RLG ProgramsMeasuring Uniqueness inSystem-wide Book Holdings:Implications for CollectionManagementConstance MalpasProgram ...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20082This presentation Summarizes recent data-m...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20083What we mean by ‘last copy’ Monographic ti...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20084Distribution of uniquely-held print booksin...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20085Why focus on uniquely-held titles? “Scarci...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20086Challenges Identification requires group /...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20087Study I: System-wide Sampling 250 randomly...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20088Study II: ARL uniquely-held books Ad hoc a...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20089Limitations Current studies limited to pri...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200810Our findings – distribution of unique titl...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200811Based on a randomly selected sample of 250...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200812Distribution of Unique Print Books in ARL ...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200813Content-type Distributions: CRL and ARL0%1...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200814Our findings – levels of uniqueness ~60% ...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200815Our findings – content characterizationMat...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200816Implications Institutions with significan...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200817RecommendationsAdopt a nuanced understandi...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200818What’s Next . . . Holdings validation stu...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200819Some closing observationsOpportunities La...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200820Questions, Comments? „Managing the Collec...
RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200821N=5.9M titlesMedian institutional holdings...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Measuring Uniqueness in System-wide Book Holdings: Implications for Collection Management

338 views

Published on

A summary of research on uniquely-held titles in ARL libraries, prepared for discussion at ALA Chief Collection Development Officers meeting, January 2008

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
338
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Measuring Uniqueness in System-wide Book Holdings: Implications for Collection Management

  1. 1. RLG ProgramsMeasuring Uniqueness inSystem-wide Book Holdings:Implications for CollectionManagementConstance MalpasProgram OfficerRLG Programs
  2. 2. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20082This presentation Summarizes recent data-mining efforts by OCLCPrograms and Research System-wide sample (Summer 2007 – Spring 2008) ARL unique print books (Autumn 2007) Suggests implications for collection managers Outlines next steps for RLG Programs An opportunity to discuss what additionalevidence and analysis is needed
  3. 3. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20083What we mean by ‘last copy’ Monographic title uniquely-held by a singleWorldCat contributor Cf. „single copy‟ repositories, where „last copy‟ is relativeto local/group holdings May represent a last manifestation, expression orwork Bibliographic records describe manifestations, notcopies; unique manifestations are the point of departurefor analysis Some are intrinsically unique; others arerendered unique by erosion of system-wideholdings Historical data may help document increased copy orwork-level availability, but weren‟t included in thestudies presented here
  4. 4. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20084Distribution of uniquely-held print booksin ARL member institutions0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000LCYaleAlbertaColumbiaUChicagoUCLAMcGillPennUvaHawaiiUMdSanDiegoSUNYBuffaloRutgersDartmouthNotreDameOregonGATechDelawareFloridaStateSoIllinoisAlabamaIrvineGWUWayneStateYorkVirginiaTechWAStateCaseWesternManitobaHowardARL member institutionUniquetitlesDistribution of wealth: ARL unique booksA classic Pareto distribution20% of the population holds >75% of unique titlesMedian institutionalholdings = 19K titlesinstitutional excellence?(or) a “network effect?”N = 6.95 M titles
  5. 5. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20085Why focus on uniquely-held titles? “Scarcity is common” limited redundancy in holdings = limited preservationguarantee, limited opportunity to create economies of scale byaggregating supply Research institutions bear the brunt of responsibility forlong-term preservation and access of unique titles Academic and independent research libraries hold up to 70%of aggregate unique print book collection Continuing costs of managing (storing, providing access to)print collections are high; use is generally declining Space pressure on physical plant (on-campus, remote) is high;understanding distribution and characteristics of uniqueholdings can inform decisions about disposition of physicalcollection Increased attention to stewardship of special collections ARL SCWG, CLIR, LC Task Force on Bibliographic Control –new attention to what constitutes „special‟ collections,appropriate standards of care, modes and metrics of use
  6. 6. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20086Challenges Identification requires group / network view of holdings WorldCat provides a reasonably proxy for system-widecollection Some materials (MSS, theses and dissertations, etc.) areintrinsically unique; not all can be algorithmically identifiedin MARC records hybrid approach combines computational and manualanalysis of bibliographic data Sparse bibliographic records impede efficient work/titlematching, may introduce spurious measure of uniqueness external sources (including Google) sometimes helpful infilling gaps Non-English titles (especially transliterated non-romanscripts) are especially difficult to match we resisted the temptation to exclude these
  7. 7. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20087Study I: System-wide Sampling 250 randomly selected, uniquely-held titles Limited to printed books (including theses) publishedbefore 2005 English-language cataloging only Iterative re-sampling required to fill gaps Independently reviewed by three project staff Level of uniqueness Material type Results periodically collated for group analysis Compare results of individual analysis for consistency Seek consensus on difficult cases – relatively few ofthese Re-sample as necessary to fill gaps White paper anticipated March 2008
  8. 8. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20088Study II: ARL uniquely-held books Ad hoc analysis by RLG Programs, prompted by IMLSConnecting to Collections grant announcement How might the existing evidence base be used to focusregional preservation investments? Based on January 2007 snapshot of WorldCat database:13M records for titles (6.95M print books) uniquely held byARL institutions; 300+ OCLC symbols; 123 institutions Iterative analysis examined relative impact oftheses/dissertations and recent imprints on system-wideuniqueness; regional and institutional distribution of holdings Findings shared with ARL Special Collections Working Group(October 2007) and selected RLG partner institutions (UC;CIC; ReCAP; Harvard; ASU; NYU) Heritage Preservation willing to share Heritage Health surveydata for cross-tabulation on as-needed basis
  9. 9. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 20089Limitations Current studies limited to printed books –excludes serials, special collections; only a partialmeasure of uniqueness in system-wide collection Incomplete representation of world bookcollection; for non-English titles especially,uniqueness of North American holdings is onlyrelative Cataloging backlogs of up to 5 years mean thatholdings for recent acquisitions are imperfectlyreflected Incomplete coverage of rare books and specialcollections prior to (ongoing) integration of RLGUnion Catalog
  10. 10. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200810Our findings – distribution of unique titles Research and academic libraries hold >70% ofaggregate unique print book collection while value and utility of these holdings may be widelydistributed across the library community, holdings areconcentrated at institutions with a research / teaching /learning mandate limited data on aggregate use, sources of demand Institutional distribution of unique holdings ishighly skewed, with a handful of libraries holdinga majority share of collective assets ARL unique print book holdings range from 400 – 600Ktitles per institution; median holdings = 19K titles generally, institutions with large collections hold moreunique materials – but absolute size of collection is notan indicator of relative uniqueness
  11. 11. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200811Based on a randomly selected sample of 250 uniquely-held printbook titles in WorldCat (Jan. 2007)Unique titles by library type50%27%6%6%4%4% 2% 1%ARLAcademic (non-ARL)GovtState and NationalSpecialPublicUnknownNetworks
  12. 12. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200812Distribution of Unique Print Books in ARL Member Institutions0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000LCMichiganNALUWiscUrbanaUWashEmoryPittNewMexicoOklahomaUtahKentStateDavisFloridaStateVanderbiltWUSTLColoradoUmassTexasTechMcMasterQueensPEPNational libraries and institutions with deepcollections and an aggressive approach tocollecting and cataloging new monographs –LC, Harvard, Libraries & Archives Canada –have an exceptional range of unique holdingsUnique Print Books in ARL InstitutionsCRL’s focus on theses and dissertations isevident – most uniqueness is attributableto these holdingsInstitutions withyounger collections,actively seeking toincrease scope ofcoverage - NCSU,Temple – are buildinguniqueness in newtitles
  13. 13. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200813Content-type Distributions: CRL and ARL0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Center forResearch LibrariesARL aggregatecollectionUnique thesesUnique print books pubd2000 and afterUnique print books pubdbefore 2000Intrinsically uniquecontent, “only copies”May include “first copies”in cataloging queue;uniqueness subject torapid erosion
  14. 14. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200814Our findings – levels of uniqueness ~60% of titles represent unique works Ex: Report and recommendation … on a proposed loan … equivalentto US$70 million to the … Islamic Republic of Pakistan for a powerplant efficiency improvement project (1987) – World Bank report heldby George Washington University ~15% of titles represent unique manifestations Ex. Gallipolis … an account of the French five hundred and of the townthey established … compiled by Workers of the Writers program of theWork projects administration (1940) – microform pamphlet held byYale University; related manifestations at 40 libraries ~5% of titles represent unique expressions Ex: E.J. Luck. A pedigree of the families Luck, Lock and Lee (1908) –book held by Masssanutten Regional Library, VA; similar title (Luck,Lock) by same author, pub‟d in 1900, held at LC ~20% of titles not unambiguously unique: duplicate or near-duplicate records can be found in WorldCat Ex: K. Kimura. Edo no akebono (1956) – book held by HarvardYenching; apparent duplicate (cataloged with original scripts) held byWaseda, Yale
  15. 15. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200815Our findings – content characterizationMaterial types ~35% are books (>50pp) most appear to be non-fiction titles, less likely to haveadditional manifestations ~20% theses and dissertations many at Master‟s level – unlikely to be held beyond issuinginstitution ~15% government documents mostly federal and state, may be duplicated in depositories ~10% pamphlets unique content, but rarely useful in isolation ~10% analytics; single articles or issues bound as aseparate volume non-unique content <5% early imprints lost treasures? Small numbers of by-laws, scripts, legal briefs,minutes, etc.
  16. 16. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200816Implications Institutions with significant unique holdings may benefitfrom „splitting the difference‟ between unique works andmanifestationsunique manifestations and analytics should be judged with aneye to provenance history; unless they contribute to localdistinctiveness, immediate action may not be warranted A preliminary sort by material type may help guide localdecision-making regarding the physical disposition ofunique holdingspamphlets and technical reports may be candidates forcataloging enhancement and storage transfer; books may beshort-listed for digitization and/or transfer to specialcollections Institutions with smaller unique print book collections maybenefit from collective action to aggregate supply(through effective disclosure) and demand (throughspecial resource-sharing and digitization initiatives) aroundspecific topical and disciplinary interestslocal collections gain in significance when presented in contextwith related holdings
  17. 17. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200817RecommendationsAdopt a nuanced understanding of „relative uniqueness‟ whenassessing local holdings Unique manifestations may not represent uniqueintellectual content, but may have other value As artifacts  special collections As a networked resource  increased availability Unique works may gain relevance and value whenpresented as part of a larger disciplinary or topicalcollection Theses and dissertations may benefit from special discoverytools, integration in local scholarly communications initiatives Pamphlets and technical reports may be virtually aggregatedfor specific communities of use Maximize disclosure of unique holdings to increase theirimpact and value Focus on use and utility of unique holdings to ensurelong-term preservation, enduring value to parent institution
  18. 18. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200818What’s Next . . . Holdings validation study will examine a sampleof scarcely-held (<5 copies) US imprints inNorth-American research libraries Compare current WorldCat holdings to historical holdings– looking for signs of collection erosion; elimination oflocal backlogs (diminishing uniqueness) Compare local holdings to current WorldCat holdings –location changes/storage transfers, withdrawals Assess impact of local preservation actions on system-wide holdings (availability, condition) and potentialvalue of „full disclosure‟ Collaborative effort with RLG partner institutionsanticipated Spring/Summer 2008
  19. 19. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200819Some closing observationsOpportunities Large research libraries hold a wealth of unique materials –long tail resources with broad potential audience Aggregated bibliographic data supports programmaticanalysis and enrichment – work-level clustering,identification of duplicates Largest institutions, with enduring commitments toretention and access, hold majority of potential „at risk‟titlesChallenges Libraries ill-equipped to measure potential demand forunique holdings Technical and social infrastructure for aggregating supply islacking University presses are potential distribution partners, butalliances are weak
  20. 20. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200820Questions, Comments? „Managing the Collective Collection‟ work agenda Data-mining for management intelligence Shared print collectionshttp://www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/collectivecoll Midwinter RLG Update Session1:30-3:30Marriott 302-304 Contact:Constance MalpasProgram Officermalpasc@oclc.org
  21. 21. RLG Programs Managing Last CopiesCCDO Meeting, ALA Midwinter – 12 January 200821N=5.9M titlesMedian institutional holdings =96k unique titles

×