Collaborative Print Repositories: A Case Study of Library Directors' Views

Abstract

IntroductionThe academic library is a different place, both physically and virtually, than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. Students and faculty demand access to digital collections at any time and from any place. Bricks-and-mortar libraries increasingly house technology labs, multimedia rooms, group study rooms, and cafés. Often, the library is one of the main computing centers on campus, facing ever-increasing calls for adequate electrical and network connections, more computer workstations, and a wide range of printing and scanning services.1 Developing these user spaces usually means re-purposing existing physical facilities by shrinking collection footprints, since there is rarely money for new buildings. Thus many academic libraries are undertaking large-scale evaluations of their print collections to decrease the footprint of stacks and liberate space to expand technology and service areas. With the increasing duplication of print content in digital resources, the focus of this evaluation is often on journal collections.As the size and use of digital collections increases, the use of print resources decreases, particularly print journals. With pressures on space intensifying, these journal collections are being earmarked as candidates for storage, either within the institution or in some form of collaborative facility with other libraries. This leaves librarians grappling with what storage option best fits their needs and capabilities. Cooperative efforts to maintain at least one print copy of what is available digitally present an attractive option.2 This collaboration usually involves libraries working together to house print serial volumes duplicated in digital, providing a backup in case access to the electronic version is lost, as well as archiving a print copy in case it is needed for future research.As academic libraries recognize the need to evaluate print collections and even weed those collections to liberate space, they also have a number of concerns about the effects of such initiatives on research, learning, and teaching support for their academic communities. Issues include the reliability of digital content, how well the digital replicates the print, and the possible long-term value the print artifact may have for research and scholarship.

Three Libraries, Three Weeding Projects: Collaborative Weeding Projects Within a Shared Print Repository

“…The Canadian landscape, as surveyed in a 2006 study by CARL (Su 2006), has tended to view the solution to low-use, last print copy storage facilities (whether individual or consortia-based) as regional responsibilities (Maskell et al 2010). After significant study by a number of provincial and national committees, the University Libraries within the Province of Ontario (OCUL) concluded a preliminary framework agreement on last print copies called the Thunder Bay Last Copy Agreement (OCUL 2009).…”

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: Texas A&M University Libraries' collection assessment for off‐site storage

“…Increasingly, library managers recognize that rather than each library acting in isolation as a print repository (Bracke and Martin, 2005), they should cooperate to manage shared print repositories (Clement, 2012;Malpas, 2011, Maskell et al, 2010. Shared print repositories can be distributed or centralized and "can allow libraries to coordinate what they are keeping and what they are discarding" (Clement, 2012).…”

Storage of Legacy Print Collections: The Views of Australasian University Librarians

“…Previous research and discussion indicates the international interest in collaborative solutions to the storage of legacy print collections. There have been contributions from the United States (Chepesiuk and Weeks 2002;Reilly 2003;Payne 2005;Seaman 2005;Payne 2007;Malpas 2009); Canada (Gherman 2007;Maskell, Soutter and Oldenburg 2010); the United Kingdom (Sharp 2009); Scotland (Nicholson 2004); Norway (Henden 2005); Europe generally (Vattulainen 2004); Korea (Yoon and Oh 2008); and Australia (Genoni 2008;O'Connor and Jilovsky 2008;Genoni and Varga 2009). This paper reports on the results of a qualitative survey of Australian and New Zealand university library managers undertaken to investigate the respondents' attitudes and opinions that are driving their current decision making with respect to the storage of legacy print collections.…”