12 ยท Survey Results: Executive Summary
library administrators and library directors were most
often identified as the champion of a strategy. Library
directors, senior library administrators, and university
administrators were involved with budget decisions
for shelving facilities, but non-library stakeholders
were rarely involved in budgeting for deaccessioning
activities. Senior library administrators were most
involved with policy decisions, and had input from
directors, subject selectors/bibliographers, and pres-
ervation staff. They also worked with selectors and
preservation staff on procedures. Only a small number
of respondents reported involving any other categories
of stakeholders in the initial strategy decision making.
The development of criteria for the selection of
materials, across the scenarios, rests to a high degree
with subject selectors and bibliographers. However,
senior library administrators also play key roles
across the different tasks associated with the selec-
tion of materials for either storage or deaccession.
Twenty-three respondents (38%) involved faculty in
the decisions to move items to storage or deacces-
sion them, ten of these asked faculty to review lists of
recommended materials, at least until these became
routine activities. Only six asked faculty to help de-
velop selection criteria.
Strategies and Considerations for Including or
Excluding Materials
All but a few respondents use a combination of strate-
gies to select print materials for storage or deaccession.
Strategies for identifying items for local, staff-only
shelving differ only slightly from the strategies used
for identifying materials for remote shelving. For lo-
cal shelving, selection based on a group or collection
of materials is used somewhat more often than title-
by-title review using lists for remote shelving, the
opposite is true. This difference may be a reflection of
a perceived lower risk of inaccessibility in local shelv-
ing. Relying on system-generated lists of titles and
reviewing items title-by-tile at the shelf are somewhat
less-used strategies for storage decisions. Deaccession
decisions rely more on title-by-title review, either of
lists or at the shelf.
The criteria used to generate lists of titles for re-
view also differs depending on whether items are
being selected for storage or deaccession. Publication
date, circulation history, format, condition, and sub-
ject area were commonly reported criteria for storage
decisions. Duplication in either print or electronic
format was overwhelmingly the reason for deacces-
sion. Only rarely was low-use mentioned as a criterion
for deaccession.
Certain materials are excluded from consideration
for local, staff-only shelving, remote shelving, or deac-
cession, although the types of materials and reasons
for exclusion vary widely. Format is the most com-
mon reason to exclude materials from local shelv-
ing, while condition of materials is the most common
reason they are excluded for consideration for remote
shelving. Finally, the subject area of the material is the
most common reason materials are not considered for
deaccession.
The Importance of Electronic Content in Decision
Making
The importance of electronic collection content to print
retention decision making was heavily underscored
in this survey. From the perspective of serving users,
it is not surprising that of the 22 respondents (82%)
who stated that they did not consider availability of
content in secure print archives when making deci-
sions to transfer to on-site shelving, 16 did consider
the availability of electronic surrogates in making the
decision to store items on-site. The decision making is
similar for remote shelving of the 28 who donโt con-
sider whether items are available in print repositories,
23 do consider the availability of electronic formats.
However, it is interesting that 25 respondents (49%)
did not consider the availability of content in other
print repositories when making deaccession decisions,
while 47 (90%) did consider the availability of electron-
ic surrogates in making the decision to deaccession.
Further, 62 of the responding libraries (97%) re-
ported having policies that encourage acquisitions of
serials in electronic format and 53 (83%) have policies
that encourage acquisition of monographs in electron-
ic format. This would suggest that the future of print
management strategies will include a focus on an
ever-shrinking proportion of print library materials.
library administrators and library directors were most
often identified as the champion of a strategy. Library
directors, senior library administrators, and university
administrators were involved with budget decisions
for shelving facilities, but non-library stakeholders
were rarely involved in budgeting for deaccessioning
activities. Senior library administrators were most
involved with policy decisions, and had input from
directors, subject selectors/bibliographers, and pres-
ervation staff. They also worked with selectors and
preservation staff on procedures. Only a small number
of respondents reported involving any other categories
of stakeholders in the initial strategy decision making.
The development of criteria for the selection of
materials, across the scenarios, rests to a high degree
with subject selectors and bibliographers. However,
senior library administrators also play key roles
across the different tasks associated with the selec-
tion of materials for either storage or deaccession.
Twenty-three respondents (38%) involved faculty in
the decisions to move items to storage or deacces-
sion them, ten of these asked faculty to review lists of
recommended materials, at least until these became
routine activities. Only six asked faculty to help de-
velop selection criteria.
Strategies and Considerations for Including or
Excluding Materials
All but a few respondents use a combination of strate-
gies to select print materials for storage or deaccession.
Strategies for identifying items for local, staff-only
shelving differ only slightly from the strategies used
for identifying materials for remote shelving. For lo-
cal shelving, selection based on a group or collection
of materials is used somewhat more often than title-
by-title review using lists for remote shelving, the
opposite is true. This difference may be a reflection of
a perceived lower risk of inaccessibility in local shelv-
ing. Relying on system-generated lists of titles and
reviewing items title-by-tile at the shelf are somewhat
less-used strategies for storage decisions. Deaccession
decisions rely more on title-by-title review, either of
lists or at the shelf.
The criteria used to generate lists of titles for re-
view also differs depending on whether items are
being selected for storage or deaccession. Publication
date, circulation history, format, condition, and sub-
ject area were commonly reported criteria for storage
decisions. Duplication in either print or electronic
format was overwhelmingly the reason for deacces-
sion. Only rarely was low-use mentioned as a criterion
for deaccession.
Certain materials are excluded from consideration
for local, staff-only shelving, remote shelving, or deac-
cession, although the types of materials and reasons
for exclusion vary widely. Format is the most com-
mon reason to exclude materials from local shelv-
ing, while condition of materials is the most common
reason they are excluded for consideration for remote
shelving. Finally, the subject area of the material is the
most common reason materials are not considered for
deaccession.
The Importance of Electronic Content in Decision
Making
The importance of electronic collection content to print
retention decision making was heavily underscored
in this survey. From the perspective of serving users,
it is not surprising that of the 22 respondents (82%)
who stated that they did not consider availability of
content in secure print archives when making deci-
sions to transfer to on-site shelving, 16 did consider
the availability of electronic surrogates in making the
decision to store items on-site. The decision making is
similar for remote shelving of the 28 who donโt con-
sider whether items are available in print repositories,
23 do consider the availability of electronic formats.
However, it is interesting that 25 respondents (49%)
did not consider the availability of content in other
print repositories when making deaccession decisions,
while 47 (90%) did consider the availability of electron-
ic surrogates in making the decision to deaccession.
Further, 62 of the responding libraries (97%) re-
ported having policies that encourage acquisitions of
serials in electronic format and 53 (83%) have policies
that encourage acquisition of monographs in electron-
ic format. This would suggest that the future of print
management strategies will include a focus on an
ever-shrinking proportion of print library materials.