SPEC Kit 345: Shared Print Programs · 15
Goals and Benefits of Shared Print Programs
The primary goals of shared print programs, as ex-
pressed by ARL libraries and program coordinators,
are 1) to preserve and provide access to the scholarly
record, 2) to more effectively and efficiently manage
print collections, and 3) to create opportunities for
libraries to make informed collection management
decisions about duplicates. Most progress has been
made toward the first two goals through coordinated
retention commitments.
The library respondents were asked about their
motivations for joining shared print programs. Most
indicated they joined to collaborate with other librar-
ies in a geographic region, to share responsibility for
sustaining physical collections, and to preserve items
cost effectively. Important secondary factors include
freeing up shelf space and collaborating specifically
with other ARL libraries. It is important to note that
collaboration just with ARL libraries or collaboration
with other types of libraries (public, special libraries)
were not as highly valued. Responses to later ques-
tions indicated that geographic region was somewhat
less important, suggesting that other factors are im-
portant when identifying partners (discussed later).
Freeing up shelf space was an important second-
ary motivator. Most hoped to free space for other uses
(32 of 50 responses, or 64%). Fewer hoped to free up
shelf space for other print items (24, or 48%), or to free
up space in a storage facility (21, or 42%).
Far fewer joined to acquire more diverse resources
(print or digital), to reduce duplicate purchasing, to
garner additional support for print collections, or
to gain access to more print collections held else-
where, which may be reflective of a current trend to
de-emphasize collaborative collection development
in shared print programs in favor of shared manage-
ment of retrospective collections.
To better understand how ARL libraries articulate
the value of these programs to some stakeholders,
members were also asked to describe the rationales
they provide to higher administration for partici-
pation in shared print programs. The expressed re-
sponses might be categorized into three themes: 1)
shared stewardship, preservation, and access, 2) space
efficiencies including the ability to reduce duplica-
tion and either prolong existing storage capacity or
reduce demand for future storage, and 3) no need to
provide a rationale. It is important to note that some
respondents emphasize only or primarily the reten-
tion and access benefits, while many others also em-
phasize space efficiencies as an important near-term
or future benefit.
“We are an archive builder along with other insti-
tutions so that we can ensure long-term access to
important collections.”
“Shared print programs ensure broader access to
larger legacy print collections than our own hold-
ings, and frees shelf space for onsite collections.”
“[My] main message has been that participation in
the Shared Print Programs ensures preservation of
the print scholarly record, while distributing com-
mitment over many institutions. It should free us
to use our space in different ways without building
another storage facility.”
“We are preserving a breadth and scope of the col-
lection while locally managing space pressures.”
Curiously, several respondents indicated they do
not communicate with higher administration about
shared print either because the shared print program
is so well established and known it is not necessary, or
because the program is still in a planning phase. It is
possible that over time shared print will become part
of a library’s ethos that no longer requires explanation.
There may however be an emerging disconnect
between some stated benefits and actual behaviors
that warrants attention. While many respondents cite
space concerns and a goal of reducing duplication as
reasons for participating in shared print programs,
fewer than half reported that deselection activity has
commenced at their library based on retention com-
mitments at other libraries. In fact, seven respondents
indicated local resistance to discarding print emerged
as a result of participating in shared print programs.
Local concerns may be related to shared programs’
relative newness in collection management and may
also reflect concerns about 1) access to print retained
elsewhere, 2) level of holdings verification performed,
and 3) nervousness about the stability of digital access
or quality of digital resources.
Goals and Benefits of Shared Print Programs
The primary goals of shared print programs, as ex-
pressed by ARL libraries and program coordinators,
are 1) to preserve and provide access to the scholarly
record, 2) to more effectively and efficiently manage
print collections, and 3) to create opportunities for
libraries to make informed collection management
decisions about duplicates. Most progress has been
made toward the first two goals through coordinated
retention commitments.
The library respondents were asked about their
motivations for joining shared print programs. Most
indicated they joined to collaborate with other librar-
ies in a geographic region, to share responsibility for
sustaining physical collections, and to preserve items
cost effectively. Important secondary factors include
freeing up shelf space and collaborating specifically
with other ARL libraries. It is important to note that
collaboration just with ARL libraries or collaboration
with other types of libraries (public, special libraries)
were not as highly valued. Responses to later ques-
tions indicated that geographic region was somewhat
less important, suggesting that other factors are im-
portant when identifying partners (discussed later).
Freeing up shelf space was an important second-
ary motivator. Most hoped to free space for other uses
(32 of 50 responses, or 64%). Fewer hoped to free up
shelf space for other print items (24, or 48%), or to free
up space in a storage facility (21, or 42%).
Far fewer joined to acquire more diverse resources
(print or digital), to reduce duplicate purchasing, to
garner additional support for print collections, or
to gain access to more print collections held else-
where, which may be reflective of a current trend to
de-emphasize collaborative collection development
in shared print programs in favor of shared manage-
ment of retrospective collections.
To better understand how ARL libraries articulate
the value of these programs to some stakeholders,
members were also asked to describe the rationales
they provide to higher administration for partici-
pation in shared print programs. The expressed re-
sponses might be categorized into three themes: 1)
shared stewardship, preservation, and access, 2) space
efficiencies including the ability to reduce duplica-
tion and either prolong existing storage capacity or
reduce demand for future storage, and 3) no need to
provide a rationale. It is important to note that some
respondents emphasize only or primarily the reten-
tion and access benefits, while many others also em-
phasize space efficiencies as an important near-term
or future benefit.
“We are an archive builder along with other insti-
tutions so that we can ensure long-term access to
important collections.”
“Shared print programs ensure broader access to
larger legacy print collections than our own hold-
ings, and frees shelf space for onsite collections.”
“[My] main message has been that participation in
the Shared Print Programs ensures preservation of
the print scholarly record, while distributing com-
mitment over many institutions. It should free us
to use our space in different ways without building
another storage facility.”
“We are preserving a breadth and scope of the col-
lection while locally managing space pressures.”
Curiously, several respondents indicated they do
not communicate with higher administration about
shared print either because the shared print program
is so well established and known it is not necessary, or
because the program is still in a planning phase. It is
possible that over time shared print will become part
of a library’s ethos that no longer requires explanation.
There may however be an emerging disconnect
between some stated benefits and actual behaviors
that warrants attention. While many respondents cite
space concerns and a goal of reducing duplication as
reasons for participating in shared print programs,
fewer than half reported that deselection activity has
commenced at their library based on retention com-
mitments at other libraries. In fact, seven respondents
indicated local resistance to discarding print emerged
as a result of participating in shared print programs.
Local concerns may be related to shared programs’
relative newness in collection management and may
also reflect concerns about 1) access to print retained
elsewhere, 2) level of holdings verification performed,
and 3) nervousness about the stability of digital access
or quality of digital resources.
