15es IFLA ILDS Conference

1. Sharing Across Borders: Interna3onal
Resource Sharing and Coopera3ve
Collec3on Development
ILDS 2017
Paris, France
October 4, 2017

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Ins3tu3onal Type
11

12. Interna3onal Impact
12

13. ILL Lending by Region and Language

14. ILL Lending and Local Circula3on
14

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. Imprint Region and Subject
16

17. Subject and English/Non-English Borrowing
17

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. Regional Impact
19

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. …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. 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. Digital vs. Print Delivery by Country