Print Retention Decision Making, SPEC Kit 337 (October 2013)

Britton, Scott; Renaud, John

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013) resources

Free Attachments

Follow Link Print-Retention-Decision-Making-SPEC-Kit-337.pdf

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making · 13
Communication
Across strategies, the responsibility for communicat-
ing libraries’ plans for including materials in local
shelving, remote shelving, or deaccessioning them
rests primarily with the collection development de-
partment. However, for decisions involving moving
materials to remote shelving or deaccessioning, it be-
comes more likely that library administration will take
on some responsibility for communication.
The most common communication strategy, re-
gardless of the action being proposed, is presenta-
tions to groups. Libraries’ websites are also commonly
used. Respondents reported using communication
strategies to reach external audiences to a much high-
er degree for moves to remote shelving than for deac-
cession initiatives.
Attitudes and Resistance
At first glance, it was surprising that 54% of the re-
spondents had experienced resistance to on-site shelv-
ing plans and 70% of the respondents reported resis-
tance to remote shelving plans, while the percentage
reporting resistance to deaccession plans was only
58%. While this is an area for further study, some po-
tentially likely scenarios are that materials selected
for deaccession may be in categories that do not raise
as many concerns for users. Examples of this could
be materials duplicated in print or electronic formats,
materials that are deemed damaged beyond repair,
or materials that are dated but with seemingly small
historical value.
Overall, 48 respondents reported some resistance
and 13 reported no resistance to decisions about print
material disposition. Of the libraries that reported
resistance, 15 experienced resistance to one strategy,
but not another. Respondents’ comments indicate that
initial concerns about print material strategies have
been alleviated over time by positive experiences with
the outcomes.
Collaborative Retention Agreement Strategy
For the purposes of this survey, a Collaborative
Retention Agreement was defined as a commitment
by one partner to retain a specific volume so that an-
other partner may deaccession or store their duplicate
copy. The focus of this question was on agreements
independent of shared shelving facility agreements.
The majority of respondents (40, or 66%) indicated
that their libraries participate in these arrangements.
They reported using a number of different agree-
ments, including major regional endeavors such
as the Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST) and
the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries
(ASERL) Collaborative Journal Retention Program.
Other respondents noted agreements that cover two
or three libraries or library systems, such as the col-
laborative agreement between the University of Iowa,
Iowa State University, and the University of Wisconsin.
It seems that there is a degree of redundancy among
agreements, which is logical given both the scale of
preservation that needs to occur and the varied nature
of these arrangements. This strategy is an area where
further evolution and development is expected. For ex-
ample, ASERL and the Washington Research Library
Consortium (WRLC) have recently agreed to share
their print journal archives under a new agreement
called Scholars Trust.
Conclusions
Striking the right balance of continued ownership, ac-
cess, and preservation of print materials is one of the
many challenges 21st Century research libraries face.
Off-site shelving, collaborative retention agreements,
and careful deaccession are the existing pragmatic
answers to the question, “Can research libraries sim-
ply keep adding print holdings forever?” This survey
confirms that these practices are now an entrenched
part of the work of libraries and also shows that, when
responsibly administrated, the libraries’ constituents
view these activities as acceptable. As libraries strate-
gically and creatively think about how to best provide
access to materials and serve their long term obliga-
tions to preserve content, this SPEC Kit provides a
snapshot of best practices as of 2013. Going forward,
the trajectory seems to be toward highly collaborative
and distributed ownership of legacy print materials.
Areas for continued monitoring include the evolution
of electronic and print archiving programs and the im-
pact that these changes will have on local or consortial
decisions regarding print retention plans.

Previous Page Next Page

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013) resources

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making · 15
SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
The SPEC Survey on Print Retention Decision Making was designed by Scott Britton, Associate University
Librarian for Instruction, Access &User Engagement, Boston College, and John Renaud, Assistant
University Librarian for Research Resources, University of California, Irvine. These results are based on
data submitted by 65 of the 125 ARL member libraries (52%) by the deadline of July 15, 2013. The survey’s
introductory text and questions are reproduced below, followed by the response data and selected comments
from the respondents.
In FY 2007–2008 ARL academic libraries reported for the first time that expenditures for electronic resources exceeded 50% of the
library materials budget, on average. That average now exceeds 65% and ranges from a low of just under 30% to a high of nearly
99%. While the percentage of library materials budgets dedicated to electronic resources has increased, data indicates a decline in
the use of legacy print materials (See: Anderson 2011, http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/890835-64/print_on_the_margins_
circulation.html.csp)
Along with the shift in material formats has come a transformation in library services that is leading libraries to seriously reconsider
how existing space is used. Whether in response to pressing space constraints or to long range planning for repurposing space, for
many years research libraries have been relocating materials to non-browsable, staff-only shelving facilities both on and off-campus,
systematically deaccessioning print materials from their collections, and developing collaborative retention agreements with consortia
and other partners.
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 decisions in the pre-electronic back-file, pre-Portico,
and pre-HathiTrust era. This survey investigates whether print collection management strategies have changed since the last
survey in 2006 and focuses on the range of stakeholders, the print retention decision-making process, and successful strategies for
communicating decisions to users. Questions cover four print collection management strategies: moving items to staff-only, on-site
shelving moving items to a remote shelving facility participation in a collaborative retention agreement (i.e., a commitment by one
partner to retain a specific volume so that another partner may deaccession or store their duplicate copy) and deaccessioning.
Information on how libraries are currently responding to their new reality will help libraries make appropriate decisions regarding
the retention of print materials. As counterintuitive as it may seem, strategies to address print collection issues remain paramount as
libraries work to make their spaces and collections dynamic for 21st century users.

Previous Page Next Page

Page 9Survey Results click to expand contents

Page 71Representative Documents click to expand contents

Page 73Collection Management Strategies click to expand contents

Page 101On-site Shelving Strategies click to expand contents

Page 123Off-site Shelving Strategies click to expand contents

Page 129Collaborative Shelving Facility Strategies click to expand contents

Page 173Last Copy Agreements click to expand contents

Page 183Material Retrieval Request Procedures click to expand contents

Page 207Selected Resources click to expand contents

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013) resources

All section downloads (PDF) click to expand contents

Free Attachments

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013) resources

SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making (October 2013) resources