This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 09 November 2014, At: 05:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Academic & Research LibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20

Australian Academic Library StatisticsRevisitedGG Allen Formerly University Librariana

a Curtin University of TechnologyPublished online: 28 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: GG Allen Formerly University Librarian (1992) Australian AcademicLibrary Statistics Revisited, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 23:4, 167-174, DOI:10.1080/00048623.1992.10754793

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.1992.10754793

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and arenot the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Australian Academic Library Statistics Revisited GG ALLEN Formerly University Librarian, Curtin University of Technology

ABSTRACT Traces briefly the history of tertiary library statistics collection since 1967, mentioning the individuals who made it possible: Dietrich Borchardt, john Brockman, Alice Leong, Lesley Carman-Brown, and the author himself. The data from 1984 onward have been recently reprogrammed and are accessible via AARNet, and can be down-loaded by enquiries to their own computers.

Australian Academic & Research Libraries has been publishing Australian academ­ic library statistics since its foundation by Dietrich Borchardt as the News Sheet of the University and College Libraries Section of the Library Association of Australia in 1961. Over the years the statistics have been subject to many changes, and generally they have expanded in their coverage of library data and operations. Limited at their inception to the university libraries existing at the time, they have necessarily grown with the foundation of new universities, and from 1967, with the establishment of the alternative institutions, the colleges of advanced education ( CAEs). Through the years that the latter institutions flourished, the library statistics were presented in two separate sets of tables, and despite recurring efforts by the editors, significant differences in definitions or presentation persisted to some extent.

Both university and college library statistics have been cared for by a number of editor-compilers over the years, but two names stand out as the pre-eminent contributors to the development of Australian academic library statistics. These are Dietrich Borchardt, for his pioneering effort in getting the annual collection established on a firm footing, and John Brockman for his original work on the automation of the database and the bringing together of the compilations for the two sectors. After John Brockman returned to the United Kingdom in 1984, Alice Leong continued the initiatives he had started, and these have finally come to fruition in the hands of Lesley Carman-Brown who has successfully developed the database into an online system conveniently available to any academic librarian in Australia, and indeed overseas.

Although the editors of the AARL Statistical Supplement have done all the hard work, decisions on policy on what statistics to collect and on definitions resided elsewhere. The Committee of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), from which the proposal to compile academic library statistics originated, has always main­tained its interest and some authority over what data should be collected from university libraries. With the advent of the CAEs the Association of Librarians of Colleges of Advanced Education (ALCAE) played a parallel role for the college sector for a number of years. But the nature and influence of ALCAE changed as the number of colleges increased and state affiliations, at least in some states, became more urgent than national concerns_ It was at the beginning of this period of change in ALCAE that the editorship of the statistics moved westwards. With strong backing from the present author, Brockman gradually took more of the initiative,

167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

AARL December 1992

and the role of ALCAE declined. Even CAUL was persuaded, perhaps by the editor of the time, that the universities' data could be more efficiently handled through the computer system developed by Brockman at WAIT, but the Committee contin­ued to exercise its authority over content and definitions. Nevertheless the process of automation, and the unification of the keyboarding and compilation of data, did serve to encourage a greater degree of congruence between the university and college libraries' data.

By 1987 it seemed to the present author that the coming together of the two streams of academic library statistics had reached a critical stage. A considerable degree of authority over the annual statistical collection had in fact become centralised in his library, to an extent that the continuing viability of the process depended to some extent upon his personal interest and support. Appreciating the temporality of even chief librarians, he decided that it would be appropriate to seek a concensus of university and college librarians on the future content and processes of the statistical compilation. There were also indications of impending change in the college sector where several institutions were flirting with, or actively planning, metamorphosis to university status.

At that time CAUL still nominated an editor for the university statistical tables, and its current nominee was John McKinlay of James Cook University. He was therefore invited by the present author to join a working party to review the range and definitions of academic library statistics. By this time ALCAE had virtually lost its national image, and was no longer directly consulted about college statistics. However James O'Brien, then of Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education, had shown some interest in statistical issues, and he was invited to represent college interests. Others invited to join the working party were John Horacek, as the reigning editor of AARL, Alice Leong as the manager of the compilation process and editor of ANZALDATA, Peter Durey, the corresponding editor representing New Zealand universities, and Andy Exon, Research Librarian at WAIT and an avid statistics user.

As it transpired, change in the Australian system of higher education was more imminent and dramatic than had been anticipated. And not only in the system of higher education. Almost before the working party had had time to do anything, John Horacek announced his intention of relinquishing his editorship of AARL, and James O'Brien removed himself - temporarily - from librarianship. Later on, Alice Leong was also to request a release from the task of editing the annual statistics, and although she remained available for consultation she did not contin­ue to play an active part in the review process.

All academic libraries were advised of the review and were invited to make input. Interest in the University and College Libraries Section of the Australian Library and Information Association (then still the LAA) lead to a seminar being organised in Sydney in November 1988, which was attended by the present author, and from which some helpful ideas emanated.

The greater part of the spade work however fell to the present author and to John McKinlay who exchanged ideas, proposals and drafts over a considerable period of time. By the time a first draft of possible revisions to the statistical data set and definitions was ready, the college sector had already been largely demo!-

168

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Allen: Australian Academic Library Statistics Re11isited

ished, and it was clear that the only body that would require to be consulted would be CAUL. Also now WAIT had become Curtin University and the present author was himself a member of CAUL. It was decided that to speed up the final resolution of the draft there had to be a face to face meeting, and it was agreed that the most convenient location for the two of us would be Melbourne. By that time Colin Steele, University Librarian of ANU, had been making a number of inputs to our deliberations as a result of his involvement in the deliberations of the Statistical Advisory Group that had been set up by the State Ministers of Culture, and he was invited to join us. Unfortunately at the last moment he had to decline, but he sent Margaret Henty, his Research Officer, to represent him. At that time she had in fact been seconded to the Working Party on Library Provision in Institutions of Higher Education, and was able to bring some helpful comments to the discussion. The three of us met on 29 March 1990, at the Baillieu Library, courtesy of the University of Melbourne, for a full working day, and hammered out a draft document for submission to the CAUL meeting of 19 April 1990.

In broad terms the objectives of the review were to revise the list of statistical elements to be collected so that unnecessary data would be eliminated, additional data in any area of concern could be added, definitions could be revised and clarified, and progress could be made towards a uniform set of data for all academic libraries. The fundamental questions that were asked about each estab­lished data element were therefore 'what use is made of this statistic?', 'is it clearly defined?', 'are the returns reliable?', 'is there a difference or conflict between university and college library data?'

A particular problem that appeared during the time the review was taking place was the changing structure of many academic libraries in Australia as the direct result of the amalgamations of colleges, and of colleges with universities. It was already clear that there would in future be only one system of higher education institutions in Australia, namely universities, but that the structure of universities, and consequently of their libraries, would be very variable. Some university libraries would remain single central operations, others would comprise main libraries with several or many branch libraries, yet others would span libraries on two or more distinct campuses, in some cases many hundreds of kilometres apart.

While the review was able to envisage a number of library organisational models, it felt it could not define all possible models in the emerging system. However, it did consider that it would be necessary to look at how the statistics of the different organisational types of library should be collected and presented. The attention of CAUL was therefore drawn to this significant issue in a recommendation to invite each university library, through its chief librarian, to determine the model it wished to use for the presentation of its statistics. Six possible models were defined:

1 a single central library 2 a central library with branches, on or off the main campus 3 a central library with operationally separate campus libraries, where a

single chief librarian is responsible for all library operations 4 multi-site campus libraries with a central library providing a sub-set of

common services 5 multi-site campus libraries without a central library, and with or w~thout a

169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

AARL December 1992

single chief librarian/administration 6 departmental libraries that are funded from institutional funds, but are not

controlled by the institution's chief librarian. It was recognised that it would be possible for any particular library service to reflect two or more of the above organisational types, and also that there could be other models.

It was recommended, and subsequently agreed, that each chief librarian should decide how to report the library's statistics, but that once that decision had been taken it should not be changed, at least for some time or unless the organisation of the library should change. It was also decided that whatever pattern of reporting should be chosen, it should also be possible to aggregate the data from each library service to produce a set of totals representing the library services of the university as a whole.

At the CAUL meeting of April 1990, the review recommendations came up for discussion late in the afternoon, and it was clear that there was no time for the detailed consideration of each recommendation. It was therefore agreed to defer the detailed consideration until the November meeting; but that in the meantime members were to be asked to respond to the proposals in writing if they had concerns or wished a particular issue to be discussed at that meeting. It was further agreed that any recommendation to which there was no written objection by 31 August would be taken to have been accepted by CAUL. This action was intended to allow the editor to move forward with the drafting of a revised set of definitions which it was hoped could be distributed at the end of 1990, in preparation for the new criteria to be applied to the data to be collected through 1991 and then reported in 1992.

Comments were received from six university librarians, from the universities of Auckland, Newcastle, New South Wales, Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and Sydney, and between them they queried all but four of the recommendations! A second document was then prepared for the November meeting of CAUL, confirming the changes in the four recommendations that had not been challenged, and summarising the comments on the other 25 recommend­ations. There was a lively discussion at the meeting, as a result of which the following recommended changes to the staffstics were approved:

Reporting 1 (a) That each university library shall elect the structural basis on which it

wishes to report the annual statistics. (b) That the collecting officer circulate a questionnaire before the end of 1990

to elicit the preferred basis of reporting for 1991 data and subsequent years.

Staffing 2 That the number of position types (reported) be reduced to four, thus:

170

Professional librarians Para-professional librarians Library assistants, and other library support staff Other staff

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Allen: Australian Academic Library Statistics Revisited

3 That data on staff by administrative structure be deleted. This recommendation also included the specific recommendation to cease recording bindery staff.

Loans 4 That the data on lending services be revised thus:

Loans from Central Library to be divided into separate figures for first loans and renewals, with a computed figure for total loans. Branch loans to be discontinued and the data included in the central library figure. Reserve loans to remain distinct.

5 That loan figures should include loans of all formats of material - mono­graphs, serials, AV, or whatever is avaiiable for loan.

nL 6 That the reporting of sheets of photocopies supplied be discontinued. 7 That periodic sample surveys of ILL photocopy sheets supplied be conducted

to provide objective data on the average size of an ILL copy. CAUL should consider referring this proposal to another, perhaps more appropriate, agency.

Seating 8 (a) Seating capacity in Law, Medical and other branch libraries be deleted and

included in a single figure for the total library. (b) Seating capacity - Central Library become a total library figure, and

expanded to accommodate distinct counts of the different types of seating commonly available in libraries, viz.:

Formal study seating Casual seating Classroom seating in the library.

(c) There be no total of the above counts of seating by type.

Branches 9 That the definition of the number of branch libraries be changed to reflect the

number of operational/separate units comprising the total library service (ie central plus branch libraries etc.).

Collections 10 That the definition of 'monograph volumes' be revised so that it will include all

items that have been received and made available whether or not formally or finally catalogued.

11 That CAUL adopt 'bibliographic' volume as the preferred measure of serial volume holdings which members will be encouraged to adopt as soon as practical. However, counts by 'physical bound volume' will continue to be provided for and accepted.

12 That further work be undertaken to develop guidelines for the measurement, in equivalent monograph volumes, for the variety of surrogate formats recorded in the collection of statistics.

171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

AARL December 1992

13 That definitions in line with AACR2 for non-book materials be adopted for the recording of holdings of these materials.

14 That new monograph titles added, in print or microform (or other form) be combined in a single figure.

15 That the recording of holdings of serial titles be simplified and rearranged thus:

Current subscriptions Gift or exchange New titles by subscription Total current serial titles Total current duplicate titles Total unique titles

16 That the recording of bibliographic holdings by branches be discontinued.

Acquisitions Funding 17 That the reporting of subdivisions of acquisitions funding be simplified to

provide for: Recurrent funds Other funds Total funds

18 That the instructions be revised to provide that libraries that cannot supply a detailed breakdown for expenditure in any of the (old) columns 78-81, should leave the particular column blank, but must provide a total acquisitions expenditure figure.

Reference and Information Services 19 That the definition of possible measures of online activity be referred to a

specialist working party to be established by the executive for this purpose.

Archives 20 That no action be taken to collect statistics on collections of archives in

academic libraries.

Ratios etc. 21 That the ratios that have in the past appeared in the introductory matter be

incorporated in the body of the tables in future. 22 The median figure for appropriate columns be highlighted in bold type

provided this can be achieved by the printer. Two other recommendations, concerned with the possible addition of data ele­ments to measure reference and reader education activities, were not approved but were referred to the recently established Working Party on Performance Indicators. These recommendations had proposed: 23 (a) That libraries report the number of class hours taught in reader education

programs.

172

(b) That libraries report the total number of students in formal reader educa­tion classes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Allen: Australian Academic Library Statistics Revisited

(c) That libraries report the total number of formal reader education classes held.

24 (a) The total number of (reference) enquiries, other than simple directional enquiries, be reported.

(b) The question of more detailed breakdowns/definitions for statistics of reference and information services be referred to an expert working party, perhaps the same one proposed to study online statistics.

Following the November 1990 CAUL resolutions action was takes to draw up revised and expanded guidelines and definitions. In one specific area, non-book resources, input was invited from experts on the definitions and method of counting these collections. This lead to some further discussion in CAUL during 1991, and to some subsequent minor modifications to the data set in respect of title counts of some non-book materials. There was also a small number of changes to the guidelines to eliminate ambiguities or misunderstandings that were brought to notice. Further consideration of the question of data on online searching brought a decision to add two questions to the statistical return questionnaire, namely:

Number of online searches conducted per annum, and Number of online databases accessed.

When these appeared in the questionnaire as circulated at the beginning of 1992, they prompted a question of interpretation from one library, in response to which the second element was divided into two parts, and some additional clarification provided in an expanded definition, with the result that data is now being collected on:

The number of requests for searches to which the response is an online search, which may involve accessing one or more than one database, and The number of databases to which the library has access, divided into two parts:

(a) The number of remote database hosts, and (b) The number of locally mounted databases, whether on a mainframe or

inhouse on a micro-computer installation. The final round involved the complete redesign of the data collection forms and the incorporation in them of the essential definitions, in time for their distribution in early 1992. At the same time the new editor, Lesley Carman-Brown, reprogram­med the existing database for the years 1984-91 inclusive to make them intelligible to online enquiry and accessible via AARNet. Additionally she has made it possible for enquirers to down-load the data to their own computers, and has provided a set of instructions for this purpose.

The data that has been compiled from the returns for 1991 (published as the Statistical Supplement to the September 1992 issue of AARL) now forms the first year of a new database, which will also be accessible online. Because of the substantial changes that have occurred in the set of elements being collected, there is no coincidence in the column numberings between the old and the new databases. It is, however, possible to trace the continuity of most data through the change, and perhaps the details given above may help.

It is unlikely that this undeniably protracted exercise to review academic library statistics will be the last time anyone will wish or need to examine the system.

173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

AARL December 1992

Although the review committee was generally pleased with the acceptance its work received, there was some surprise that there was not more support for the proposals to attempt a wider measurement of output performance. Indeed, ever since CAUL voted on the proposals there has been a number of suggestions to take up some of the issues that were identified. If the current government and institutional concern for performance indicators continues it may be inevitable that additional data will need to be collected in the future.

It must also be noted that despite CAUL's strong support for the recommended changes and its endorsement of the objectives of the review, a number of inconsis­tencies will still be found in the data for 1991 and probably for some years to come. The counting of serial volumes continues to divide the academic library communi­ty, and with the amalgamations of college libraries, which generally preferred to count by bibliographic volumes, and some university libraries that have always counted only physical bound volumes, the problem has no doubt become acute for some of the enlarged libraries. If there is to be a resolution of this difficulty it may only come from a physical recheck of the shelves, although for some libraries it is possible that the automation of catalogues and serial systems may come to their rescue.

Over the years the statistical database has suffered from the inability of some libraries to provide certain data, either regularly or from time to time. Missing usefulness in any database reduce its value and inhibit sophisticated analysis. It is difficult to understand why librarians who support the annual data collection, use the database to argue their needs and have a considerable investment through the time it takes their staff to maintain the records from which the annual returns are derived, nevertheless are resisting the one-off additional task of bringing their data into line with the national criteria. One major library steadfastly maintains that it cannot report separate holdings for monograph and serial volumes, with the result that the total holdings for monograph volumes in the academic sector of the national collection are under reported by in excess of a million volumes!

While it is to be hoped that the revisions to the basis of the annual statistical collection will make them more accurate and relevant, the impacts of the numer­ous amalgamations will undoubtedly delay the establishment of a new stability in the database. They will also complicate any attempts to trace trends or change in resources and services. However, that is no reason for librarians to despair, but should rather urge them on to develop their understanding of statistical techniques for the analysis of their own database. It is indeed curious that a profession that has for so long made such a strong commitment to the collection and presentation of statistical data has in fact failed to exhibit more than the most rudimentary competence in statistical analysis. With the new access to the database, and the ready availability of powerful software packages for statistical analysis, this is perhaps the major challenge to the next generation of library statistics managers.

As these are probably the present author's last written words on library statistics, he wishes to thank all those colleagues who, over the years, have assisted his efforts in this field, or who at least have suffered in comparative silence. In particular, he wishes to place on record his appreciation of the efforts of those staff of Curtin University Library who have endeavoured, with some success, to translate his ideas and instructions into reality.

174

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

5:14

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14