This document discusses strategies to improve support for reading lists at University College Dublin. It outlines traditional problems with supporting reading lists, as well as new challenges. In 2009, changes were implemented including a targeted reading list fund, new submission deadlines and procedures, and centralized ordering. A 2010 review found the changes were successful, processing 15% of offered modules, but recommended further revisions to forms, guidelines, and statistics tracking. The conclusion is that continual review and transparency are needed to support reading lists in the evolving university context.

1. On the shelf, in time
Developing a
strategy to
improve reading
list support
Lorna Dodd Hugh Murphy
Liaison Librarian, Deputy Head,
Academic Services, Information Resources Management
University College Dublin, University College Dublin,
Belfield, Dublin 4, Belfield, Dublin 4,
Ireland Ireland
Lorna.dodd@ucd.ie , Hugh.Murphy@ucd.ie

2. Even in 2010,
Reading Lists
remain
invaluable
– for academic,
student and
librarian

3. Reading List Support
• Traditional problems
• New problems &
solutions
• Changes – 2009
• Review - 2010
• Recommendations
• Conclusion

5. Traditional Problems - Academic Services
• Complexity of University administration
• Getting the lists – communication with academics
• Access to VLE
• Legacy of individual practice – in Schools, in
library – sites, departments etc.
• Difficult to identify number of reading lists
received
• Interdisciplinary nature of university teaching

6. Traditional problems - Technical Services
• Reading list items not tackled as ‘priority’ orders
• No distinction between Semester 1 and
Semester 2 orders.
• Reading List items don’t get to shelf more
quickly
• Consequences of academic services issues
• Lack of transparency
• Duplication of work

7. Number one driver for current change

8. New Problems
• More books needed, but less money
• Need for centrally organised
system/business plan
• Lack of clearly articulated
University wide policy

9. Solution..?
• Creation of Targeted Reading List Fund
• Submission form for each reading list
• Specific deadlines for submission
• New work procedures for both Academic &
Technical Services
• Available money strictly tied into Reading Lists
items

10. APPLICATION FORM FOR TARGETED FUNDS FOR READING LISTS 2009-10
Part 1 Module and Lecturer Details
Complete as many fields as possible. Fields with an * are mandatory. Incomplete forms will be returned, causing a delay in purchase.
School Name* Module name Module code*
Lecturer’s name* Lecturer’s contact details* Module co-ordinator’s name
(e-mail, extension or other phone number) (where known)
Year/Level* Programme Name Expected nos. of students*
Semester/s taught in* Postgraduate course
(Please tick relevant option) 1 2 Both (please tick)

11. TARGETED FUND FOR READING LISTS 2009-10
•All requests for new resources on your 2009/2010 reading lists MUST be entered on this application form.
•If you already have a reading list prepared, please attach it when returning this application form.
•To ensure that the material is ordered and invoiced in this financial year, these forms must be returned by the 22nd May 2009. Due
to budgetary constraints, where forms are received after 22 nd May we cannot guarantee the material will be purchased.
Part 2. Book Details
Please list by category, and in order of priority. Note: It may not be possible to purchase all materials
1. Mandatory Textbook – refers to a textbook formally proposed to the students as the one you would
recommend for purchase if possible. i.e. core reading for the module
Author Title Year Publisher ISBN For Office use
only
1
2
3
4
5

12. 2. Essential Reading – refers to more specialized reading on top of any mandatory textbooks that you regard as
fundamental for adequate study of the module
Author Title Year Publisher ISBN For Office
use only
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

13. 3. Additional background reading – refers to books which amplify the scope and depth of the
course but are not required reading
Author Title Year Publisher ISBN For Office
use only
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

14. Changes in 2009
Academic Services
• Change in work practices for support staff and
Liaison Librarians
• Traceability
 create new order form
 each school has one targeted fund solely
for Reading List
• Amount allocated = total cost of orders
requested by School Academics.
 Move away from FTE model

15. Changes in 2009
Technical Services
Acquisitions Cataloguing
• Ring fenced funds – • Priority given to
no wiggle room! Reading Lists
• Bulk ordering • Enhanced
communication with
• Online ordering
Academic Services
(Humanities and
Social Sciences) • Continued use of
shelf-ready process
• Everyone becomes an
accountant!! • No change in level of
Priority given to resource description
•
Reading List
Targeted Funds

16. Review 2010
• Identify exact amount
• More centralised spent on reading lists
approach material
• Enhanced • Online ordering
communication with
academic community • Prioritisation
 Need more consistency  Semester 1 & 2
• Statistics • Deadline for academics
 15% of 4997 offered • Ordering– one library one
modules
system
 Accurate record  Form
 Process

17. Total Total
Reading Modules
Lists Offered
Received
Arts & Celtic Studies
213 980 22%
Business & Law
117 1089 11%
Engineering, Mathematical & Physical
Sciences 90 770 12%
Human Sciences
207 849 24%
Life Sciences
16%
TOTAL 766 4997 15%

18. Total 475% difference

19. Report 2010
Recommended Changes
• Revised Targeted Reading List order form
 Online web form
• Timelines
• Guidelines for Liaison Librarians
 How to target academic community
 Number of copies, collections etc.
• More changes to fund management
• Online ordering
• Strict statistical record keeping for future reviews
• Continual Review

20. Conclusions
• Wider university context
 VLE, Registry etc., student demands
• Enhanced Transparency / Accountability
 via Annual Reporting
• Some changes developmental (which we would have probably
made anyway)
• Some changes due to changed economic circumstances
• Origin of change not important – changes themselves very
successful.
• Highlighted areas ripe for reform.
• More work to do, for liaison staff and technical staff
• More efficient, more transparent

22. What if we
are 100%
successful?...
… …and get
4997 reading
lists!!!!