44 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
A few library subject specialists did not want to transfer as much material as would be needed in their disciplines, other
librarians did not want to transfer some general periodical runs even though they were represented by full text online.
Although there was considerable upfront work done locally, looking at use patterns, there was concern that this little
used material might be in more demand than circulation and re-shelving data demonstrated. We were concerned about
faculty push back. Staff were concerned, too, that we might be overwhelmed with retrieval requests. None of these
concerns have been realized in any significant way in the past decade.
At first, but our service model quickly erased any doubts and now it is an accepted part of how things are.
Certain faculty, need for browsing, competing library priorities
Concern about retrieval and browsability
Faculty concerns about availability
Faculty resistance to any delay or inconvenience
Humanities resistance
In 1998, the humanities faculty mourned the loss of collection browsability. They also believed that books would be lost.
Today, it is seen as one of our most efficient and effective delivery services.
Initial resistance to concept of remote storage faded quickly with good retrieval times.
Initially, there was some resistance from subject librarians, but now it is generally seen as positive.
Less resistance to the transfer of print serials than of monographs.
Many librarians and some faculty had concerns that ability to browse the collection would be hindered.
Resistance from faculty who feared loss of browsing capability (much less now than in early days). Difficulty in tracking
cited reference material when needed titles are in remote shelving.
Same desire for immediate access and browsing at shelf.
Some collection development librarians were initially resistant to the idea of “splitting up” the collection and avoided
selecting materials until absolutely necessary. But we have had a facility now for about 20 years and resistance has
disappeared over time and in the face of the obvious need to relieve crowding. Our users are sometimes unhappy that
material from remote storage is not immediately available (the typical turnaround time is 24 hours, so it’s not a long
wait), but they have not questioned or objected to the selection criteria.
Some concern on the part of faculty and some bibliographers about materials in certain subject areas being retained
off-site. Electronic document delivery from off-site storage facility and more frequent turnaround times for delivery from
off-site facility to the requesting library has alleviated some concerns.
Some external due to loss of ability to browse shelves.
Some faculty were concerned/uncomfortable.
Some faculty were unhappy about our retention/transfer criteria.
Some faculty, especially in the humanities, did not want any material shelved in a remote location.
Some initial mild resistance from library staff and faculty at moving things off-site, but that was alleviated by the
efficiency of access to those materials. Also, resistance to the idea of moving content in languages using non-Roman
A few library subject specialists did not want to transfer as much material as would be needed in their disciplines, other
librarians did not want to transfer some general periodical runs even though they were represented by full text online.
Although there was considerable upfront work done locally, looking at use patterns, there was concern that this little
used material might be in more demand than circulation and re-shelving data demonstrated. We were concerned about
faculty push back. Staff were concerned, too, that we might be overwhelmed with retrieval requests. None of these
concerns have been realized in any significant way in the past decade.
At first, but our service model quickly erased any doubts and now it is an accepted part of how things are.
Certain faculty, need for browsing, competing library priorities
Concern about retrieval and browsability
Faculty concerns about availability
Faculty resistance to any delay or inconvenience
Humanities resistance
In 1998, the humanities faculty mourned the loss of collection browsability. They also believed that books would be lost.
Today, it is seen as one of our most efficient and effective delivery services.
Initial resistance to concept of remote storage faded quickly with good retrieval times.
Initially, there was some resistance from subject librarians, but now it is generally seen as positive.
Less resistance to the transfer of print serials than of monographs.
Many librarians and some faculty had concerns that ability to browse the collection would be hindered.
Resistance from faculty who feared loss of browsing capability (much less now than in early days). Difficulty in tracking
cited reference material when needed titles are in remote shelving.
Same desire for immediate access and browsing at shelf.
Some collection development librarians were initially resistant to the idea of “splitting up” the collection and avoided
selecting materials until absolutely necessary. But we have had a facility now for about 20 years and resistance has
disappeared over time and in the face of the obvious need to relieve crowding. Our users are sometimes unhappy that
material from remote storage is not immediately available (the typical turnaround time is 24 hours, so it’s not a long
wait), but they have not questioned or objected to the selection criteria.
Some concern on the part of faculty and some bibliographers about materials in certain subject areas being retained
off-site. Electronic document delivery from off-site storage facility and more frequent turnaround times for delivery from
off-site facility to the requesting library has alleviated some concerns.
Some external due to loss of ability to browse shelves.
Some faculty were concerned/uncomfortable.
Some faculty were unhappy about our retention/transfer criteria.
Some faculty, especially in the humanities, did not want any material shelved in a remote location.
Some initial mild resistance from library staff and faculty at moving things off-site, but that was alleviated by the
efficiency of access to those materials. Also, resistance to the idea of moving content in languages using non-Roman
