SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making · 65
DEACCESSIONING: RESPONSE TO DECISIONS
46. Were there any points of internal or external resistance to deaccessioning the selected materials?
N=48
Yes 28 58%
No 20 42%
If yes, please briefly describe the nature of the resistance. N=26
A few folks were extremely attached to the physical object at first but this has abated.
A subject librarian was concerned about quality issues with e-journal back file scanning.
Concern about appropriate nature of research library collections
Faculty concerns over loss of print volumes.
Humanities faculty were not happy about disposing of some volumes.
Initial concerns were expressed and then allayed when assurance was given that only print resources with image-based
online equivalents would be considered for deaccession.
Initially, there was some resistance from subject librarians, but now it is largely accepted.
It was noted that an agreement such as the Thunder Bay Agreement relies/is based upon mutual trust.
Occasional push back on specific titles, but this is sparse.
Our first round of deaccessioning was related to a mold outbreak in an on-site storage facility. The contractors did not
follow the outlined protocol and tossed the items into an open dumpster at a library loading dock in site of the history
department. This sparked some concern that was mediated.
People were concerned regarding the work being done to make sure we were paying attention to quality of materials
being retained.
Reluctance to deaccessioning materials in research collection
Removal of local copies is seen as detrimental by some academic departments. There are concerns about the counts for
program accreditations and ARL.
Resistance to deaccessioning JSTOR materials. Some general feelings that libraries should not discard materials.
Same demands for immediate access and browsing.
Selected faculty and bibliographer concerns about long-term availability and access to a physical copy.
Some departments on campus. We retained print for some titles and monitored them for usage and shared that data
with the interested departments. Then the material was discarded.
Some faculty were unhappy with the retention and transfer criteria.
Some individuals fear discarding anything.
Some internal resistance from some librarians as they feel it de-values print.
DEACCESSIONING: RESPONSE TO DECISIONS
46. Were there any points of internal or external resistance to deaccessioning the selected materials?
N=48
Yes 28 58%
No 20 42%
If yes, please briefly describe the nature of the resistance. N=26
A few folks were extremely attached to the physical object at first but this has abated.
A subject librarian was concerned about quality issues with e-journal back file scanning.
Concern about appropriate nature of research library collections
Faculty concerns over loss of print volumes.
Humanities faculty were not happy about disposing of some volumes.
Initial concerns were expressed and then allayed when assurance was given that only print resources with image-based
online equivalents would be considered for deaccession.
Initially, there was some resistance from subject librarians, but now it is largely accepted.
It was noted that an agreement such as the Thunder Bay Agreement relies/is based upon mutual trust.
Occasional push back on specific titles, but this is sparse.
Our first round of deaccessioning was related to a mold outbreak in an on-site storage facility. The contractors did not
follow the outlined protocol and tossed the items into an open dumpster at a library loading dock in site of the history
department. This sparked some concern that was mediated.
People were concerned regarding the work being done to make sure we were paying attention to quality of materials
being retained.
Reluctance to deaccessioning materials in research collection
Removal of local copies is seen as detrimental by some academic departments. There are concerns about the counts for
program accreditations and ARL.
Resistance to deaccessioning JSTOR materials. Some general feelings that libraries should not discard materials.
Same demands for immediate access and browsing.
Selected faculty and bibliographer concerns about long-term availability and access to a physical copy.
Some departments on campus. We retained print for some titles and monitored them for usage and shared that data
with the interested departments. Then the material was discarded.
Some faculty were unhappy with the retention and transfer criteria.
Some individuals fear discarding anything.
Some internal resistance from some librarians as they feel it de-values print.
