions on the on-going or project-based nature of the work, the involvement of stakeholders, the selection process and criteria for materials to be retained or deaccessioned, the communication strategy with internal and external audiences, and the responses from the libraries’ internal and external audiences to these endeavors.

  The SPEC Kit includes examples of collection management policies, on-site, off-site, and collaborative shelving strategies, last copy agreements, and procedures for retrieving materials from storage.

  Britton, Scott, and John Renaud. Print Retention Decision Making. SPEC Kit 337. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, October 2013.

• Privacy in Public Libraries (RLI 297, 2019)
  Title: Privacy in Public Libraries
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2019-05-06
• Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives, SPEC Kit 314 (November 2009)
  Title: SPEC Kit 314: Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives (November 2009)
  Author(s): Hackbart-Dean, Pam; Slomba, Elizabeth
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit examines the current policies and practices for processing manuscript and archival collections in Special Collections.   It is organized around four general areas: personnel, job responsibilities and training; processing policies, procedures, and priorities; impacts on processing decisions; and management tools.

  By the May deadline, responses had been submitted by 76 of the 123 ARL member libraries for a response rate of 62%. Half of the responding institutions have a combined special collections/archives department and all but a few of these process all types of rare books, rare serials, manuscripts, and archival materials. Twenty-seven respondents (36%) indicated that the cataloging of rare books and rare serials was done in another department or unit within the library, usually cataloging or technical services.   Only five respondents indicated that manuscripts and archival materials were processed outside of special collections/archives.

  The survey responses speak to the classic issues of the management of processing: how to process collections efficiently but yet adequately so that collections are usable with minimal meditation; how to balance demands for more description and item-level cataloging (digitization) with initiatives to make more collections available (“more product, less processing”); and how to manage staff effectively and to assess processing progress.   From the survey results it is clear that the respondents agree on core principles for processing (such as what is fully processed collection, what makes a good processor, and the challenges facing processors), but in practice the application of these principles are tempered by institutional practices, traditions, and resources.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of processing policies and procedures, processing worksheets, statistics, and job descriptions.

  Hackbart-Dean, Pam, and Elizabeth Slomba. Processing Decisions for Manuscripts & Archives. SPEC Kit 314. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, November 2009.

• Promoting the Library, SPEC Kit 306 (September 2008)
  Title: SPEC Kit 306: Promoting the Library (September 2008)
  Author(s): Mathews, Brian; Bodnar, Jon
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores what promotional activities and objectives research libraries are pursuing, who organizes them, how are they evaluated, and what challenges they face.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2008. Eighty-seven libraries completed the survey for a response rate of 71%. All of the responding libraries indicated that they currently engage in some form of promotional activities. Sixty-four percent of the responding libraries indicated that they have at least one library staff member with “promotion” as part of his/her position description. These positions typically report to library administration and are charged with strategic planning, media relations, and guiding the communications vision. However, they are usually not involved in the day-to-day promotional activities of their libraries.

  The survey responses indicated that day-to-day promotional activities are handled by a wide array of committees, task forces, and ad hoc groups. These teams tend to be interdepartmental and focus on hosting events, developing print and Web materials, fundraising, and other outreach-related duties. Similarly, respondents indicated that individual departments and branch libraries typically produce their own material to increase awareness and explain particular services.

  The survey results also show which skills these staff need; how they decide which promotional activities to pursue; what their objectives are; how the activities are funded; and more. Descriptions of a wide variety of activities are included, as well.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of marketing plans, job descriptions, and promotional materials.

  Mathews, Brian, and Jon Bodnar. Promoting the Library. SPEC Kit 306. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, September 2008.

• Public Access Policies, SPEC Kit 311 (August 2009)
  Title: SPEC Kit 311: Public Access Policies (August 2009)
  Author(s): Sarli, Cathy; Dubinsky, Ellen; Engeszer, Bob; Lewis, Ruth
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the role ARL member libraries are playing in supporting public access policies in their institutions.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on staffing, partnerships, and resources and services developed for public access policy (PAP) compliance support, and the challenges related to providing such support. Seventy libraries (57%) from sixty-seven institutions responded to the survey. Of the respondents, sixty-three were at libraries located within the United States (90%) and seven were at libraries located in Canada (10%).

  The majority of the responding libraries provide, or plan to provide, resources and services that help authors affiliated with their institution (and/or the author’s support staff) to comply with public access policies. Thirty-seven respondents (53%) indicated that more than one library within their system provides PAP compliance support; eleven (16%) indicated that just one library within their institution is providing this support. Four other institutions (6%) are planning to support PAP compliance. Of the libraries that do not provide such support, eight (11%) indicated that another department or unit within their institution provides compliance support. Eight others (11%) responded that their institution offers no PAP compliance support.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of PAP Web sites, compliance FAQs and flowcharts, handouts and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff, and sample letters to publishers.

  Sarli, Cathy, Ellen Dubinsky, Bob Engeszer, and Ruth Lewis. Public Access Policies. SPEC Kit 311. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, August 2009.

• Public Access to Federally Funded Research: Contributions to Economic Development, Competitiveness, and Innovation (RLI 273, Dec. 2010)
  Title: Public Access to Federally Funded Research: Contributions to Economic Development, Competitiveness, and Innovation
  Content Type: RLI Article
  Publication Date: 2010-12-01
• Public Engagement, SPEC Kit 312 (September 2009)
  Title: SPEC Kit 312: Public Engagement (September 2009)
  Author(s): Walter, Scott; Goetsch, Lori
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores the ways in which traditional “outreach” programs in academic libraries are evolving to address the emergent concept of “public engagement” at the institutional level and the degree to which the library is integrated into campus-level efforts to promote public engagement.

  By the March deadline, responses had been submitted by 56 of 123 ARL member libraries for a response rate of 46%. For the purposes of this survey, respondents were asked to report on “public engagement programs” that met the definition of those that demonstrate the library’s “commitment to community partnerships, service to professional communities outside [your] primary user groups . . . . [and that] go beyond the ‘provision of institutional resources for community use,’ and are aimed at bringing the professional expertise of the library to members of the public.” Of the 56 responding libraries, 49 (88%) reported providing such programs as part of their service profile.

  Respondents identified a wide variety of programs that they characterize as “public engagement.” The top four areas of library activity reported were programs in the areas of K-12 education (80%), cultural engagement (75%), government information/e-government (68%), and lifelong learning (66%).

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of mission statements, descriptions of library engagement programs, examples of awards program, scholarship of engagement information, and job descriptions.

  Walter, Scott, and Lori Goetsch. Public Engagement. SPEC Kit 312. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, September 2009.

• Public Services in Special Collections, SPEC Kit 296 (November 2006)
  Title: SPEC Kit 296: Public Services in Special Collections (November 2006)
  Author(s): Turcotte, Florence; Nemmers, John
  Abstract:

  This SPEC Kit explores public service staffing, reference and public services offered, methods of patron access, types of intellectual access tools used, patron registration, the reference interview process, and public service evaluation and promotion methodsin Special Collections. In addition, respondents were asked to comment on significant changes in reference and public services in the last few years, particularly those related to outreach, instruction, and learning.

  The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in March 2006. Seventy-nine libraries (64%) responded to the survey. Thirty-five of the responding libraries (44%) have a single Special Collections unit. Twenty-five of the libraries (32%) have one primary Special Collections unit and additional, smaller special collections in other libraries or branches. Eleven (14%) have multiple Special Collections units dispersed across a number of libraries or branches. Respondents who have dispersed units were asked to base all survey responses on services provided at one primary Special Collections unit.

  This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of service policies, patron registration forms, job descriptions, and service prices.

  Turcotte, Florence, and John Nemmers. Public Services in Special Collections. SPEC Kit 296. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, November 2006.