Responses to the following question:
From: Sara Williams <saraw_at_aztec.lib.utk.edu> (12/15/00)
I am looking for some insight into how academic libraries have been
equitably allocating money for electronic resources among subject and
disciplinary areas. My own campus maintains strong programs in sciences,
social sciences and humanities disciplines. Our shopping list of
desired electronic products is getting longer and longer,
while our budget remains static. It is essential that our
process for choosing what to buy for whom be perceived
as fair and rational.
I've just spent a couple of hours digging through the professional
literature without finding exactly what I need on this. I hope someone
on the list will be able to help.
Sara R. Williams, University of Tennessee
==================
#1
From: Tom Izbicki <izbicki_at_jhu.edu>
Our approach has been, aside from electronic products charged to endowed
fund or bought by the Friends, to pay for most databases from the
General
and Science reference funds but break up electronic serials by
subject. Since many packages are supplemental to existing print
subscriptions, that makes sense for us. We have not tried to do exact
allocations, but the appropriations process for the subject funds
includes
consideration of database expenses.
Tom Izbicki
Eisenhower Library
Johns Hopkins
===================
#2
From: Donna Signori <dsignori_at_UVic.CA>
Hello Sara,
I guess I have a different perspective on this. First of all does
equitability really rest in the distribution of money or in the
selection
of products? Should it be equitable? I would prefer to look at what
products are required in subject areas (not every product can be done
this
way) and have selectors involved in the various subject disciplines draw
up
a priority list. I think other factors regarding the products
themselves
should come into play such as whether something is full-text and can you
you cancel a print item and add the money to the elec product, whether
it
would reduce processing/labor intensive work for a Tec Services unit
(like
the IEEE product), whether it might solve a space problem in some way,
whether the demand is incredibly strong, whether the gaps in the print
collection is so extensive as to make the electronic highly preferable,
etc. I know that we also look at whether something is a likely
candidate
for a consortium agreement instead and wait or be brought up in that
forum.
These tend to be more ad hoc and frequent and require a reactive
decision
within a certain time period and cannot necessarily predicted. To me
if
you try to be equitable you can set up a situation of inflexibility
which
doesn't necessarily let you respond to the most pressing needs. I would
prefer to make the process equitable but not necessarily the
distribution
of budget dollars. You also would not end up with small amounts of
money
unspent because no product was able to be purchased for the remaining
funds. Just a different take on the subject. Donna
Received on Mon Dec 18 2000 - 09:19:04 EST