Download
1 / 29
290 likes | 309 Views
This monographs survey by Theo Stubbs covers current developments, challenges, and future steps regarding shared collections. The aim is to gauge community interest, explore the concept of 'rareness is common', and identify benefits and challenges. Recommendations include best practices, consultation with academics for a politically sensitive issue, and a model development process. The study involved surveys for academic staff and library directors to understand disciplinary differences, behaviors, and priorities in shared collections. Recommendations were made based on responses received. The next steps involve data collection from various sources and supporting local consultation. The report also delves into understanding collections overlap and the potential for a national shared collection. The investigation includes utilizing the GreenGlass and COPAC tools to assess overlap and retention commitments among White Rose Libraries. The ultimate goal is to develop a national shared collection model that balances preservation and space liberation.
E N D
Monographs: State of the Art Theo Stubbs, Imperial College London
What I will cover • The monographs survey from summer 2018 • Current work and next steps • Overlap and the 583 field (slides kindly provided by Ruth Elder and White Rose Libraries)
Monographs survey - general overview • Done as part of my dissertation last year • Questions covered many aspects of what we would need to know about shared collections • Now available as a report and a short report
Aims of monographs survey • To find out if there is appetite among the community • Whether the idea of ‘rareness is common’ has credence • What benefits would be sought • What challenges exist
Recommendations • These covered the work that should be done • And the potential shape of a UKRR for monographs
Vestibulum congue Wait for the NBK More work on digital surrogacy Larger overlap studies Next Steps Guidelines for best practice Development of a model
And finally... • Consult academics
Why? • Politically sensitive issue, particularly among some groups • A good opportunity to understand users and develop a model with this information in hand • Means these groups feel part of the process
Survey for academic staff designed • Developed in conjunction with the UKRR Board • The general aims were to understand: • Disciplinary differences • Behaviours in relation to items held in closed-access stores and interlibrary loan • The potential benefits and priorities for researchers when taking part in this type of work
Survey (for library directors) about a survey (for academic staff) • We need the support of library directors, as this would be likely to come from them • It thus needs to be in a form that they are happy to share • We sent this out to RLUK directors, asking two questions and for them to mark up the survey with track changes
The two questions: • Would you be prepared to distribute the survey to academics at your institution? If not, why not? • Do you foresee any risks with surveying academics?
Responses • Received responses from 16 RLUK libraries • Some positive, most cautious
Issues noted • Too long and too complex • Library-centric jargon • Mixed opinions towards survey format • Many libraries unprepared to send - would be more happy to consult academics using other channels • Some data can be more reliably gathered from other sources
Three main steps Obtain relevant data Where desired, support local consultation Where desired, support institutions to deliver an edited survey
Next steps - obtain data • Try to pull together data from different sources to address some of the questions • Sources include: • Ithaka studies • SCONUL returns • LMSs • General research
Ithaka data - where do people go next? • Freely available online version • Give up and look for something else • Interlibrary loan What does this mean if more material is not immediately available? From: Wolff, C., Rod, A. B., & Schonfeld, R. C. (2016). Ithaka S+R, Jisc, RLUK - UK survey of academics 2015. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34651
SCONUL data 3 - SCONUL Access data • Use of other libraries is not very popular • Less than 1000 loans to Band A Sconul Access users per year • Issues with data on this • Has only been part of the SCONUL return since 14/15 • Bluntness of Band A: includes academic staff, support staff, PhDs
Next steps - support local consultation • Appreciate that some institutions would prefer to consult in their own way • Put into place a central point of contact and a deadline for institutions which don’t want to use the survey format • This central point of contact could be the newly convened RLUK Collections Strategy Network • Guidance about the areas we would like to understand
Next steps - deliver edited survey • Re-design the survey, making it much shorter and focused specifically on benefits • Make this available to institutions which wish to use it
Understanding collections overlap: an investigation into White Rose Libraries collections using the SCS GreenGlass and COPAC Collaboration Collection Management Tool Final Report, July 2017
Size of the data lake • How does this impact on the level of overlap? • The potential of the NBK infrastructure to expose retention commitments • Appetite within the community to commit to the development of a national shared collection – with the commitments that will involve?
Example of use of 583 MARC tag in Amherst College local catalogue (East Retention Partner) o
What might a national collection look like • Research • Loanable? • Where is a national collection sited • Distributed collection • Centralised collection • Objective: preservation of a national collection whilst liberating space locally
