16 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
In terms of access, only about 20% of respondents
make retained titles that are held at other campuses
visible to users in the local catalog, though programs
use a number of ways to attempt to make retained
items known to library staff. It is conceivable that
librarians and users will become more comfortable
with deselection if retention commitments within and
across networks become more visible. At some point,
it may be necessary to reconcile the benefits described
to higher administration and to users, particularly
those related to space reclamation and access, with
actual behaviors. Greater discovery and integration
of resource sharing may support this evolving con-
versation. Some programs, notably the Maine Shared
Collection Strategy, are also looking into print-on-
demand and e-book-on-demand services as one ap-
proach to better support access.
Stewardship Responsibility: ARL Libraries’
Perspectives
Library respondents were asked a set of pointed ques-
tions to better understand longer-term perspectives on
print retention, long-term needs for print, and types
of partners with which to collaborate. They generally
believe that print retention is important and many
believe that ARL libraries should be the libraries to
assume that role, though other libraries will need to
be engaged. While there is strong agreement among
the respondents that it will always be important for
some library to maintain print, irrespective of digital
availability or digital preservation status (47 of 50 re-
spondents agree to strongly agree), fewer, though still
a substantial number of respondents, believe it is the
responsibility of ARL libraries to sustain and manage
comprehensive print collections of record (40 of 50
respondents). When this same question was asked
of ARLs not currently participating in shared print
programs, 6 of 8 respondents also agreed that some
library should retain print, and half (3 of 6) feel that
ARLs have an important stewardship responsibility.
A key comment suggested that ARL libraries “do
not necessarily need to be the holders themselves of
comprehensive print collections…they should ex-
ert a decisive leadership role to develop a collective
collaboration across the country among libraries of
all sizes….” Comments also emphasized the need
to collaborate with specialized non-ARLs, national
libraries, and CRL. In sum, “ARLs are best placed to
take the lead” but many other libraries will need to
be involved. Respondents emphasized distribution of
responsibilities as a core value and expectation, not-
ing that, while ARLs will play an important or central
role, there remains a “need to rely on a network that is
not exclusively American or academic,” and to “focus
on more being spread across a wide network.”
Indeed, when asked about the future landscape
of print collections, most respondents indicated that
“twenty years from now, users should expect to find
fewer copies of intentionally retained print publica-
tions spread across a network of ARL and non-ARL librar-
ies” or “spread across a network of ARL, non-ARL, and
large public libraries.” This finding, that print retention
and management responsibilities are envisioned as
distributed in the future, is consonant with the find-
ings in other areas of the study.
Preferred Partners
ARL member libraries were asked additional ques-
tions about the types of partners sought in shared
print arrangements, which may be useful for planning.
There are some common values held across the re-
sponding libraries. In general, these libraries are most
interested in 1) participating in shared print programs
composed of other academic libraries, not large public
libraries 2) they prefer partners that strive to provide
better or more access to shared, retained collections
and 3) they prefer institutions that “manage” users,
particularly users that cause damage or loss to the col-
lections. When choosing partners to collaborate with
around print collections, the responding libraries most
value partners within the same resource sharing con-
sortium, but not necessarily the same state or province.
These emerged as primary criteria when choosing
partners to work with. Secondary criteria included
familiarity with the administrators at partner libraries
and some degree of parity in lending and borrowing.
Geographic proximity, collection similarity/dis-
similarity, or big disparities in lending and borrow-
ing patterns are less important criteria when choos-
ing partners. The respondents are not particularly
concerned about or interested in partnerships that
are within the same state or province, though some
In terms of access, only about 20% of respondents
make retained titles that are held at other campuses
visible to users in the local catalog, though programs
use a number of ways to attempt to make retained
items known to library staff. It is conceivable that
librarians and users will become more comfortable
with deselection if retention commitments within and
across networks become more visible. At some point,
it may be necessary to reconcile the benefits described
to higher administration and to users, particularly
those related to space reclamation and access, with
actual behaviors. Greater discovery and integration
of resource sharing may support this evolving con-
versation. Some programs, notably the Maine Shared
Collection Strategy, are also looking into print-on-
demand and e-book-on-demand services as one ap-
proach to better support access.
Stewardship Responsibility: ARL Libraries’
Perspectives
Library respondents were asked a set of pointed ques-
tions to better understand longer-term perspectives on
print retention, long-term needs for print, and types
of partners with which to collaborate. They generally
believe that print retention is important and many
believe that ARL libraries should be the libraries to
assume that role, though other libraries will need to
be engaged. While there is strong agreement among
the respondents that it will always be important for
some library to maintain print, irrespective of digital
availability or digital preservation status (47 of 50 re-
spondents agree to strongly agree), fewer, though still
a substantial number of respondents, believe it is the
responsibility of ARL libraries to sustain and manage
comprehensive print collections of record (40 of 50
respondents). When this same question was asked
of ARLs not currently participating in shared print
programs, 6 of 8 respondents also agreed that some
library should retain print, and half (3 of 6) feel that
ARLs have an important stewardship responsibility.
A key comment suggested that ARL libraries “do
not necessarily need to be the holders themselves of
comprehensive print collections…they should ex-
ert a decisive leadership role to develop a collective
collaboration across the country among libraries of
all sizes….” Comments also emphasized the need
to collaborate with specialized non-ARLs, national
libraries, and CRL. In sum, “ARLs are best placed to
take the lead” but many other libraries will need to
be involved. Respondents emphasized distribution of
responsibilities as a core value and expectation, not-
ing that, while ARLs will play an important or central
role, there remains a “need to rely on a network that is
not exclusively American or academic,” and to “focus
on more being spread across a wide network.”
Indeed, when asked about the future landscape
of print collections, most respondents indicated that
“twenty years from now, users should expect to find
fewer copies of intentionally retained print publica-
tions spread across a network of ARL and non-ARL librar-
ies” or “spread across a network of ARL, non-ARL, and
large public libraries.” This finding, that print retention
and management responsibilities are envisioned as
distributed in the future, is consonant with the find-
ings in other areas of the study.
Preferred Partners
ARL member libraries were asked additional ques-
tions about the types of partners sought in shared
print arrangements, which may be useful for planning.
There are some common values held across the re-
sponding libraries. In general, these libraries are most
interested in 1) participating in shared print programs
composed of other academic libraries, not large public
libraries 2) they prefer partners that strive to provide
better or more access to shared, retained collections
and 3) they prefer institutions that “manage” users,
particularly users that cause damage or loss to the col-
lections. When choosing partners to collaborate with
around print collections, the responding libraries most
value partners within the same resource sharing con-
sortium, but not necessarily the same state or province.
These emerged as primary criteria when choosing
partners to work with. Secondary criteria included
familiarity with the administrators at partner libraries
and some degree of parity in lending and borrowing.
Geographic proximity, collection similarity/dis-
similarity, or big disparities in lending and borrow-
ing patterns are less important criteria when choos-
ing partners. The respondents are not particularly
concerned about or interested in partnerships that
are within the same state or province, though some
