112 · Representative Documents: On-site Shelving Strategies
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Collection Retention Working Group: Report and Recommendations
2
Collections Retention Policy Working Group Report
Introduction
In recent years research libraries have experienced a seismic paradigm shift in the way our
collections are viewed. Libraries find themselves at the brink of a new era of collection
development and emerging service models designed to meet the needs of the user in the library
or in the cloud. Attentively engaged for decades in building deep collections to meet the needs
of local users while ensuring that these vast collections would be preserved for future
generations of scholars, selectors now recognize that, with the exception of their respective
special collections and some collections of unusual strength in curriculum-focused disciplines,
they have been building nearly identical collections. This realization has been facilitated by use
of analytical tools such as WorldCat Collection Analysis bolstered by decades of cooperative
cataloging. Massive digital conversion projects such as the Google Book Scanning Project and
HathiTrust further increased awareness. Finally, numerous reports and conferences, included in
our list of Sources Consulted, from ARL, OCLC, ITHAKA and the CIC, articulated the idea of
shared print repositories, including the CIC Shared Print Repository.
Trends
The volume of content in readily accessible digital formats has grown exponentially, and
users’ preference for digital has grown with it. Print circulation has subsequently diminished,
calling into question the need to collect extensively in tangible formats when, if needed, a copy
may be available from a consortial partner willing to lend it. Consortial partnerships create
broad access to a great array of content. Interlibrary loan programs have grown more flexible,
more timely and less labor intensive along with this digital expansion, reinforcing our
willingness to rely on a “just in time” access model as opposed to a “just in case” collection
development model. The trend to greater accountability in higher education compels us to
demonstrate our value and to use our resources more carefully than ever, and to consider options
never before considered or available. As user demands for space to pursue new methods of
scholarship and collaborative learning create pressure to reconfigure libraries and services,
we turn our attention to the space occupied by on-site collections and begin to ask whether
much of this material can be relocated off-site, if they are required at all, and how we might
leverage partnerships among libraries for shared print storage. Ultimately, we must ask
ourselves whether we can justify these costs over the long-term, when a shared storage model
will alleviate ongoing expense for on-site and off-site storage, while also freeing up space for
new collections and services.
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Collection Retention Working Group: Report and Recommendations
2
Collections Retention Policy Working Group Report
Introduction
In recent years research libraries have experienced a seismic paradigm shift in the way our
collections are viewed. Libraries find themselves at the brink of a new era of collection
development and emerging service models designed to meet the needs of the user in the library
or in the cloud. Attentively engaged for decades in building deep collections to meet the needs
of local users while ensuring that these vast collections would be preserved for future
generations of scholars, selectors now recognize that, with the exception of their respective
special collections and some collections of unusual strength in curriculum-focused disciplines,
they have been building nearly identical collections. This realization has been facilitated by use
of analytical tools such as WorldCat Collection Analysis bolstered by decades of cooperative
cataloging. Massive digital conversion projects such as the Google Book Scanning Project and
HathiTrust further increased awareness. Finally, numerous reports and conferences, included in
our list of Sources Consulted, from ARL, OCLC, ITHAKA and the CIC, articulated the idea of
shared print repositories, including the CIC Shared Print Repository.
Trends
The volume of content in readily accessible digital formats has grown exponentially, and
users’ preference for digital has grown with it. Print circulation has subsequently diminished,
calling into question the need to collect extensively in tangible formats when, if needed, a copy
may be available from a consortial partner willing to lend it. Consortial partnerships create
broad access to a great array of content. Interlibrary loan programs have grown more flexible,
more timely and less labor intensive along with this digital expansion, reinforcing our
willingness to rely on a “just in time” access model as opposed to a “just in case” collection
development model. The trend to greater accountability in higher education compels us to
demonstrate our value and to use our resources more carefully than ever, and to consider options
never before considered or available. As user demands for space to pursue new methods of
scholarship and collaborative learning create pressure to reconfigure libraries and services,
we turn our attention to the space occupied by on-site collections and begin to ask whether
much of this material can be relocated off-site, if they are required at all, and how we might
leverage partnerships among libraries for shared print storage. Ultimately, we must ask
ourselves whether we can justify these costs over the long-term, when a shared storage model
will alleviate ongoing expense for on-site and off-site storage, while also freeing up space for
new collections and services.
