[Original posting on this topic appeared in COLLDV-L no. 1872 and is
reproduced below; the response follows it.]
From: Kent Mulliner <mulliner_at_ohiou.edu>
Colleagues,
Cross posted to COLLDV-L & SERIALST, apologies for
duplication.
For our library allocation formula, we need statistics about usage of
library materials. We seek your advice on three alternative questions.
1. Since so many journals are used in-house, it is hard to
get good data on their use. We're considering predicting the use of
journals in the different disciplines by the number of books checked out
within each of those disciplines. That ratio, of course, varies a great
deal. We've found articles that report the ratio for certain subject areas
- especially the sciences, and we've seen very general statements about the
ratio for very broad areas - science/social sciences/humanities. What we'd
like to find is data that breaks these figures down by disciplines such
as geography, education, history, biology, philosophy, physics, etc.
2. Any analyses/citation studies that would indicate reliance on
journal vs. book materials by disciplines?
3. Any studies that would offer similar disciplinary breakdowns for
in-house use (i.e., including inhouse book use as well as journals) vs.
checkouts?
K. Mulliner Collection Development Coordinator & Asst. to Dean
"Owner" CORMOSEA & cap-sea Electronic Mailing Lists
Ohio University Libraries Phone: 740-593-2707
Athens, OH 45701-2978, USA FAX: 740-593-2708
mulliner_at_ohiou.edu
===========================================================================
(1) From: Prof Richard H Werking <rwerking_at_nadn.navy.mil>
I'm dubious that "predicting" journal use in the manner you describe,
or in any manner I can imagine, would have any credibility with faculty or
administrators, or even very much within the library. (In the last case,
sponsors of such a procedure would likely be heard to say "Well, it's
better than nothing," when in fact that probably isn't true at all;
sometimes the absence of information is better than information that,
correctly or not, is perceived to be worthless.)
Alternatives you might consider are more time-honored ones that
involve counting and recording use as a constant part of managing the
collection, or at least sampling, although the latter then gets one back
to how "representative" is the sample. Libraries that have their current
issues and bound volumes barcoded are in a great position to use hand-held
scanners for recording use of items left out and about; alternatives in
cases where these items aren't barcoded include having one barcode on the
shelf, or one barcode for each title in a paper Periodicals Holdings List,
in either case scanned at the time of reshelving. We employ the second
alternative. Another advantage with barcoding each piece (which we
haven't done but are considering): you can get a much better sense of the
distribution of use of a given title over its years (considerable use of
20-year-old journals, zero use, etc.), which is important for space
planning.
Such counting isn't free of criticism, of course; faculty will often
say "I put it back on the shelf when I'm done", but over time, and given
the publicity attending subscription cuts, they usually learn to leave
materials out on the nearest horizontal surface. And all counting,
including out-of-building circulation, is potentially subject to
calculated overstatement by those users who would create use solely to be
counted; but in my experience faculty don't have time for this sort of
thing, even if they had the rare inclination.
In short, try to count, rather than predict, and consider putting the
procedure together with the assistance of your faculty.
Richard Hume Werking, Ph.D.
Librarian, Associate Dean for Information, and Professor of History
Nimitz Library U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis, MD 21402
Voice: 410-293-6901 Fax: 410-293-3853 rwerking_at_nadn.navy.mil
Received on Fri Nov 13 1998 - 09:40:52 EST