SPEC Kit 345: Shared Print Programs · 41
Specialized non-ARLs also have a role, but ARLs are best placed to take the lead.
We expect that in the future, e-only will be the norm, i.e., no print to preserve. ARL members are changing their
collection strategies, and as such, the “always” part of this statement leads us to disagree.
We would welcome help from interested others but would like to think ARL libraries would bear ultimate responsibility
when there are no others willing/able to make the needed commitments.
Yes, so long as we coordinate so we’re not all holding the same low-use titles.
17. Twenty years from now, academic and research library users should expect to find fewer copies of
intentionally retained print publications that represent, in the aggregate, a comprehensive, widely
accessible shared collection. Users will find these resources… N=50
Resource Location 1 Strongly
Disagree
2 3 Agree 4 5 Strongly
Agree
N
Spread across a network of ARL and non-ARL
libraries
0 2 12 18 18 50
Spread across a network of ARL, non-ARL, and large
public libraries
2 8 12 9 18 49
At ARL libraries 0 4 17 12 17 50
Total Responses 2 11 30 28 36 50
Comments N=7
I am somewhat pessimistic about the financial viability of large public libraries to commit to holding substantial numbers
of “last copy” items in appropriate conditions. They will be somewhat active in this area, but the really substantial work
will be by the ARLs, I suspect.
It is difficult to imagine public libraries’ playing a large role in print retention programs in 20 years.
Large public libraries, a few aside, are not well placed to play a leading role. Everyone, however, will reduce
print holdings.
Need to rely on a network that is not exclusively American or academic.
Plus, facilities built for the purpose of housing shared print archives.
We place the focus on more being spread across a wide network.
While there will be many special and private libraries that retain print, I think ARL libraries, especially the larger ones,
will intentionally keep copies of print.
Specialized non-ARLs also have a role, but ARLs are best placed to take the lead.
We expect that in the future, e-only will be the norm, i.e., no print to preserve. ARL members are changing their
collection strategies, and as such, the “always” part of this statement leads us to disagree.
We would welcome help from interested others but would like to think ARL libraries would bear ultimate responsibility
when there are no others willing/able to make the needed commitments.
Yes, so long as we coordinate so we’re not all holding the same low-use titles.
17. Twenty years from now, academic and research library users should expect to find fewer copies of
intentionally retained print publications that represent, in the aggregate, a comprehensive, widely
accessible shared collection. Users will find these resources… N=50
Resource Location 1 Strongly
Disagree
2 3 Agree 4 5 Strongly
Agree
N
Spread across a network of ARL and non-ARL
libraries
0 2 12 18 18 50
Spread across a network of ARL, non-ARL, and large
public libraries
2 8 12 9 18 49
At ARL libraries 0 4 17 12 17 50
Total Responses 2 11 30 28 36 50
Comments N=7
I am somewhat pessimistic about the financial viability of large public libraries to commit to holding substantial numbers
of “last copy” items in appropriate conditions. They will be somewhat active in this area, but the really substantial work
will be by the ARLs, I suspect.
It is difficult to imagine public libraries’ playing a large role in print retention programs in 20 years.
Large public libraries, a few aside, are not well placed to play a leading role. Everyone, however, will reduce
print holdings.
Need to rely on a network that is not exclusively American or academic.
Plus, facilities built for the purpose of housing shared print archives.
We place the focus on more being spread across a wide network.
While there will be many special and private libraries that retain print, I think ARL libraries, especially the larger ones,
will intentionally keep copies of print.
