Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Sharing	Across	Borders:	Interna3onal	
Resource	Sharing	and	Coopera3ve	
Collec3on	Development		
ILDS	2017	
	
Paris,	France	...
Resource	Sharing	and	Coopera3ve	Collec3on	
Development	-		Ongoing	Discussions		
•  Interna3onal	and	Area	Studies	Collec3on...
Factors	shaping	these	discussions		
•  Local,	Regional,	and	Na3onal	Cons3tuencies	
•  Consor3al	Agreements	
•  Ins3tu3onal...
Our	Contribu3ons	to	these	Discussions		
•  “Measuring	and	Sustaining	the	Impact	of	Less	Commonly	
Taught	Language	Collec3o...
Present	Study	
•  Examined	the	use	of	area	studies	materials	by	assessing	five	
years	of	ILL	lending	data	with	local	use	at...
Context,	Defini3ons,	Acronyms		
•  Area	Studies:	“the	basic	concept	of	area	studies	is	that	the	
people	of	a	definable	geogr...
Research	Ques3ons	
1.  To	what	extent	such	collec3ons	and	associated	services	benefit	
borrowing	beyond	the	community	of	re...
Methodology	
•  Merged	monthly	lending	reports	(2009-2013)	to	create	a	single	database	
•  This	database	contained	records...
Methodology	(contd.)	
	
•  Added	a	field	for	“Imprint	Country”	in	the	spreadsheet	
•  Assigned	region	names	based	on	Title	...
Findings		
•  Academic	libraries	(57.32%)	and	Major	Academic	Research	
Libraries	(28.40%)	were	the	primary	beneficiary	of	o...
Ins3tu3onal	Type	
11
Interna3onal	Impact	
12
ILL	Lending	by	Region	and	Language
ILL	Lending	and	Local	Circula3on	
14
ILL	Lending	and	Local	Circula3on	
•  Striking	parallel	between	the	ILL	and	local	circula3on	
percentages	
•  More	rarely	h...
Imprint	Region	and	Subject	
16
Subject	and	English/Non-English	Borrowing	
17
Lending	–	Item	Level	
•  88.5	%	of	all	monographs	borrowed	during	the	five-year	
period	of	our	study	period	were	only	lent	...
Regional	Impact	
19
Conclusions	
•  Reducing	duplica3on	between	ins3tu3ons	could	
avoid	unnecessary	redundancy,	freeing	resources	for	
addi3on...
…and	Further	Research	Needs	
•  Can	libraries	iden3fy	lower-use	categories	to	shape	collec3on	
development	decisions	in	or...
Ques3ons?		
•  Tom	Teper	–	Associate	University	Librarian	for	Collec3ons	and	
Technical	Services	
–  Meper@Illinois.edu	
•...
Digital	vs.	Print	Delivery	by	Country
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Joe Lenkart, Thomas H. Teper, Esra Coskun and Mara Thacker, University of Illinois at Urbana_Champaign, USA Sharing across borders: international resource sharing and cooperative collection development

167 vues

Publié le

15es IFLA ILDS Conference

Publié dans : Données & analyses
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Joe Lenkart, Thomas H. Teper, Esra Coskun and Mara Thacker, University of Illinois at Urbana_Champaign, USA Sharing across borders: international resource sharing and cooperative collection development

  1. 1. Sharing Across Borders: Interna3onal Resource Sharing and Coopera3ve Collec3on Development ILDS 2017 Paris, France October 4, 2017
  2. 2. Resource Sharing and Coopera3ve Collec3on Development - Ongoing Discussions •  Interna3onal and Area Studies Collec3ons in 21st Century Libraries (Yale University, 2012) - hMps://www.crl.edu/focus/ar3cle/9088 •  IFLA Strategic Plan 2016-2021 (Hague, 2016) - hMps://www.ifla.org/strategic-plan •  Ireland’s memory, Ireland’s discovery, Consor3um of Na3onal and) University Libraries (CONUL) Strategy 2016-2019 (Dublin, 2016) - hMp://www.conul.ie/media/CONUL-Strategy2016_2019.pdf •  Strategy 2013 – 2017, Associa3on of European Research Libraries •  Collec3ve Collec3on: Leverage Our Past to Build Our Future (May 2017), Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) Annual Library Conference: hMps://www.btaa.org/calendar/conferences/library/2017/home. 2
  3. 3. Factors shaping these discussions •  Local, Regional, and Na3onal Cons3tuencies •  Consor3al Agreements •  Ins3tu3onal Support •  Resource Sharing Mechanisms and New Dimensions in Resource Sharing •  Na3onal and Interna3onal Publishing Trends •  Preserva3on of Cultural Heritage •  Educa3onal Environment 3
  4. 4. Our Contribu3ons to these Discussions •  “Measuring and Sustaining the Impact of Less Commonly Taught Language Collec3ons in a Research Library” (College & Research Libraries, vol. 76, no. 2, 2015) •  "Measuring and Sustaining the Impact of Area Studies Collec3ons in a Research Library: Balancing the Eco-System to Manage Scarce Resources" (Paper presented at the ACRL Conference, Portland, Oregon, March 25-28 2015). 4
  5. 5. Present Study •  Examined the use of area studies materials by assessing five years of ILL lending data with local use at University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) •  Inves3gated the similari3es and differences between lending of Less Commonly Taught Language (LCT) materials and 3tles published abroad 5
  6. 6. Context, Defini3ons, Acronyms •  Area Studies: “the basic concept of area studies is that the people of a definable geographical sector, ac3ng in their society and their environment, offer an appropriate unit for scholarly aMen3on” (Source: Interna:onal Encyclopedia of Social Sciences online) •  Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs) •  Commonly Taught Languages (CTLs) •  Study context: 177,366 one direc3onal lending transac3ons and 105,849 requests for unique 3tles. 6
  7. 7. Research Ques3ons 1.  To what extent such collec3ons and associated services benefit borrowing beyond the community of research universi3es? 2.  How are the benefits of the lending of specialized materials dispersed across the different geographic regions and/or the different types of ins3tu3ons? 3.  How does the impact of materials from area studies change when using the country of publica3on rather than language to define the scope of the collec3on? 4.  How does demand for materials on a par3cular subject change based on language or country of publica3on of those materials? 5.  Is there any correla3on between local circula3on of area studies materials and interlibrary loan requests for those same materials? 6.  Do more rarely held materials experience the same demand as widely held materials in terms of both local circula3on and ILL requests? 7
  8. 8. Methodology •  Merged monthly lending reports (2009-2013) to create a single database •  This database contained records for 177,366 transac3ons and 105,849 requests for unique 3tles •  Removed duplicate ILL lending records that appeared in consecu3ve months •  Removed ILL lending records for which cri3cal informa3on like imprint and OCLC number were missing 8
  9. 9. Methodology (contd.) •  Added a field for “Imprint Country” in the spreadsheet •  Assigned region names based on Title VI region list, Department of Educa3on •  Added OCLC holdings counts showing number of available copies at OCLC member ins3tu3ons •  Included local circula3on counts for the same period for each item 9
  10. 10. Findings •  Academic libraries (57.32%) and Major Academic Research Libraries (28.40%) were the primary beneficiary of outgoing lending transac3ons with Public Libraries receiving the third largest share at 8.87% •  Science, Language and Literature, Agriculture, and Fine Arts were most borrowed subject areas •  States with the highest percentage of lending transac3ons were: Michigan (14%), Indiana (9%), Wisconsin (8%), Pennsylvania (7%), and Minnesota (7%) •  Two categories which circulate the most (both locally and via ILL) are the most and the least frequently held items 10
  11. 11. Ins3tu3onal Type 11
  12. 12. Interna3onal Impact 12
  13. 13. ILL Lending by Region and Language
  14. 14. ILL Lending and Local Circula3on 14
  15. 15. ILL Lending and Local Circula3on •  Striking parallel between the ILL and local circula3on percentages •  More rarely held materials which have only 1-10 copies listed in OCLC account for 15.6% of ILL transac3ons •  The most commonly held materials which have 91 or more copies listed in OCLC account for about 42% of both ILL and local circula3on. 15
  16. 16. Imprint Region and Subject 16
  17. 17. Subject and English/Non-English Borrowing 17
  18. 18. Lending – Item Level •  88.5 % of all monographs borrowed during the five-year period of our study period were only lent a single 3me •  7,327 monographs were lent out only twice, accoun3ng for 8.9% of lending •  Of the 46,612 monographs with non US imprints, the university lent 41,506 monographs only once, accoun3ng for 89% of the total number of non-US imprint monographs that were lent •  3,978 items (8.5%) were lent out twice 18
  19. 19. Regional Impact 19
  20. 20. Conclusions •  Reducing duplica3on between ins3tu3ons could avoid unnecessary redundancy, freeing resources for addi3onal collec3ng •  Poten3al exists for collec3ons of lower used materials to serve broad scholarly communi3es through resource sharing •  Research libraries can and do serve broad communi3es – making the realiza3on of collec3ve collec3ons a possibility 20
  21. 21. …and Further Research Needs •  Can libraries iden3fy lower-use categories to shape collec3on development decisions in order to acquire more high-use and/or long-tail items that serve consor3al needs? •  Policy Implica3ons for Collec3ve Collec3ons –  Those collected as “General Collec3ons” –  Those collected as “ar3facts”… Dis3nc3ve Collec3ons •  The Collec3ve Collec3on as Preserva3on Tool –  Impacts on ins3tu3onal and collec3ve stewardship •  Discovery and Technical Challenges – “discovery to delivery” •  Agreement on What Cons3tutes “True” Duplica3on 21
  22. 22. Ques3ons? •  Tom Teper – Associate University Librarian for Collec3ons and Technical Services –  Meper@Illinois.edu •  Esra Coşkun – Collec3ons Analysis and Planning Specialist –  coskun@illinois.edu •  Mara Thacker – South Asian Studies Librarian –  mthacker@illinois.edu •  Joe Lenkart – Interna3onal Reference Librarian –  lenkart@Illinois.edu 22
  23. 23. Digital vs. Print Delivery by Country

×