Government Documents and InterLibrary Loan: The Red Headed Stepchildren in the Technical Services Process

409 views

Published on

Donna Daniels (speaker), Lia Hemphill (speaker), Tess Gibson (speaker)

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
409
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Where does Resource Sharing fit in the organization?
  • Talk about what we are doing—10K to purchase 2013 imprints (faculty and grad only); RapidILL + Odyssey. All of this means that more departments than ever are involved in the resource sharing process. Talk about service failures that occur internally. Rush purchases not being cataloged quickly, customers not being notified in a timely manner. And you’ll see that some of the “traditional” practices still, unfortunately occur such as user restrictions or users having to justify their need.
  • First bullet: Mediation is not bad in and of itself. It’s when we don’t turn transactions around quickly that we fail to serve. Users think we are miracle workers—let’s use that to our advantage. Because of the nature of the transactions we manage today, we often have to involve other people in other departments. But when resource sharing has to forward a transaction to say, a subject specialist and that person takes several days to reply---we have a service failure.
  • Use example of consortium that can’t agree on a unified loan period.
  • While great strides have been made in the delivery of requested items, we have work to do. Why do librarians love policies and procedures so much? It is my personal belief that many library organizations lack a culture of trust. This in turn breeds fear. Fear of risk. Fear of getting in trouble for making a mistake. This, in turn, leads to complacency and a culture of blame.
  • So what does this have to do with government documents? Talk about what we loaned and borrowed. Then how to relate
  • Fewer tracks to decide what you want to do. Multiple librarians and support staff. Maps. Catalog maps in the department
  • 8 years without a docs librarian. Docs processing is now under tech services and they don’t understand most of the issues and don’t go to documents meetings. Head of collections has little knowledge as well. Maps are cataloged through tech services. Geosciences librarian would rather concentrate on digital maps.
  • Although I have served in many other capacities I feel once you have served as a documents librarian it is easier to be a subject specialist in many areas. Predominately paper reference indexes and the entire collection stands as a reference collection. 1980’s and 1990’s microfiche came into being 1990-s cd rom 1990’s and now websites and electronic resources. If you participated in the LC map program you had a wide range of maps that went beyond the usgs .
  • We did not have a dedicated gov pub librarian for 8 years. I was available for help but for the most part the doc asst who will retire in 2 weeks handled most of it. I am inundated with questions because staff know they don’t have to deal with it. It kills me everytime I look at the cd’s that are unusable. Especially Tech services to add url’s to the catalog. Libguides can serve a variety of uses. Promoting the collection ,research guide, continuing ed for staff. Where does the data go when the agency computer wonks update the websites. No Standards.
  • We were an island unto our selves in terms of collection development and collection management.
  • Collections librarian involvement with selectors – fiasco. Storage. Coop CD Arkansas. Oldest and larges but a selective. GWLA, TRAIL, CRL, possibly SEC libraries. National security. When I was business librarian I would tell students you have to look at the world. International documents UN FAO WHO NGO Human Rights Watch. Harvest Choice
  • New paradigm for us. I want to involve the subject specialist, but understand that education needs to take place in how collection development works with documents. We can’t afford to buy all the wonderful digital resources that are available. Researchers want to look at the original. Teaching faculty support center. The new and not so new faculty lunches, teaching camp, fall and winter teaching symposia all give us entre into working with faculty about documents and the information realities – security, lack of consistency, grants, open source. Collabor Tech Services: Vietnamese relocation. Spec coll, mullins and law. What about digitizing these materials. Involve the asian studies specialist in working with faculty and student to let them know we have these resources.
  • Government Documents and InterLibrary Loan: The Red Headed Stepchildren in the Technical Services Process

    1. 1. Government Documents and Interlibrary Loan: The Red Headed Stepchildren in the Technical Services Process Donna Daniels, Tess Gibson, and Lia Hemphill Charleston Conference 2013
    2. 2. Traditional ILL Model:  Housed in Reference, Tech Services, Collection        Mgmt., etc. Heavily mediated Paper-based Restricted to certain users Long wait times for materials Users often required to justify their need Inconsistent/Unreliable turnaround times Difficult to understand requesting mechanisms
    3. 3. What’s happening now?  Purchase-on-demand programs (Collection Mgmt., subject         specialists, acquisitions, resource sharing, cataloging, circulation…) Seamless article delivery- RapidILL, Rapid Manager, etc. Articles on demand---users access “tokens,” etc. Delivery of physical materials (Mailroom, circulation, resource sharing, facilities…) Storage retrieval (Mailroom, circulation, resource sharing, facilities…) Real-time circulation information available- Relais, etc. Users less often required to justify their need-but it still happens Restricted to certain users-still occurs Inconsistent/Unreliable turnaround times-still a problem for returnable materials
    4. 4. What strengths does Resource Sharing bring to the table?  Tradition of mediation---we’re good at doing it quickly when it needs to be done  Trusted third party---we bring expertise  Commitment to sharing  Resource sharing people are fun to hang out with
    5. 5. Weaknesses?  Idiosyncratic local politics and policies make it impossible to accept national standards (scanning standards, for example)  Fragmented discovery  Complacency in developing solutions—someone else will do it  Lack of a shared sense of urgency across the organization
    6. 6. So What do Librarians do?  Create more procedures- “We have this new environment so how do we control it?”  Convolute the process  Cause frustration for users and librarians alike “If you are constantly making exceptions to the rule, you don’t need the rule anymore.” Douglas Hasty
    7. 7. ILL and Gov Docs  Borrowed 538 in FY 13 (38K total)  Loaned 1,112 in FY 13 (37K total) mostly to libraries in Arkansas
    8. 8. Documents Personnel: Then  Librarian specialized in documents during their formal training  At least one FT documents librarian and perhaps another split librarian  Maps part of the equation.
    9. 9. Documents Personnel: New Realities  Documents librarian is not a given.  Librarian with these responsibilities to fulfill FDLP regulations. Sometimes a technical services librarian.  Maps separate
    10. 10. Documents Reference: Then  Librarian was mediator.  Reference wanted no part of it.  Few resources:  Monthly Catalog, List of Classes, Checklist of US Public Documents, CIS, Andriot, Statistical Abstract, Censuses, Documents Shelflist, Institutional Memory, and other major publications of the federal government.  Paper, microcard, microfiche, cd-rom, database  Maps: USGS, DOD, Army Mapping Service, Agriculture, FEMA, Sanborn
    11. 11. Documents Reference: New Realities  Library staff as mediator  Reference wants no part of it.  Resources: MARCIVE and the library catalog,       WorldCat, Google, agency websites, commercially publishers such as Bernan, CQ/Sage, Proquest and Readex, consortial projects and many new statistical data players. Formats that are unuseable Dialogue with ILL and Technical Services to meet the users needs LibGuides Time series what time series Data Services Librarian or campus data services Maps: geosciences librarian, self service, GIS
    12. 12. Documents Collection: Then  Responsibility of the Documents Librarian  Item List Printout  Little interaction with Reference, Bibliographers, ILL or Technical Services  SuDoc Arrangement, except for the “important documents”  Paper, microcard, microfiche, cd-rom, database  FDLP stood as the collection statement
    13. 13. Documents Collection: New Realities  Responsibility of the Documents staff with input from          Collection Management and Technical Services. Item Lister SuDoc Arrangement, except for the “important documents” Integration into the main collection Libguides Cooperative Collection Development among state depositories Consortial Arrangements Focused locally produced collection statement 21st century information policies International documents, official and ngo requires conversations with EVERYONE!
    14. 14. Becoming a full fledged member of the family  Continuing education for library staff regarding government documents  Education the campus community about government documents and 21st century information realities  Collaborative projects with archives, reference, instruction, ILL and technical services.

    ×