Near-Peers In Collaborations: The Contributions Of Non-Traditional/Non-Peer Network Partners

1. Near-Peers In Collaborations: The Contributions Of Non-Traditional/Non-Peer Network Partners Paul B. Drake Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library Tan Siu Lin Building University of Guam/Unibetsedat Guahan Mangilao Guam USA PDRAKE@UGUAMLIVE.UOG.EDU

2. From the U.S. Territory of Guam Only 4033 km away c2012 Google maps

3. Hafa Adai ! Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library in the Tan Siu Lin Building

4. Appreciation to: Library Director Christine Ku Scott-Smith

5. Abstract Collaborative networks are enhanced when they not only include peer institutions but also institutions with common purpose and values, or “near-peers.” The challenge is to recognize those near-peer institutions and demonstrate their value in resource sharing. The National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) in the United States is a library network with the mission of meeting the information needs of the nation’s health professionals and of the general public. The Network consists primarily of hospital libraries and university medical libraries with few non-medical academic libraries participating. This case study seeks to identify these “near-peers” members and examine their contributions to the Network’s resource sharing activities.

6. Comments Reflect Perception “You aren’t a peer institution.” “What does your library have to contribute?” “Your library will just take.” “Why would you what to be in the network?” “You can’t join.”

7. Library Networking and Cooperation In a discussion of national and international collaboration, T. Mark writes that “where cooperation becomes essential is where there is a common cause to champion or an initiative to pursue for the common good.” Literature on resource sharing routinely starts with the basic fact that no library can have all the information and resources that its users need. There is little reference to which types of libraries should be included in resource sharing consortia.

8. A 2007 report on OCUL, a consortium of twenty universities in Ontario province, Canada, reviewed the implementation of a shared interlibrary loan system. Key factors identified were planning (including a shared purpose and consensus on approach), leadership, financial support, technical support, cooperation, staff commitment, communication, staff- and end-user-centered focus, training, and evaluation. These and many other studies identify the value and benefits of consortium participation, often including ROI (return on investment) statistics in support of participation, but these studies do not analyze the value of certain types of libraries to consortia.

9. A few older studies address the contributions to consortia by a type of library. A 1980 Nevada state project was undertaken to expand access to biomedical information by adding the holdings of all health-related serials located at any library in the state to the SERHOLD database. Libraries in the state, regardless of type or previous NN/LM affiliation, would be encouraged to join the Network to access serials holdings information and request through DOCLINE.

10. Nevada statewide project (continued) The project’s summary states that the intent of the project was to “expand the state-wide library network beyond medical and hospital libraries to include libraries that were not primarily health-related but had serial holdings that health professionals needed,” and community college and academic libraries were contacted and invited to participate.

11. Dudden’s study on contributions - not a burden to the Network A 1997 study analyzed the interlibrary loan requests for primary access hospital libraries in Colorado and Wyoming, states in the United States, to determine whether the commonly expressed evaluation that these libraries are a burden to Network was true. Evidence was found that the majority of the requests from these primary access hospitals were provided by the other primary access hospitals in these two states, providing evidence that they were not a burden on the Network.

12. The National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) in the United States The National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) began in 1967 under the governance of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Its mission “is to advance the progress of medicine and improve the public health by providing all U.S. health professionals with equal access to biomedical information and improving the public's access to information to enable them to make informed decisions about their health.” Most members are hospital libraries, libraries at medical schools, and university research institutes.

13. NN/LM‘s 8 Regions http://nnlm.gov/

14. DOCLINE resource sharing system and its mascot Tugger DOCLINE is the Network’s automated resource sharing system. Request routing is based on the serials holdings entered into the serial holdings (SERHOLD) database by each member library and the borrowing library’s unique routing hierarchy.

15. Research Questions of this study • Are there non-medical academic libraries in the Network (NN/LM)? • What resources do they contribute? • To what extent are these near-peer institutions contributing both medical and non-medical information sources – as identified in their resource sharing activities?

16. Method Non-medical academic libraries in this paper are defined as academic libraries in institutions of higher education offering at least baccalaureate level degrees, but not having medical research centers or doctoral programs in the medical fields (medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, nursing, physical therapy, psychiatry). These institutions do not have separate medical or health science libraries. Libraries in institutions with bachelor and master level programs in nursing and allied health sciences would be included if all other criteria were met.

17. Search of NN/LM membership(January 2012) NN/LM members 8926 Limit to Docline participants 2818 Limit to academic libraries not Network Resource Library nor Regional Medical Libraries 335 Final count of non-medical academic library participants 76 .85% of the Network

18. Collecting Data These 76 libraries were contacted by email. Asked to share a specific DOCLINE system generated report 1-8C Ranked List of Serial Titles –Lender (January 2011-December 2011) Short questionnaire: total DOCLINE borrowing requests in 2011 18 libraries contributed, 4 declined (28.9% response)

19. Contribution of 18 near-peers 6675 requests filled from 1346 journals Ranged from 5 to 1369 requests filled Average of 371, better than Network average Lending to Borrowing ration : 2.54 Evidence that these near-peers contribute more to the Network than they receive. 14 participate in FreeShare, so their contributions are at no cost.

21. Other top requested non-medical journal titles • Psychological Reports (36 requests) • Science (35 requests) • Psychological Science (34 requests) • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (28 requests) • Journal of Cellular Physiology (27 requests) • Cyberpsychology & Behavior (26 requests) • Journal of Homosexuality (25 requests) • Social Work in Health Care; Journal of Applied Psychology (24 requests) • Research on Social Work Practice (23 requests) • Child Abuse & Neglect; Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (22 requests) • Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (21 requests)

22. Other journals supplied at least 10 times Poultry Science Reference Librarian Teachers College Record Adult Education Quarterly Journal of Criminal Justice Journal of Youth and Adolescence Family Relations Journal of Consumer Research Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport New Yorker

23. A college library group in one U.S. state is now the world’s largest resource sharing network - OCLC In 1967 the Ohio College Library Center was created for the initial purpose of sharing library cataloguing information amongst academic libraries in one state. It evolved to include other types of Ohio libraries and introduced resource sharing in 1979. OCLC is now the world’s largest resource sharing network including all types of libraries, a prime example that resource sharing consortia can be inclusive. Networks evolve, expand, become more inclusive.

24. “We are all in the same boat.” “’We are all in the same boat.’ This may seem trite or obvious but we often ignore or overlook the fact. It is easy to brush the implications aside on the grounds that there are more immediate and pressing problems at home: this is understandable and the priorities of one’s own home institution must be paramount. However it is short-sighted not to consider the longer-term needs of one’s institution and the profession, and indeed one’s ability to make a difference.

25. It is not enough to recite the usual litany of complaints that prevent us from playing our part: not enough staff, not enough money; not enough space, not enough time, and so on. The truth is that for research libraries we are indeed ‘all in the same boat,’ and can sink or swim together” Mark, T. (2007). National and International Library Collaboration: Necessity, Advantages.

26. Si Yu'us Ma'ase