aliss quarterly jan2013

Volume 8, No. 2 ISSN 17479258January 2013

ALISS QuarterlyAssociation of Librarians and Information professionals in the Social Sciences

Special issue: Collections in the digital age.

Exploring concepts of ‘collection’ in the digital world

PhD research.

Adapting to an online world

University of East London, LSE Library, University of Sussex Library.

Space management

University of Reading.

Collaborative collection development

Copac Collection Management Tools at University of Leeds.

UK Research Reserve.

New resource

Launch of Social Welfare Portal at the British Library.PRO

OF

ALISS Quarterly Vol. 8 Number 2 January 2013 © The authors

Each article is copyrighted to its author(s) and all rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or data retrieval system without prior written permission from the author(s) and full acknowledgement to ALISS.

Editor: Heather Dawson [email protected]

Published by ALISS.

PRO

OF

ALISS Quarterly Volume 8 no. 2 January 2013

Special issue: Collections in the digital age.

EditorialHeather Dawson

Exploring concepts of ‘collection’ in the digital world Angharad Roberts, PhD researcher, University of Sheffield

Adapting to an online world

The Digital Library and e-strategy at the University of East LondonAdjoa K. Boateng, Collections Development Manager, University of East London

Rethinking collection development in the digital age: the case of government publicationsEmma Allison, Bryan Johnson and Rozz Evans, Newsam Library & Archives, Institute of Education

Working with collections: some reflections from the LSE Collection Development Team

Graham Camfield, Ellen Wilkinson, Barbara Humphries, Heather Dawson LSE Library

“Suggest a Book for the Library”- using Facebook for purchase suggestions at the University of Sussex LibraryEmma Walton - Learning and Teaching Support Manager, Annette Moore – Technical Services Librarian

Space management

Transforming our collections: How we reviewed over 1 million items in five years and got them all to fit!Paul Johnson, Head of Collections and Space, University of ReadingClaire Cannings, Collections Project Co-ordinator, University of Reading

Collaborative collection development

Leeds University Library’s use of the Copac Collection Management ToolsMaureen Pinder, Faculty Team Librarian, and Brian Clifford, Deputy Librarian, University of Leeds.

UK Research Reserve – its aims, development and progress so farDaryl Yang, UKRR Manager

New resource

Evidence in Social Welfare Policy and Practice. Fri 7 Dec 2012 Conference Centre, British Library: a reviewHeather Dawson, LSE Library and Angela Upton SCIE.

PRO

OF

ALISS Quarterly 8 (1) October 2012

ALISS Quarterly 8 (2) January 2013

1

PRO

OF

Editorial

Welcome to the latest edition of ALISS Quarterly. It has been published by ALISS (Association of Librarians and Information Professionals in the Social Sciences).

This special issue is based upon our Christmas 2012 event: Selection policies in the digital age - building a hybrid library.

See the main Aliss website at http://www.alissnet.org.uk/ to download the full papers. The three speakers offered insight into the challenges libraries face in creating and adapting collection development policies to an increasing online world. The afternoon began with a fascinating talk from Angharad Roberts (PhD researcher based at the British Library) who explored concepts of “collection” in the digital world’ using insights from her doctoral research. The paper is expanded in this issue and those who are interested can also keep up to date by following her blog. http://digitalworldcollections.blogspot.com.

This was followed by Sharon Johnson Head of Collection Development Implementation at the British Library who discussed from a managerial perspective the development and implementation of a content development strategy at the British library. She stressed the need for it to be a living document which would underpin the mission of the BL library to advance knowledge and for all stakeholders to understand its purpose, planning milestones and their part in implementing it. The background for the new strategy was the need to be responsive to both changing internal and external factors. She then considered the content of the new draft strategy which will focus on a subject based approach and move towards digital content and considered how the implementation plan will translate this into goals and actions

Finally Paul Johnson Head of Collections and Space. University of Reading Library gave some insight into a stock management exercise undertaken at the University of Reading. This is expanded in full in the issue including coverage of methods of weeding undertaken by subject librarians.

Other articles in the issue consider the impact of online content upon collection development policies at the University of East London and the LSE Library. And the University of Sussex describes an innovative scheme to use Facebook to enable user selection of new acquisitions.

Another key concern in times of austerity is the possibility of collaborative work. The UKRR is enabling shared storage and preservation of journal materials. The tools being development by COPAC will enable libraries to cross compare collections and make decisions about retention, acquisition and disposal.

Finally the issue concludes with a review of the launch of a major new website the Social Welfare portal created by the British Library

We hope you enjoy the issue.

Keep up to date with our website at http://www.alissnet.org.uk

We also have a new twitter channel where you can keep up to date with our latest


2

PRO

OF

activities. http://twitter.com/aliss_info we are using it to highlight weekly listings of new social science websites.

Remember that you can also keep up to date with ALISS news by subscribing to our free electronic mailing list LIS_SOCIAL SCIENCE at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/LIS-SOCIALSCIENCE.html . Or consulting our website at: http://www.alissnet.org.uk

Heather Dawson.ALISS [email protected]


3

PRO

OF

Exploring concepts of ‘collection’ in the digital worldAngharad Roberts, PhD researcher, University of [email protected]

IntroductionThis paper provides an overview of my PhD research “Conceptualising the library collection for the digital world: a case study of social enterprise”. The project aims to use a case study of the library collection for social enterprise to develop a conceptual approach to the library collection in the digital world. It is based on a presentation given to ALISS December 2012. Slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/AngharadRoberts/aliss-chi.

Why does conceptualising the library collection matter?As the resources which libraries deal with become increasingly diverse and complex, aspects of collection development and management become more specialised and potentially more fragmented. I think that, by taking a step back and asking some fundamental questions about what a collection actually is in the digital world, and by trying to develop an overarching framework for thinking about ‘collection’ in library and information services, it may be possible to develop new approaches to current practical issues relating to collections.

Why social enterprise?Social enterprise is a relatively new term for a much older idea. In the UK, the origins of social enterprise may be traced to the emergence of cooperatives in eighteenth-century Scotland or to their wider development in nineteenth-century England (Ridley-Duff and Bull, 2011: 26). A range of definitions has been proposed since the late 1970s, of which perhaps the most straightforward – but least nuanced – is “business with a social purpose” (Ridley-Duff and Bull, 2011: 52). One useful summary of current types of social enterprises in the UK has been provided by Spear, Cornforth & Aiken (2009: 265-266) who describe four broad categories:

Mutuals (such as John Lewis) and co-operatives; •“Trading charities”; •“New-start social enterprises” – organisations specifically established as social •

enterprises, such as Divine Chocolate;“Public-sector spin-offs” – public sector organisations moving out of the public •

sector. The Research Information Network is an example of an organisation which has made a transition from being a publicly-funded body to being a social enterprise.

Social enterprise is an interesting subject to study in relation to library collections because of its interdisciplinary nature. These are increasingly significant areas of research activity for a number of reasons:

Interdisciplinary approaches reflect the reality of how subjects interconnect;•They facilitate problem centred approaches to social issues, using perspectives •

from a range of different subjects to gain insight into the problem and to develop possible solutions;

Interdisciplinary research is encouraged by research funders;•Interdisciplinary work is facilitated by cross-disciplinary access to information.•

Social enterprise also exemplifies some of the issues relating to new types of communities,


4

PRO

OF

especially those which are not defined by a specific geographic locality. Social enterprise can be seen as a community of practice; people share their work-related expertise through networks and virtual communities. The social enterprise community also generates a lot of information itself, including on social networking sites or on blogs. This is difficult material for libraries to deal with, but reflects important trends relating to the dramatic increase in informal online publication.

There is a very diverse range of potential stakeholders interested in the field including people running social enterprises, policy makers, and researchers and academics. Relevant materials are also likely to be found in a wide range of libraries, including academic, public and national libraries, as well as health libraries, or libraries in professional associations or government departments. Focusing on this subject area should provide a snapshot of issues affecting library collections across these different organisations.

Research designThere are three strands to my research:

A case study of the British Library’s collections for social enterprise, examining • the characteristics of the library collection for social enterprise and how it is used;

Catalogue searches of other UK library catalogues;•A series of interviews with a small number of people, followed by a survey •

of a larger group to see if the ideas which emerged from the interviews are representative of people’s views more widely. This part of my research aims to explore aspects of the topic in greater depth, including looking at how people access information relating to social enterprise, librarian and information practitioner perceptions of social enterprise information, and exploring wider issues relating to library collections in the digital age.

This paper focuses on findings from the third strand.

Initial findings - interviewsI interviewed 18 people between June 2011 and June 2012. The interviewees included 5 people involved in social enterprise, 2 academics, 2 policymakers, 6 library and information practitioners, 2 publishers and a research administrator.

In all of the interviews I asked the question “What do you understand the term collection to mean?”

6 interviewees, including half the library and information practitioners, saw the term as an example of library jargon.

However, even people who thought of it first as a jargon term went on to give further sophisticated, nuanced and inclusive interpretations of what ‘collection’ means. When ana-lysing the interview data, I found these definitions could be clustered in the following way:

Collection as process• , which is further subdivided:Collection as selection; oDynamically created collections through searching; oCollection as service. o

Collection as thing• , which is further subdivided:Collection as subject groups; o


5

PRO

OF

Collection comprised of sub-groupings; oCollection and quantity. o

Collection as access• – the term is not just limited to materials which a library physically owns.

These definitions echoed some ideas from the literature. For example, ideas of collection as a process seemed to echo the advice of Horava (2010: 150): “consider what a collection does rather than what a collection is”. A definition offered by an academic interviewee – “a body of work that has been brought together using a particular set of criteria” – seemed to echo a definition proposed by Lagoze and Fielding (1998)

“A collection is logically defined as a set of criteria for selecting resources from the broader information space”.

Ideas of collection as thing included defining collection as a group of materials on a subject or a theme, or as containing sub-groups of material. These ideas of collection as groupings of material on a subject and collections containing “subcollections” echoed findings from earlier research on this topic (Lee, 2005: 73, 76).

Almost all interviewees also discussed the idea of collection as access, including all six library and information practitioners. An academic librarian said: “the term collection can mean anything that we provide access to for both teaching and research to do with the university”, supporting the suggestion by Feather and Sturges (2003: 80-81) that ‘collection’:

“can also be taken to include all the information resources to which a library has access, including those available through physical and virtual networks”.

However, this also represents the greatest difference between the findings from this project and those described by Lee (2005), who found a contrast between customer priorities of access and availability, and librarian priorities of control and management.

Collection and the impact of digital technologyThe interviewees discussed a number of dimensions to the impact of digital technology on library collections including:

Digital has a global reach;•Digital can be personal and personalized;•Digital adds complexity;•Digital overcomes certain types of physical constraint (the size of a printed page, •

the length of a shelf);Digital creates an opportunity for libraries to shift from outside – in to inside •

–out information provision (Dempsey, 2012: 8), moving from collecting materials from the external information environment to make them available to a local audience, to pushing out unique local content to the wider information universe;

Digital may alter the order of some traditional collection processes;•• Digital and perceptions of ‘free’ information. Library and information services play a

significant role as cost mediators, as well as information mediators. This may be an increasingly important role for libraries in the context of disruptive new cost models, such as author pays open access (Finch Group, 2012); new collaborative approaches


6

PRO

OF

A quotation from an interview with a publisher combines some of these ideas, to give what I think is a much more dynamic view of ‘collection’ than might traditionally be the case:

“I suppose a really good collection is... where you take content and you can merge it, you can cross-fertilise it, you can... discover easily”.

Initial findings – surveysI carried out two surveys between July and October 2012:

Survey of library and information practitioners (103 completed responses);•Survey of people involved in social enterprise (46 completed responses).•

The relatively small number of responses limits the conclusions which I can draw from the survey results. However, there appeared to be a very similar pattern between the rankings given to eight definitions of ‘collection’ by library and information practitioner and the rankings given to the same eight definitions by people involved in social enterprise.

Overwhelmingly, most respondents from both groups selected “Group of materials on a subject or a theme” as their first, second or third highest ranked definition, followed by “provision of access to resources” and “a set of results created through searching”. This does seem to suggest some support for the idea of collection as thing (a subject grouping), collection as access (“provision of access”), and potentially collection as process: the idea of a collection generated by searching does seem to suggest a more dynamic, process-led approach to defining collection.

Secondly, library and information practitioners more frequently described libraries as very important or essential sources of information about social enterprise than Google. In contrast, among social enterprise respondents, Google was one of two resources most frequently described as very important or essential; only a minority of respondents rated libraries as a very important or essential source of information about social enterprise.

Finally, social enterprise respondents seemed to place greater emphasis on the preservation role of libraries. Generally, preservation activities were rated as a very important or essential role for libraries by a larger proportion of social enterprise respondents. However, there were considerable sectoral differences in the library and information practitioner responses: a higher proportion of national library respondents than public or academic library respondents gave higher levels of priority to preservation activities.

Other findings from the library and information practitioner survey included:

There were sectoral differences in the preferred terms for library resources. • Overall, stock was the most popular term, just ahead of ‘collection’;

89%• of library and information practitioners agreed or strongly agreed that they have a good understanding of the community their library or information service serves; however, only 34% agreed or strongly agreed that community analysis enables them to identify emerging areas such as social enterprise;

4• public librarians and 2 academic librarians reported having no policy document;

to library purchasing such as the Scottish Higher Education Digital Library (Research Information Network, 2010); or innovative attempts to adapt crowd-funding approaches to open up access to scholarly e-books (Knowledge Unlatched, 2012).


7

PRO

OF

81%• agreed or strongly agreed that collection policy documentation is “A working document setting out how we approach practical problems managing the collection”;

74%• agreed or strongly agreed that collection policy documentation is “A statement about the current level of service provided by our collection”;

However, only • 26% agreed or strongly agreed that collection policy documentation is “A document to promote the collection to our users”;

Different selection methods are preferred in different sectors. For example, • public librarians rely more on customer suggestions and supplier selection, whilst academic librarians reported more use of reading lists or Patron Driven Acquisitions.

ConclusionOne of the most interesting findings, from both the interviews and the surveys, is the extent to which ideas of search and collection seem to overlap. I think this raises questions about role of collection in an age of resource discovery and suggests that these are related, complementary concepts.

My initial findings do seem to suggest that ‘collection’ continues to be a useful term. Library and information practitioners and people involved in social enterprise seem to share complex, nuanced understandings of the term.

I have recently been looking at how these ideas of collection as thing, access and process could potentially be linked to existing collection development and management hierarchies (Corrall and Roberts, 2012). This includes:

Collection as thing• suggesting ways of thinking about collection strategy; Collection as access• suggesting ways to think about tactics; Collection as process• offering a way of thinking about the operational level of

collection development and management.

I believe that by interpreting the term ‘collection’ in a more dynamic way, it should be possible to maximise its relevance in the digital world. This might provide new ways of approaching emerging practical issues affecting library collections.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank my supervisors, both at Sheffield and at the British Library, and everyone who has taken part in this research. I would also like to thank the British Library for supporting this work. The project is funded by a British Library Concordat Scholarship.

Further information about this projectOpen access publications about this project include:

Corrall, S. & Roberts, A. (2012). “Information resource development and ‘collection’ in the digital age: conceptual frameworks and new definitions for the network world”. Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) 2012, [Online]. http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida2012/article/view/62/33 [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Roberts, A. (2012). “New subjects, new communities, new formats: the library collection in the digital world”. In: Bernhardt, B., Hinds, L. & Strauch, K. (eds.), Charleston Conference Proceedings, 2011, pp. 181-190. [Online]. West Lafayette: Perdue University


8

PRO

OF

Press. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2011/Acquisitions/16/ [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Roberts, A. (2012). “Conceptualising the library collection for the digital world: a case study of social enterprise”. Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) 2012, [Online]. http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida2012/article/view/69/38 [Accessed 14 December 2012].

I also blog about my research at: http://digitalworldcollections.blogspot.com.

ReferencesCorrall, S. & Roberts, A. (2012). “Information resource development and ‘collection’ in the

digital age: conceptual frameworks and new definitions for the network world”. Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) 2012, [Online]. http://ozk.unizd.hr/proceedings/index.php/lida2012/article/view/62/33 [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Dempsey, L. (2012). Libraries and the informational future: some notes. In: Marchionini, G. & Moran, B. (Eds.), Information Professionals 2050: Educational Possibilities and Pathways, pp. 113-125. [Online]. Chapel Hill: School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.oclc.org/resources/research/publications/library/2012/dempsey-informationalfutures.pdf [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Feather, J. & Sturges, P. (eds.) (2003). International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science. London: Routledge.

Finch Group (2012). Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications [Online]. http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Horava, T. (2010). “Challenges and possibilities for collection management in a digital age”. Library Resources & Technical Services, 54 (3), 142-52.

Knowledge Unlatched (2012). Knowledge Unlatched [Online]. http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/ [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Lagoze, C. & Fielding, D. (1998). “Defining collections in distributed digital libraries”. D-Lib Magazine http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november98/lagoze/11lagoze.html [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Lee, H.-L. (2005). “The concept of collection from the user’s perspective”. The Library Quarterly, 75 (1), 67-85.

Research Information Network (2010). One Year On: Evaluating the Initial Impact of the Scottish Higher Education Digital Library (SHEDL) [Online]. London: Research Information Network. http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/SHEDL_report_for_screen.pdf [Accessed 14 December 2012].

Ridley-Duff, R. & Bull, M. (2011). Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Spear, R., Cornforth, C. & Aiken, M. (2009). “The governance challenges of social enterprises: evidence from a UK empirical study”. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80 (2), 247-273.


9

PRO

OF

The Digital Library and e-strategy at the University of East LondonAdjoa K. Boateng, Collections Development Manager, University of East [email protected]

This paper describes the e-strategy that has been employed to facilitate the growth of the Digital Library at the University of East London (UEL). The focus has been to ensure that the elements which characterise the UEL Digital Library combine to realise the aim of supporting the University’s teaching & learning, Research & Knowledge exchange strategies and also support the vision and strategic intent of the University. The vision is to achieve recognition, both nationally and internationally, as a successful and inclusive regional university proud of its diversity, committed to new modes of learning which focus on students and enhance their employability.

Diagram 1: A visual representation of the UEL Digital Library and the elements of the e-strategy which facilitate its existence

The UEL Digital Library functions as the synergy of four elements each based on facets of the e-strategy. These four elements, Information resources, Infrastructure, ECDL: Literacy training and Future Initiatives work collectively, yet also function independently, to create a Digital Library that is both efficient and responsive.

Information resources form the most visible of the core e-strategy elements. This includes E-books, Journals, Special collections (Digital Archives), the Research Open access repository (ROAR) and Databases. The growth and management of the first four have required targeted strategies whereas the emergence of electronic Databases as a resource has generally been a more natural progression. The Collections policy also supports a preference for the digital format wherever available and feasible. Evidence-


10

PRO

OF

based resource acquisition (ERA) is the main method used to expand and purchase the collection of e-books available through the Digital Library. The decision to adopt ERA as a permanent and significant mode of acquisition followed the results of a pilot test undertaken in 2011. It was recognised that budget constraints are, as in the case of traditionally fully mediated acquisition, the major risk to ERA. To mitigate this risk, a clear understanding of the models and administration supporting the ERA is required. ERA is serviced by one aggregator while mediated purchases of single titles and packages are also brought from other sources. Identified members of the team monitor buying trends across the academic year, adjusting the administrative models to maintain expenditure levels.

During the past decade the Journal collection has seen a consistent transformation from Print to Electronic. In line with many Higher Education Institutions new subscriptions are now taken as e-only. The Archives, which are Special Digital Collections - Otha (Online Theatre Histories Archives) and ELTA (East London Theatre Archives), developed out of the Clustering and Enhancing Digital Archives for Research, a JISC project. Working with King’s College London’s Centre for E-Research, the project explored ways of enhancing metadata and improving resource discovery for archives, including experimenting with different approaches to user generated content and user tagging. ROAR, as a research archive, preserves and disseminates scholarly work created by members of the University of East London. It exists as an online publication platform that offers free permanent access to anyone.

Infrastructure includes staff and the tools used to support access and delivery of the Information Resources. UEL has recently migrated to a cloud based Library Management System (Alma) which has been developed to enable a unified workflow for physical, digital and electronic assets. With this new system we aim to be able to manage more effectively the migration of the digital library and to use the integrated analytics to manage all our Information resources, giving the best value for money. The Federated Search Engine (Primo) branded ‘Library Search’ is promoted as the front end resource discovery tool for the location and retrieval of the Information resources. The efficient management of the metadata underpins access to all of the electronic records. A dedicated Metadata Librarian retains the main overview, checking that records conform to national or international standards to ensure quality, consistency and interoperability of metadata, with the assistance of staff members as required. The management of metadata is integral to the workflow of the Infrastructure. A dedicated team works to deliver key projects such as research data management, and the potential to develop and support a wider range of library and learning technologies.

ECDL and Literacy training cover activities undertaken to minimise and remove the barriers that affect access to the Digital Library. This part of the e-strategy acknowledges the fact that the Digital Library can only fully realise its potential if it has users capable of proactively using the Information resources and the infrastructure. All UEL students are offered the opportunity to gain the European Computer Driving Licence as this qualification improves the basic IT skills which are today essential to employment. Subject Librarians provide regular specialist group and one to one literacy sessions to raise


11

PRO

OF

awareness and use of the information resources available through the Digital Library. They also maintain a specialist Information skills section on the Library webpage’s which focuses upon resource provision to improve literacy. Projects undertaken within this element also tackle transliteracy, enabling students to use a selection of technological devices and platforms, such as e-readers and tablets, to independently access the Information resources. One key pre-identified objective for these projects has been the enhancement of the student learning and teaching experience, minimising the occurrence of resources not available digitally or in an inconvenient digital format. This feedback from these projects also informs the progress of the e-strategy within each of the other elements.

Future initiatives provide a holistic reference to what is, to some extent, the least tangible element of the e-strategy. This element covers initiatives and innovations that have not yet been integrated, partially or fully, into any of the other elements. This includes plans such as the integration of Open access resources, Digital Preservation of archives or collections and an ERA based demand driven article service. Also included in this element is the preparation, planning, training and research into technological advances that have yet to arrive but will almost certainly have a significant impact upon the Digital Library of the future.

Today as a result of the e-strategy, the UEL Digital library provides 40% of total book titles available through Library and Learning Services. 98.6% of the Journal collection is now provided in electronic format, in addition to the growth of digital archives. Since 2009, e-books usage has increased 300%, the number of e-article downloads have increased by 30% while usage of electronic databases is up by 142%. These changes are indicative of a trend across Higher Education however, they also illustrate how Students and Academic staff are now making the Digital Library their primary choice when teaching and learning at UEL.

References:

http://www.uel.ac.uk/lls/ http://www.uel.ac.uk/infoskills


12

PRO

OF

Rethinking collection development in the digital age: the case of government publicationsEmma Allison, Bryan Johnson and Rozz Evans, Newsam Library & Archives, Institute of Education

The Official Publications collection at the Newsam Library and Archives consists of information published by local, regional or national legislative organisations plus quango publications from the earliest origins of UK state education to date. We continue to collect all publications directly relevant to the core concerns of the Institute of Education.

Developing the Digital Education Resource Archive (DERA: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/) using the e-prints software has revolutionised how we collect and manage government electronic publications.

In this article we review the changes to our process in two areas of activity: 1) selection and 2) cataloguing.

1) SelectionWhen Emma Allison began working as the Senior Library Assistant for Official Publications, born-digital items were added to our catalogue as records with an electronic link. We did this in spite of the continuous problem of identifying dead urls (and the fact that we did not ‘own’ the publication), and took the precaution of also printing and storing a back up paper copy. Within a year or so, we had thousands of documents so when our Systems Librarian, Bernard Scaife, developed a way of using the ePrints software to store and preserve them AND make them accessible electronically it was the solution we had all dreamed of!

Emma is responsible for the Official Publications collection. Now, rather than spending hours compiling lists, placing and chasing up orders she simply adds relevant official publications straight to DERA which secures the document immediately and ensures it remains accessible without the need for the surrogate back up printed copy. In addition to uploading the file, she adds the title, selects the copyright status, and adds the original url to the ‘additional information page’ as a provenance record. Staff from technical services then ‘catalogue’ the record and move it to the live archive.

DERA in its current form is good for pdf, doc and xls formats. We are currently working on adding video and audio files.

However some formats are problematic, such as html. In cases where there is no alternative, these documents cannot be added. This concerns us greatly in terms of the integrity of our collection. For example when organisations choose to present information as a series of web pages we are not able to ‘collect’ this publication. This happens when consultations are online only; or with online surveys and with HEFCE’s electronic publications (EP) which often have important content such as funding allocations information.

Documents embedded in websites such as ‘Teachfind’ are a challenge too. Many of the National Strategies resources were only available to schools. Unfortunately we cannot currently harvest these for DERA, as they use a format which is not compatible. It is sometimes possible to source them elsewhere, so there is an ongoing process of looking for alternative formats once a resource comes to light.


13

PRO

OF

Another source of frustration has been encountered when organisations which come under the remit of our collection policy refuse permission for us to put the documents in DERA. This has only happened twice out of more than 100 organisations. It does seem rather anomalous as all publications we select are by definition publicly accessible via the internet. The time spent on checking copyright and so on, is a cost that we have to factor in.

2) CataloguingThe workflow of official publications going in to DERA is different from the standard workflow used in a more general instance of ePrints, such as the IOE’s institutional repository. At the IOE the workflow of DERA material is managed by the Cataloguing and Metadata Librarian, Bryan Johnson, and records are added by colleagues in both cataloguing and acquisitions teams – the beauty lies in the simplicity of editing required.

Standard eprints workflow1. Work area – your view of the records you are in the process of creating2. Review area - your view of the records you have created that have the status ‘Review’3. Retire area – your view of the records you have created that have the status ‘ Retired’4. Live Archive – your view of the records you have created that are now in the live repository5. Global Review – a view shared by all editors of all records with the status ‘Review’

DERA Workflow1. Collection Development staff select items and create a brief DERA record, or an administrator carries out a bulk import of records from an external source.

2. Metadata and Copyright is checked by Technical Services staff, and if there are no issues the record is made live, or if there are issues it is retired with an explanatory note.

3. Collection Development Librarians monitor the retired records. If they can resolve the issue they do so and move it back to step 2 with an additional explanatory note or if the issue cannot be resolved they remove the record from the workflow.

Why the ‘Normal’ E-prints Workflow is not suited to DERA1. Large volume of different types of work – at any given time we may have bulk uploaded over 5,000 records, be running 2 special projects, and still be selecting over 300 records a month. This means that ‘Global Review’ has at times contained several thousand records with differing workflows and priorities; we needed a way to keep the various workflows separate.

2. Large number of staff working on DERA – at any given time there can be 10 library staff working on DERA and we want them to be able to work on specific work streams as priorities dictate; we need to be able to allocate specific records to staff.

DERA Project LoginsTo enable us to allocate work with differing priorities to several staff we created the


14

PRO

OF

concept of DERA project areas. Project areas are in effect ‘shared’ editor accounts that are created for each distinct work stream and their login details are held on the shared drive and accessible by the appropriate staff.

For example one of the project areas we have is for new material.

Collection Development selectors log in to the New Material project area, upload the files and create brief DERA records in the New Material project Work Area. When they have finished they move them into the New Material project Review Area. The New Material project Review Area is managed to ensure that no item is in there for more than 2 weeks.

Technical Services staff also log in using the New Material project username and password. If there is a problem the record is retired and selectors monitor the New Material project Retire Area; if the issue can be resolved the selector moves it back to the New Material project Review Area where Technical Services staff once again pick it up for editing. If the issue cannot be resolved the record is removed from the new material workflow. In this way the DERA new material work is effectively managed as a single distinct workflow.

In terms of cost/time for comparison, it costs us £1.25 per record to edit DERA records in the repository and takes approximately time 5 minutes per record. A full catalogue record (including classification) for traditional print would cost £3.75 per record and take approximately 15 minutes.

So in addition to the advantages already listed above, it is also more cost effective in cataloguing terms and thus more sustainable even taking into account the great number of e-publications we are dealing with.

We are confident that DERA will continue to grow, and our plans include expansion of content to include other types of organisations such as pressure groups, charities and not-for-profit bodies – watch this space.

ReferencesDigital Education Resource Archive (DERA) http://dera.ioe.ac.uk

Evans, R. (2011). Preserving access to government and official publications in education -- the digital education resource archive (DERA). ALISS Quarterly, 7(1), 23-26.

Evans, R. (2012). The digital education resource archive (DERA) one year on -- lessons learned, plans for the future. ALISS Quarterly, 7(3), 14-16.

Scaife, B. (2011) From Link Rot to Web Sanctuary: Creating the Digital Educational Resource Archive (DERA). Ariadne Issue 67 http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue67/scaife/

Scaife, Bernard (2012-06-15) Creating a special collections repository (DERA). In: Institutional Repository Managers’ Workshop (IRMW12), 15 Jun 2012, University of London.


15

PRO

OF

Working with collections: some reflections from the LSE Collection Development TeamGraham Camfield, Ellen Wilkinson, Barbara Humphries, Heather Dawson, LSE Library

Collection Development is a team of four people in the Academic Services Group at LSE Library. Our remit is chiefly selection of material across the social sciences in all areas of interest to LSE researchers and, by extension, to the research community in general. Much of our work is still with the selection of print resources, but the growth and expansion of digital resources is impacting more and more. It is creating an environment, for instance, where increased collaboration is called for across Library teams, in day to day work as well as in specific projects. This article offers some reflections from the Collections Team on our work with collections and involvement in providing timely, relevant and accessible resources to our users.

Impact of digitisationDigitisation is touching all areas of collection to make content more widely available and accessible. One of the earliest projects and greatest success stories at LSE has been the digitisation hundreds of items from the Pamphlet Collection, increasing the use of historical material far beyond the walls of the Library and the traditional academic research community. The LSE Library has a collection of over 90,000 pamphlets on social policy, politics, transport, economic history and international relations. In 1997 we received funding from HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) to selectively digitize 300 pamphlets on social policy and transport, and an additional 300 political pamphlets to be digitized from microfilm. This was in the days when digitization was being “tested as a technology” by the Higher Education Digitisation Service. Links to the digitized pamphlets were established from the pamphlets subject guides on the Library web page and from the catalogue records. Within several years it became clear that these pamphlets were getting accessed thousands of times from the web site by people who are interested in the history of social policy and transport. A further project, the JSTOR 19th century pamphlets, completed in 2009, has been equally successful and popular. This involved the digitization of 25,000 pamphlets from seven research libraries in the UK. Usage statistics from JSTOR show that since 2009 the collection of 7,000 pamphlets supplied by the LSE Library has been accessed 30,000 times per annum – clearly many more readers than could be accommodated in our Archives Reading Room! We can also identify the top 100 most accessed pamphlets. Such information is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of collections.

Digitisation is also changing the nature of collections, and none more so than the traditional print Reference Collection. Many key reference works such as the Dictionary of National Biography and Who’s who are available online, as well as the indexes to journal articles. Language and subject dictionaries are also available from Oxford Reference Online. Only ten years ago the Reference Collection was a key and growing part of the Library’s collection. There was discernible growth in the number of specialized encyclopedias being published, for example on human rights, economic history, global warming, sociology of religion, and lesbian and gay rights, for instance. Subject dictionaries


16

PRO

OF

were being published like never before. Over the last five years there has been a very swift change to e-access with most newly published encyclopedias now being published online. We have met very little resistance to online encyclopedias on behalf of our readers. The improved functionality and remote access has proved decisive. Language dictionaries are widely available online, but there is, however, still a demand for access to some print copies, which readers can consult at their desks. The same goes for some important subject encyclopedias which remain in print.

Print is very much alive in the research Library and many academics and students still express preference for a print version of a research book in the social sciences. The number of mainstream social science books added to our collection does not seem to fall. The numbers being published also does not seem to be abating. Factors such as price still remain. The e-book is always more expensive than the paperback. On the plus side for e-books they are more easily and quickly obtainable and processed. We liaise with academic staff and students as to their preferences and attempt to go along with them. But with the demand on library budgets, except for key reading list material, we cannot have both! The space issue hasn’t been mentioned but is inevitably now a major driver in preferring digital versions particularly of reference works over print.

Collection reviewsThe collections at LSE have been developed over many years and represent a wide range of disciplines, document types and formats. They have been created by generations of collection development librarians who have a deep understanding of how and why the collections have developed as they have. Such knowledge is an invaluable asset, which needs to be passed on to future librarians. Also, in the digital age, where everything is expected to be online there is a risk and danger of overlooking rich and historic research resources in print, not to mention microform! With these things in mind the Team has therefore been working on a series of collection reviews which aim to capture and record this information about collections. The review process also aims to provide staff with the opportunity to spend time working with collections to understand their history, diversity, strengths and weaknesses. Experienced team members are encouraged to document knowledge gained over time and newer members to start building a knowledge base of their own.

A methodology was devised which enabled a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of Library collections, and was developed into a toolkit to facilitate the review process. It needed to suit a large interdisciplinary collection, developed over many years, taking into account material in a range of formats, i.e. print, electronic, microform, etc. Team members investigate different types of resource across the subject, for example, pamphlets, government publications or archives. Each member then writes up the findings on what is available on the subject. A key outcome of each review is a “collection map” for that subject, which indicates relationships with other areas. All the information is filed for future reference and key findings presented in a summary document for academic departments.

With large numbers of international students and staff there is a strong international flavour to both teaching and research at LSE. As well as looking at collections by subject


17

PRO

OF

the team has also carried out some area studies. The first to be reviewed was Latin America which has always been a major area of interest in the School. Other developing areas of interest are Sub-Saharan Africa and India. A review on Sub-Saharan Africa was expanded to encompass the entire continent following the Arab Spring and was followed by the review of India. From the collection information gathered the team has created some area studies guides to help students and researchers find suitable resources relating to these regions. Each area guide includes a map illustrating the comparative strengths of LSE Library collections for that geographic area. For an example see http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/subjectGuides/LatinAmerica/home.aspx.

The guides have been welcomed by both staff and students and have offered a way to engage with some of the School’s work. The LSE has several blogs where new research carried out by staff at the school is disseminated and promoted. Blog posts have been written for both the Africa at LSE blog and the India at LSE blog highlighting the area guides. Several further posts have been submitted to these blogs highlighting some of the Library’s extensive collections on these geographical areas.

It has been a good opportunity to work as a team. Team members have been able to focus on areas of the collection they have a particular interest in but have also benefitted from the investigations of colleagues. The creation of the area studies webpages required colleagues to pool their talents and work together to produce a coherent collection of pages. The most useful part of the process for the newest member of staff has been the opportunity to get to know the collections better. Becoming familiar with the vast collection of a library like LSE takes time and being given the time to explore the collections as well as reading the reports of what colleagues have found has really enabled them to get to grips with what is available.

The other side of the coin for building and recording collection knowledge is making the collections known, both to other staff and to users. A Collections Blog has been started and includes contributions from Collections staff and others, highlighting new resources and also some “forgotten” or “hidden” collections. Recent blog posts have covered political party conferences, trade union collections and the Churchill Archive online. http://lselibrarycollections.blogspot.co.uk/. Future posts will include some on microform collections, which may be unfamiliar and daunting to a new generation of researchers.

Exhibitions are another important way to open up and promote collections. Working with colleagues in other areas of the Library, notably the Archives Group, members of the Team have contributed to exhibitions, both physical and digital. The development of the LSE Digital Library (http://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/ ) in 2012 offers further opportunity for collaborative work in this area across the Library and digital content from exhibitions will appear there in future.

Collecting vs borrowingAnother recent area of development has been work between the collection development team and the interlending team. Of course decisions on whether to purchase an item or borrow it from another library have always been made. However, historically these decisions were made by different teams at the lse with the result that often they were not


18

PRO

OF

integrated. The fact that some standing orders were not recorded on the catalogue meant that loans were sometimes made for items that were already on order or would, later be selected by collection development librarians. In times of austerity greater streamlining and control of budgets was required. Last year the teams began to share information . It was decided that requests for recently published items (generally in the last calendar year) would be referred to collection development specialists before loan requests were placed. Existing orders could then be reviewed and decisions made on cost effectiveness. It was important to do this quickly to endure no delay to the user so a shared email box was created which could be accessed by any member of the collection development team. One member was designated to check this daily with others doing this during their absence. All requests are checked against order records and where one is not present and the item seems in collection scope referred to the appropriate book selector along with information on the price, title content and availability elsewhere in London. Once a decision is made it is relayed to the user. If a purchase is to be made the user’s email is recorded so that the acquisitions team can speed up cataloguing and inform the user of arrival.

Staff reaction to the scheme has been positive. Each week an average of 3-4 recent requests are referred and of these one or two are already on order. A number of requests are for expensive items or borderline areas that would not be automatically collected but the fact that the collection team know that they are under demand has enabled them to channel funds into the areas concerned. Users shave also highlighted previously unfamiliar publishers which has increased subject knowledge. Customers are satisfied if items are purchased quickly as they are then able to borrow the items for extended loan. However it is important to endure that requests are reviewed quickly on a same day basis. Recently it has been expanded to purchase some foreign language materials/ out of print items not available in other libraries and therefore difficult to loan within a short time span. Another possible area where collaboration may become necessary is in terms of electronic books. Increasingly users are discovering chapters via search engines which they cannot access. Libraries often cannot loan these so purchase may become a necessity.


19

PRO

OF

“Suggest a Book for the Library”- using facebook for purchase suggestions at the University of Sussex LibraryEmma Walton - Learning and Teaching Support Manager, Annette Moore – Technical Services Librarian

Background

“There aren’t enough books” is the perennial lament we hear from students, at student forums, course boards and, more recently, in the free-text comments of the National Student Survey. At Sussex, we have an adequate book budget but sometimes worry that we are not providing access to everything that our students need. We are always looking at ways to improve communication about what is needed for their study: with our academics, through reading list submission and with our students.

The Campaign

Early in spring 2012, we put together a marketing proposal to run a two week facebook campaign entitled ‘Suggest a book for the Library’. Initially, this was aimed at our undergraduates, following feedback and comments from the National Student Survey, although ultimately more purchase suggestions were received from research postgraduates than undergraduates. A facebook page offered several advantages: a two-way communication channel, an open forum and an opportunity to build a more informal relationship with our users. In addition, our then current purchase suggestion form was primarily used by academics and we wanted to reach a wider audience. We allocated a £5,000 budget from the book fund, as well as £150 for professional printing of the postcards. Staff from the Learning and Teaching Support team as well as Technical Services were involved in setting up the campaign, responding promptly to suggestions, placing orders and replying to posts.

Getting the wording right for the campaign and keeping the message clear and simple were two key objectives. To promote the facebook campaign, we came up with a design

and text that we used on postcards, on the facebook page as well as via a range of University communication channels.


20

PRO

OF

With the facebook page set up and the promotional material in place, we launched the ‘Suggest a book for the Library’ campaign with a welcoming post, inviting students to tell us what books they needed. Our first book suggestion was received (with much excitement from the staff involved!) within 30 minutes of the page going live. Concerns about receiving frivolous requests for books, that did not fall within the Library’s collection development policy, were mostly unfounded and the subject areas varied widely, from philosophy to poetry. New posts arrived at a swift pace during the first week of the campaign; the second week was steady and there was a final rush of requests in the last few days. The LATS team responded quickly to suggestions, engaging with users often within minutes of receiving a new post. The idea caught on quickly with some students who soon became repeat “offenders”, asking for a second and a third title that they “really needed for their studies”.

By the end of the two weeks, we had ordered 141 titles, spent over £4,500 of the book budget and many students ‘Liked’ us. Not only did we receive book suggestions, we also received ‘Thanks’, praise, ‘Fantastic! I love Sussex’, and even a short poem requesting a copy of the ‘great Oxford Rhyming Dictionary’. Drawing the campaign to a close, our final post included a link to our Library Thing list of all the titles we had purchased as a result of student suggestions over the two weeks.

Evaluation

It was important that we evaluate the success of this method of both promoting our services and as an aid to collection development. Did we reach our proposed target audience? Could we run it again? Did it fit our work flow? Did staff engage with it? Is there money available?

In order to gauge staff opinion I asked for feedback from those members of the Learning and Teaching Support team (LATS) who had been involved in answering posts and ordering books. Overwhelmingly the feedback was positive, but staff felt it was time consuming and that we needed to look for more efficient ways of running a permanent book suggestion service, that had the visibility and simplicity of facebook.

“I think the Suggest a Book campaign was very successful, the students seemed to like it and valued another way to contact and interact with Library staff as well as being able to get extra books that they needed.”

“I thought the facebook campaign was met with a positive response from users. They seemed impressed by the immediacy of our responses and our general willingness to employ social media in a bid to connect with users, which indicates we need to continue to explore means to exploit these tools for our service.”

Design of a new book suggestion service

As a result of the evaluation a new way of receiving purchase suggestions was clearly needed. Working with colleagues, we created a simple online form, linked from the Library catalogue welcome page. Details on this form are sent to a specified address to be picked up by LATS and items ordered accordingly, with a confirmation email sent to the requestor.


21

PRO

OFThis new online form has also allowed us to include policy information, as well as other

services such as reading lists links for academics or contact details for other queries.

So what did we learn?

That facebook or other social media can be used to great effect for collection • development.

That this method of communication proved successful in marketing our services • and building relationships with our users.

That providing a sustainable method for purchase suggestions needs to replicate • the simplicity and ease of social media.

That staff enjoyed this interaction with our users, but extra time needs to be set • aside.

That collection development can be fun.•

The “Suggest a book for the Library” was an interesting journey into the world of social media for other uses than communication. It was successful as a one off but ultimately couldn’t be sustained in our institution. It was enjoyable, exciting and new, so our suggestion ….give it a go!


22

PRO

OF

Transforming our collections: How we reviewed over 1 million items in five years and got them all to fit!Paul Johnson, Head of Collections and Space, University of Reading, Claire Cannings, Collections Project Co-ordinator, University of Reading

Background

The Library at the University of Reading is approaching the final stages of a five-year project to review all of its collections. In order to better understand this, some background information about the University and the history of the library is required. The origins of the University of Reading lie in the foundation of the School of Art at Reading in 1860. In 1892 the University Extension College was opened in Reading by Christ Church, Oxford, incorporating the School of Art, School of Science and Oxford University Extension Classes. In 1926 the Royal Charter was granted, enabling the University to award its own degrees, and in 1947 the University purchased the Whiteknights campus, the former estate of the Marquis of Blandford. The University merged with Bulmershe College, a teacher training college, in 1989, and more recently in 2008 Henley Management College merged with the University to form the Henley Business School at the University, effectively a faculty.

The current Library at the Whiteknights campus was opened in 1963, spanning six floors and a basement, with two large reading rooms, exhibition areas, and space for collections. Twenty years later an extension was built, which provided extra space for the ever-expanding collections. Gradually between the late 70s and late 90s, the reading rooms were in part given over to space for collections, and while they retained reader spaces round the edges of the rooms, the central part was used for collections. In 1989 with the Bulmershe College merger, the University acquired another library on a separate site, which was in operation for the next twenty-two years.

At the end of 2006 a working party, comprising senior management of the University, reviewed the role of the library, and concluded that, in line with the decision to cease all academic activity at the Bulmershe campus, the closure and assimilation of Bulmershe Library should happen as soon as possible, with the University Library operating on one site. Thus a vision was set out for a single, well-maintained and spacious library at the heart of the campus, incorporating re-profiled collections serving the current needs of all users, with material most in demand also most readily accessible. This would move in tandem with a shift towards electronic access, where appropriate, according to academic strategic priorities, and less heavily used material would be easily available through remote storage.

There were two key factors which needed to be taken into account with this decision: the need for more study spaces and the need to maintain the University’s status as a research-led institution. The closure of Bulmershe Library would see the loss of 250 study spaces, which was unacceptable in the long-term, so it was clear that the collections from Bulmershe could not simply be transferred to the Main Library, filling up all existing shelf space and requiring extra space. It was also clear that we could not simply dispose of all our research collections, but at the same time these did not all need to be on the open shelves.


23

PRO

OF

A remote storage facility was agreed as part of the solution, which, in conjunction with a review of all our collections, would enable us to use more space for study, and to keep our status as a research-led institution. After considering, and rejecting, an option to build a facility on land nearby owned by the University, instead a warehouse was leased for 10 years which would serve as our remote storage facility. In 2008 a budget for the project was set, and a Collections Project Co-ordinator and 1.5 FTE Collections Project Assistants were appointed.

How we did it

One of the first project tasks we carried out in 2008 was the de-duplication of Bulmershe Library material against Main Library holdings. We used reports from the Library Management system to identify duplicates across sites and then applied a formula of 50+ loans for one copy or as an average across all copies to decide whether more copies should be kept. We operated an inter-site hold system so all users had access to copies whatever their location.

The reviewing of every item in the Libraries started in 2009. Every Dewey sequence in the Library was allocated to a member of staff (mostly Liaison Librarians). Reports were run from our Library Management system to ascertain how many items were in each particular section and Liaison Librarians were given a target of withdrawing or relegating 50% of low use material in their sections. These reports were then turned into spreadsheets with useful data about each item including how many times it had been out and its last activity date. Liaison Librarians had a range of decisions that they could make including ‘Keep’ (open shelves), relegate to ‘Store’ or ‘Stack,’ or ‘Withdraw’ and these were recorded on the spreadsheet. Liaison Librarians also consulted on decisions with academics. To date we have reviewed about 630,000 items. This process seems to have had a positive impact on our users - one of whom was overheard remarking, “They’ve got rid of all the crap stuff, so now you can actually see what you want!”

Once the review of a section was completed, we moved on to processing the spreadsheet. Items to be kept stayed where they were, but items for Store and Stack were removed from the shelves by cataloguers. The Store is an off-site facility with a capacity of almost equivalent size to Bulmershe Library (which was closed in July 2011) while ‘Stack’ is on-site in the basement of the Main Library. We decided early on that due to the inaccessibility of closed access material, items would need a full catalogue record and initially we decided to add contents notes to the records as well. However, in the end we found that this was taking too much time so we stopped with the intention of returning to the contents notes in the future. We decided that a running number sequence for Store would avoid future space problems. We currently have 65,000 books in Store with more going in all the time and Periodicals are also kept there.

Library Assistants processed any withdrawals required. There were various reasons for withdrawals including duplicates, superseded editions and missing items. But inevitably, some books were withdrawn as surplus for various reasons. Many of our withdrawn books went to second hand dealers and departmental resource centres on campus, while some of the music went to Oxfam. Some of our withdrawn books also played a starring


24

PRO

OF

role in a local production of ‘Educating Rita!’

For periodicals, we were lucky in that our project coincided with the start of the UK Research Reserve and it made immediate sense for us to join this collaborative scheme. We decided that we could withdraw periodicals if electronic access was available, or if they were duplicates, or not in a discipline strength for the University. Our membership has enabled us to withdraw 50,401 periodical volumes so far, freeing up a large amount of shelf space for incoming Bulmershe materials. We have also relegated periodicals to closed access.

Finally, we’re spending time integrating Bulmershe Library books moved to the Main Library in the Main Library sequence. In theory, this should have been a simple task with both Libraries using Dewey, but in practice both Libraries were using different versions and Bulmershe also had some idiosyncratic numbers! Cataloguers started by prioritising reading list material but are now working in all the different areas of the collections.

Collection Management has been described as a ‘slider puzzle’ in the past and that has certainly been our experience. We are dealing with stock in the ‘wrong’ places before we can get it into the ‘right’ place and reveal the final picture!

Looking ahead

So as the project nears an end, we are now looking ahead. Now that we have almost completed this project, we need to ensure that we maintain our collection development policies in line with the University’s academic activity, and we need to keep building our collection of electronic resources. By successfully reviewing our collections, we have since 2007 increased the number of study spaces from 1245 in total (249 of which were in Bulmershe Library) to 1455 in total (all in the single site Library), so not only have we made up for the 249 lost spaces, but we have also added a further 210, and we hope to be able to increase this further by the end of the project.

Our next aim, subject to the availability of funding, is for a large scale refurbishment of the Library, so that we can modernise the existing study spaces. If successful, this will have been made possible because of the hard work of all Library staff involved in reviewing our collections over the last five years so that we are ready to embark on our next project.


25

PRO

OF

Leeds Unversity Library’s use of the Copac Collection Management ToolsMaureen Pinder, Faculty Team Librarian, and Brian Clifford, Deputy Librarian, University of Leeds.

Background: the Copac Tools projectAll major research libraries are facing challenges around space and the management of large print collections. Decisions on retention or weeding of stock have often been based on gut feeling and personal knowledge, backed at best by usage statistics.

The JISC funded Copac Collection Management Tools Project (CCM) – which has now reached the end of phase 2 - aimed to develop collection management tools that could be used to search the Copac database to help libraries make more informed decisions about the management of their collections. The partners in the Proejct were RLUK, MIMAS, and the White Rose University Libraries of Leeds, York and Sheffield with the associate partners Manchester, Warwick, UCL and the V&A joining later to do some additional testing.

The Leeds context4 years ago Leeds embarked on the huge task of assessing its collections to really establish where our strengths lie. After much debate, we defined 4 categories of collection:

Heritage•Legacy•Self-renewing •Finite (see our Collection Strategy for definitions)•

Of course, we had a fairly good idea amongst ourselves of what our very strong (=‘heritage’) collections were, but we didn’t feel that we could just go with our own hunch. So we set out to gather supporting evidence. We began by gathering expert opinion, starting with current and retired staff from the Faculty Teams and Special Collections. It quickly became apparent, however, that this was a very subjective approach and that we would really like some quantitative data to substantiate these opinions. We were keen to contribute to developing the Copac Tools, and to be involved in testing them. The Copac Tools came along at just the right time for us and we embraced it enthusiastically – we were testing the tools for the Project, but also generating concrete stats for our purposes at the same time.

Using the ToolsDifferent partners used the Tools for different purposes – for example specifically to identify material that is widely held nationally so that it could be safely weeded. But In Leeds we used the tools to continue the work of understanding our collections better, so we used the Copac Tools to create a profile of our collections.

We were limited by the fact that the Tools initially only give reliable results items with ISBNs. There are multiple bibliographic records in the Copac database for the same item, which means that searching by other fields such as bibliographic number only finds some of the items and gives unreliable results. So for now, the Tools can only get a reliable match on ISBNs.

The process for using the Tools and generating results involves deciding which section of your collection you want to investigate, producing a list of ISBNs, then uploading this file


26

PRO

OF

into the Copac Tool. This produces 2 sets of data, which can be exported into Excel and save locally for further manipulation and analysis. Full instructions are in the York-Leeds workflow document at: http://copac.ac.uk/innovations/collections-management/case-studies/

Fig. 1: The Copac Tools interface

At Leeds it was decided to pick out a set of indicators for each file, and display these in tabular form in a spreadsheet for ease of comparison. These indicators are: number oflibrariesholding1/3,1/2and2/3ofthetitles,and%ofitemsin≤3librariesand≤4libraries (including Leeds).

Fig. 2: Table of results

These were displayed in such a way that some collections stand out as rarer than others. Over time we began to see a pattern emerge that we could use to flag a significant, potentially ‘heritage’ collection – or certainly, as a collection worthy of further investigation. These triggers are that the collection meets one of these criteria:

15% or more of the titles are in 3 libraries or less•21% or more of the titles are in 4 libraries or less•2 or fewer libraries hold 2/3 of the titles •

ResultsFor Leeds, the ISBN limitation meant we could not begin to accurately profile our older and therefore larger collections, which are mainly in the Arts and Social Sciences. This is


27

PRO

OF

exactly where we suspect some of our ‘heritage’ collections to be, so it is frustrating that we could not profile those collections first.

Instead, we began by profiling some collections which we suspected might be ‘heritage’, but which contained a high proportion of ISBNs. We knew that our Colour Chemistry is very unusual, a legacy of the textiles and dying industries in Leeds. So we ran a profile, which did indeed seem to substantiate our assumption:

Fig. 3: Chart showing incidence of our Colour Chemistry books in Copac

For comparison purposes, we profiled our Chemistry collection, which we know that most major university libraries in the country collect:

Fig. 4: Chart showing incidence of our Chemistry books in Copac


28

PRO

OF

The graphs show that a far higher proportion of the Colour Chemistry books are ‘rare’ than the Chemistry books.

Encouraged by these early results, we employed a Copac Project Assistant to do work of running these files, and scaled up our operation. We investigated other suspected ‘heritage’ subjects, and found that Transport came out as rare, as expected. However, we did get occasional surprises: Communications Studies as a whole seemed common enough, but the section on journalism was very strong. We were really keen to know how our Arts subjects might perform, and tested those materials classified in German, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Icelandic that did have ISBNs. They all came out as very strong, but we can’t draw any conclusions until we can investigate the non-ISBN material.

Having run a number of potentially ‘heritage’ collections, we then targeted an area of the Library that has always been regularly weeded and which we assumed contained virtually all ISBN material, specifically the Health Sciences collections. We ran files for all the various Health Sciences classmarks, and did find that results broadly corroborated our assumptions. The materials were relatively widespread on Copac.

Next steps

Copac will launch the new version of its database in spring 2013, which should eliminate the issue of duplication, allowing the Tools to produce reliable results for non-ISBN materials. We are eagerly awaiting this, and will start profiling our older collections as soon as we can. In the meantime MIMAS has just received some further funding to improve the Copac Tools’ look and functionality and to develop training and promotional materials, ahead of the launch of the new database.

The future

Our own work at Leeds, and discussion between the partners and wider workshop participants on the Copac CCM Tools Project, have raised wide-ranging questions about informed collections management. For example:

How many libraries does a book have to be in before it is considered ‘safe’?•How do we know the holding libraries will keep their copies?•What if the book is in a discipline (e.g. nursing) where there may be good holding •

nationally outside the Copac database?Should we consider a book ‘safer’ if it’s in a national or deposit library, rather than •

a university library?Does this apply to foreign language material, which, for example, the British •

Library is not legally obliged to keep long term?Would we feel that a book was ‘safe’ if it was in national libraries around the world?•If a book is not a UK publication and is held widely around the world (as revealed •

by WorldCat) but not in Copac, should we feel obliged to keep copies in the UK?

It is clear that no institution can solve these problems on their own, and that we badly need to collaborate nationally to address some of these issues. There are ideas already on how some of these can be addressed, for example by libraries using the 583 MARC field to flag up their intention to retain an item, along with a note on its physical condition. It


29

PRO

OF

is clear that we will need leadership to encourage national participation and consensus building, and the Copac Tools Project’s recommendation was that RLUK take on this role. This work will help inform national discussions around the creation of a dispersed national research collection.

Further reading

1. The Copac Collection Management Tools Project: http://copac.ac.uk/innovations/collections-management/

2. Leeds University Library’s Collections Strategy: http://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/217/collection_development/81/collection_management/1

3. The York-Leeds workflow document: http://copac.ac.uk/innovations/collections-management/case-studies/


30

PRO

OF

UK Research Reserve – its aims, development and progress so farDaryl Yang, UKRR Manager.

IntroductionHigher Education Institutions (HEIs) have been facing a wide range of challenges since the turn of the century - global competition, economy, technology, infrastructure, to name a few. The needs of students and staff have changed significantly while institutions themselves, key members in their local community, have engaged in more and more outreach/external activities than ever before. Providing space, particularly space that is fit-for-purpose, has been a major challenge for university managers, especially in urban areas. Libraries, a critical and fundamental component of HEIs, inevitably have been affected. As the popularity of digital content increases, removing low-use print stuff from the shelf seems to be a way to ease the pressure.

This was (and still is) the environment HE libraries operated in before UK Research Reserve (UKRR) was established. However, as more and more libraries were throwing materials away to meet local users’ demands, there were serious concerns amongst librarians that valuable research material would be lost and could never be retrieved. In response to those challenges, the UKRR pilot project was launched in 2007 to help HE libraries deal with changes in a coordinated and collaborative way. In particular, UKRR was set up to help release space, but at the same time, preserve material for the research community.

Our aimsUKRR was established to tackle one of libraries’ most pressing challenges - shortage of space - and relevant issues, such as loss of research material, access, etc. Through the process of de-duplication, UKRR aims to build up a shared national reserve to secure the long-term retention, storage, and availability of low-use printed research journals. By working together in a collaborative and coordinated fashion, HEIs can make better and more efficient use of resources across the sector without losing access to information resources for the researcher. This process of releasing space encountered strong resistance, within and without the library boundary, as a programme like UKRR has fundamentally challenged and changed how people work for centuries. In other words, UKRR was established to tackle space shortage, but it has also acted as a catalyst for change – it encourages people to reflect and rethink what the best practices should be in the modern digital era.

Our conceptWhen more and more materials are available digitally, it makes sense to examine libraries’ print collections closely, especially when a large amount of duplicated copies are being held across the sector. Beyond the HE border, the British Library (BL) also holds rich print collections which overlap significantly with those of HEIs. By matching print material held by UKRR member institutions and the BL, duplicated copies can be identified and removed. Space is therefore released and can be re-purposed to serve different functions. On the other hand, BL’s document supply service is a mature business and can provide researchers access to the materials that are deaccessioned from their institution’s library.


31

PRO

OF

The pilot phase ran from January 2007 to August 2008 and proved the concept. Participating members1 were thus able to release more than 11,000 metres of shelf space and achieve savings of £3.8m in terms of capital value and £308,000 in recurrent estate costs per year.2 The success of UKRR Phase One led to a further £10m funding support from Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to continue the programme for additional 5 years (2009-2014). 29 HEIs3 have participated in UKRR Phase Two and have so far offered more than 66km of material to the programme - some titles are at risk and have to be retained but most holdings are safe to be disposed of. As a result, more than 56km of shelf space have been released so far.

Our processesLow-use print research journals are the material we process at UKRR. In order to match holdings and identify duplicated copies, we have adopted a different approach to build up the UKRR collection. Traditionally, a library builds up its collection by identifying and acquiring items that are not currently held. It may start with no material at all and grows over time. However, as UKRR ‘attempts to walk the fine line between two diverse targets: de-duplication leading to disposal, and the collation of a distributed research collection’,4 this model would not allow UKRR to make retention/disposal decisions quickly, and it thus would not enable members to release and repurpose space flexibly.

Instead, UKRR considers the collective holdings of all UKRR members the pool of UKRR holdings, with the duplicated offered holdings identified and removed, it leaves a core collection distributed across the whole membership.5 In other words, we seek to identify the last three copies amongst the members and the BL – one is held by the BL as the access copy and can be requested via BL’s document supply services; the other two are retained by member libraries. By doing so, all other duplicates held by UKRR members can be disposed of and enable libraries to clear up their shelves and put available space into better use. It also helps fill gaps and complete the BL’s collections.6

Processes we have developed can generally be categorised into two groups which serve two unique purposes: identify whether an offered item can improve the BL’s collection or not, and identify which other member(s) also hold such offered items (i.e. scarcity checking, with data from SUNCAT7). Any final retention/disposal decision we thus make is based on the results we have gathered through the two separate processes.

They are: Universities of Birmingham, Cardiff, Exeter, Liverpool, Newcastle, Southampton, St 1. Andrews and Imperial College London (lead institution).

‘Phase One’, 2. UK Research Reserve, http://www.ukrr.ac.uk/what/phase1.aspx [accessed on 19/11/2012]

They are: Universities of Aberdeen, Aberystwyth, Birmingham, , Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, 3. Glasgow, , Kingston, Leeds, Liverpool, LSE, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Northumbria, Open, , Queen Mary (UoL), Reading, Royal Holloway (UoL), St. Andrews, Sheffield, Southampton, Sussex, UCL, Cambridge University Library, Imperial College London (lead institution), King’s College London, Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford, and Senate House Libraries (UoL).

The UK Research Reserve Collection Principles and Policy’, 4. UKRR, August 2010.ditto5. Daryl Yang. ‘UK Research Reserve – A Sustainable Model from Print to E?’, 6. IFLA 2012 World

Congress satellite meeting (Kuopio, Finland), 9 August 2012.The Serials Union Catalogue, http://www.suncat.ac.uk7.


32

PRO

OF

The diagram below gives an overview of UKRR’s processes:

The matching process is complex, labour intensive, and prone to errors. A bespoke IT system, LARCH (Linked Automated Register of Collaborative Holdings), was developed and implemented in 2010/11. LARCH streamlines all processes involved, coordinates activities, and provides a single point for accessing data. It also facilitates reporting on the data. We are continuously identifying and improving ways of how LARCH works – by enhancing functions LARCH provides, we aim to provide an IT system that meets our members and stakeholders’ needs, and enables us to explore potential opportunities.

Our progress…so farUKRR has been offered more than 66km of material (more than 52,000 holdings) by our members between July 2009 and November 2012. Overall, UKRR members are requested to retain about 15% of all offered holdings, and about 84% of material is safe to be disposed of. During the past three years, the BL has made more than

Fig.1 UKRR Process Overview8

Drawn by former UKRR coordinator Chris Brown8.


33

PRO

OF

12,000 requests for items that have been offered by member institutions to improve its collection.

Following CHEMS Consulting’s formula9, we can convert released shelf space into square metres, and estimate that the programme so far has helped the sector achieve capital savings of about £18m and recurrent estate management costs of about £5m.

ConclusionWhen the radio was invented, people said libraries were dead. Then TV arrived, and people also said libraries were dead. It’s no surprise that as we advance further in the digital era, similar comments are made. History tells us how true such statements are.

Indeed, the library sector is facing a wide range of challenges and for collection management professionals, it is particularly crucial to strike the right balance between the past and the future, the print and the digital, in order to ensure their institutions’ growth and success. By working together, UKRR helps libraries achieve that balance. Before we know what the future holds for us, UKRR provides a safety net for library professionals and a tool to make informed judgements and decisions. With the support of HEFCE, UKRR members have achieved savings, reduced costs, and have had an opportunity to re-evaluate and adjust their collection strategies and physical holdings. Most important of all, they have contributed to an improved national research collection which benefit researchers not only from their institutions but also across the nation, for now and for many generations to come.

John Fielden, Jacqui Burke, Colin Harris, and Allan Schofield. ‘An Evaluation of Phase One of the 9. UK Research Reserve’, CHEMS Consulting, February 2008. In this report commissioned by the UKRR Advisory Board, it is estimated that 6.6 linear metres can be converted into 1 square metre.


34

PRO

OF

Evidence in Social Welfare Policy and PracticeFri 7 Dec 2012British Library - A reviewHeather Dawson, LSE Library and Angela Upton SCIE.

This conference celebrated the launch of a new free 24/7 portal for the social sciences: Social Welfare at the British Library http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/. The range of speakers addressed issues relating to information needs and provision in the sector, highlighting the importance of high quality information to academic researchers, third sector workers, social care practitioners and service users which the new service hopes to fulfil.

The keynote speech was given by Prof. Jon Glasby, Director, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/social-policy/departments/health-services-management-centre/research/index.aspx entitled why evidence doesn’t always influence policy and practice and how it might. It used a case study of the work of HSMC in assessing adult mental health services to consider issues relating to what can be considered valid knowledge/ evidence and its relationship to policy making.

A basic point made was that there is often a tension between policy and evidence. In times of austerity there is an increasing need for practitioners to be well informed yet research may be cut back and for policy makers evidence is often only one competing voice in the policy making process. It is assumed that disseminating more evidence will improve the situation but this is not always the case if the audience is not receptive. The speaker also introduced the concept of ‘hierarchies of knowledge’; to argue that certain types of evidence are often considered by governments/ policy makers as more valid than others. There is a tendency for organizations such as the NHS to rate systematic reviews and other, what are regarded forms of ‘scientific knowledge’, above the life experiences of staff and service users. The latter are often thought of as anecdotal, yet in some circumstances, this evidence may be equally as valid.

He argued that basically there are 3 types of evidence, ideally all should be considered in the policy making process.

Theoretical evidence- how and why policies should work

Empirical evidence – the effectiveness of outcomes

Experiential evidence – staff and service user’s experiences and responses to policy. Often the latter is overlooked.

The talk concluded with a number of suggestions for improving the relationship between evidence and policy. Namely

The need for a closer relationship between policy and evidence earlier in the • policy making process.

The need to draw evidence from a wide range of perspectives, to conduct •


35

PRO

OF

literature searches and reviews inclusively to hear as many voices as possible.

Greater attention to the lived experience of service users•

Finally a need to create a receptive audience to respond to policies on a local • level as change cannot be made if organizations are not ready to listen to and response to evidence.

Prof. Pete Alcock, Director, Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham; http://www.tsrc.ac.uk/ provided some background on the work of the centre and its role in developing the Third sector portal. The centre has been funded by the ESRC 2008-13 and conducts both qualitative and quantitative research on the UK third sector.

As part of its role, it launched in October 2011 the third sector portal http://www.tsrc.ac.uk/Research/KnowledgePortal/tabid/840/Default.aspx This impressive website aims to provide access to published material on the UK sector. There are currently over 4200 items indexed by volunteers and specialist staff using a classification scheme based on the Department of Health thesaurus. These include full text research reports from the TSRC as well as book chapters, journal articles and government reports. Materials are based on the British library holdings. The website enables sophisticated searching, interpreting user’s keyword searches, to map them to the underlying thesaurus to reveal relevant material held in the database. Initial user surveys indicates 45% of users are from the third sector, 35% academic based. Results of this will be released on the website in 2013.

Dr. Jo Moriarty, Research fellow, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s Evidence in Social Care: filling the gaps

Jo Moriarty discussed the need for good evidence in social care, looked at some of the challenges in disseminating evidence in the social care sector, and examined the need to think beyond academic users to the general public, in particular people using services and their carers. She looked at these issues from the perspective of services for adults.

While the evidence base for what works in social care has increased over the last 10 years, and has covered relevant and important topics for service users and carers, there are still problems around getting this information, in a useable form, to frontline workers and service users. There are problems of differential access between different groups of worker and different sections of the population – the digital divide means, for example, that only one third of people aged over 70 have used the Internet.

Access to evidence for the workforce at all levels still needs to be improved, and should include access to paid for journal articles, and library services.

Jo concluded by suggesting that initiatives such as the BL’s Social Welfare Portal could be made accessible to service users and carers via intermediaries such as Citizen’s Advice Bureau’s, Libraries, Carers Centres, and other voluntary agencies.

Dr. Georgina Brewis, John Adams Fellow, Institute of Education, University of London and founder, Campaign for Voluntary Sector Archives, with Gareth Millward, PhD student at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineValuing voluntary sector records: archives as evidence for research, policy and practice

Georgina Brewis and Gareth Millward spoke about the importance of the history of voluntary organisations and their contribution to the development of social policy and


36

PRO

OF

social welfare. What the voluntary sector has done and how this was put into practice is still valid today. Archiving is about keeping things in good order for the future and archives are invaluable sources of information for how others have tackled a problem in the past.

In the voluntary sector archiving has been patchy, other than of financial records. Grey literature has been deposited with the British Library in an ad hoc way. Organisations do not always realise they have an archive and if they do keep one they are always under threat from cuts, or space limitations. Voluntary organisations have, however, started depositing their archives with organisations such as the LSE and the British Library.

The Campaign for Voluntary Sector Archives was set up to make voluntary organisations aware of the benefits of keeping an archive and to put interested users together with relevant resources by providing advice and information on how to access them. The Campaign’s website is at http://www.voluntarysectorarchives.org.uk/

Dr. Diana Leat, Board Member, Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial FundFoundation archives: recording the past, informing the future

The Fund was set up shortly after the tragic death of Diane Princess of Wales to administer the donations that poured in. From the beginning the Fund decided that they would focus on giving grants to the most disadvantaged in society and the organisations that work with them, in particular those who were dying or bereaved, at the margins of society, displaced by conflict from their homes, or the survivors of conflict.

On 31 December 2012 the Fund will close and the Trustees are going to donate the archives of the Fund to the British Library. Diana Leat spoke about the Fund and its work in more detail, and about the importance of the archives of Foundations, which are often neglected. They are important because they tell the story of the organisation – what it did and why; they can reveal what wasn’t visible at the time; they can show what wasn’t done and why; and can give a sense of what has and has not changed.

Diana ended on a note of caution for those using archives as a research tool – many archives are partial and written from one perspective; they are written for a purpose; and they presume the reader knows what was happening, or how people saw things at the time, rather than what history later revealed to have actually happened. It is important to keep the historical, political and personal in mind when using archives.

For everyone the highlight of the day was the launch of the impressive social welfare at British library portal

http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/

The culmination of over 2 years hard work from the specialist social sciences team at the British Library with support from the Social Care Institute for Excellence and the University of Staffordshire, Social Work and Advice Studies. Built on a limited budget, reusing existing British Library technologies it is an impressive achievement. At the launch there were over 2600 items indexed with more being added on a continuous basis. The coverage is extremely broad: key areas include: Children and families,older adults, people with disabilities, minority groups, community development and regeneration, welfare benefits, employment, education, health, housing and social services, offenders and the criminal justice system. Items indexed include UK government reports, journal articles


37

PRO

OF

and reports from research organizations ranging from NACRO to Demos and Barnardos. Attempts are being made to cross reference stages in legislation e.g. drafts with final legislation. Many items are copyright cleared and can be immediately downloaded by users. A real achievement has been the negotiation with think tanks and other organizations to ensure that full text items are legally loaded on the site for posterity thereby removing the problem of broken links. Highly suitable for use by academics, independent researchers, and social care practitioners and members of the public seeking reliable information. It is easy to browse, but as the database grows, keyword searching is advised. The search feature searches the whole British Library catalogue or a social welfare section subsection (selected by Dewey decimal classification). Once the search results are retrieved use the refine feature on the left to quickly identify the full text reports. The section labelled journal articles offers users a fee based interlibrary loan service for those who do not have access to a local interlibrary loan service. The richness of the collection can be revealed by a sample search on the 2001 riots which quickly retrieved chapters in books as well as reports from the official inquiry panel, UK government statistical data and research by the Joseph Rowntree foundation which could be instantly read by registered site users. Another unique feature of the site is the Social Welfare Reform Digest. This is a free monthly digest of links to new materials prepared by the specialist British Library staff who scan and index reports from several hundred journals, newspapers held in the British library reading room. It highlights the most significant and includes grey literature often difficult to learn about elsewhere. Registered users can tailor this alert to their specific needs. There are also plans for the monthly email service to include more interactive discussion of current issues.

The day concluded with a panel discussion, chaired by Amanda Edwards, Deputy Chief Executive, Social Care Institute for Excellence, with Dr. Helen Kara, independent researcher and consultant; Pete Simcock, Senior Lecturer, Staffordshire University Social


38

PRO

OF

Work and Advice Studies

Amanda Edwards of SCIE chaired a lively final session by involving the whole audience in voting on a series of questions for the panel to discuss. The questions revolved around the use of evidence in social work, its relevance, and issues of why people do not trust, cannot find, or do not use evidence for their work.

Some of the key issues discussed were:

Information overload – there is so much out there people are overwhelmed•The feeling that other people can give a better guide than written research•Evidence is not always trusted, because everything exists in a political environment•People want to discover for themselves, and do not necessarily want to dig about for •

what happened beforePeople do not have enough time to find the evidence, there is no real culture in •

social work of having time for reflection and study during work timeThere are different opinions about what constitutes evidence•

Two key points for the producers of databases came out of the discussion: ensure that your database is quality controlled; and let the world know about your portals and databases.

PRO

OF

ADVERTISING: Mail your publicity with the next issue. For £80 you can reach 350 library and information workers in government departments, universities, social services departments, voluntary associations, research organisations, professional bodies etc.

BACK ISSUES still available (£14 each):

Cheques payable to ALISS (payment with order)

Editor: Heather Dawson, British Library of Political and Economic Science, 10 Portugal Street, London WC2A 2HD. Email: [email protected]

Printed by Reliance Press. Tel: 01623 623416 Email: [email protected]

PRO

OF

aliss quarterly jan2013

Documents

digital age

british library

university of east londonadjoa

hybrid library

head of collections

digital world phd research

newsam library archives

proofaliss quarterly