SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013)
Page11(11 of 210)
SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making · 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction ARL has conducted a number of SPEC surveys about remote shelving that focused on physical facilities, selection of materials, user access, services, and cost, but those represent print collection management deci- sions in the pre-electronic back-file, pre-Portico, and pre-HathiTrust era. The idea for this survey came from the experiences of the authors as they attempted to manage major projects related to collections space planning, on-site shelving for materials, off-site shelv- ing of materials, and the formation of a collaborative print collection with another research university. These activities were undertaken simultaneously and with some inflexible, externally imposed deadlines. The first step in determining the best course for print retention decisions was a literature review, and the authors discovered that most of the literature related to these decisions was created more than 10 years ago, which represents a very different time for libraries and collections. This survey investigates whether print collection management strategies have changed since the last SPEC survey in 2006. The intuitive notion was that many of the concerns regarding the availability of stored materials would have been abated by the widespread electronic availability of content and by the simple reality that many libraries’ print journal and government documents collections are no longer growing significantly and are appropriately dubbed “legacy” collections. This survey was distributed to the ARL member libraries in June 2013 and these results are based on data submitted by 65 of the 125 ARL member librar- ies (52%) by the deadline of July 15, 2013. The survey asked respondents about 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 collab- orative retention agreements. The survey also exam- ined the decision making and practices surrounding the deaccession of library material. Because in many cases the decision to retain certain materials will im- ply a decision not to retain other materials, the survey concluded with questions regarding deaccessioning strategies for print materials at member institutions. For each retention or deaccession strategy, the survey explored the type of on-going or project-based nature of the work, the involvement of stakeholders, the se- lection 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 Print Retention Landscape All but four of the respondents indicated that their li- brary had recently been involved in activities to either relocate or deaccession print materials. Of the 61 librar- ies (94%) that had participated in these activities in the last two years, 30 have sent print material to on-site, staff-only shelving, 45 have sent material to remote shelving, and 53 have deaccessioned print items. The great majority of libraries (between 77% and 84%) have managed this work through a combination of both on- going and project-centered processes. Forty libraries have collaborative retention agreements, and 33 of these have deaccessioned print material. Stakeholder Involvement The involvement of stakeholders varies slightly across the storage or deaccession decision scenarios. Senior