A Collection Development Policy Incorporating Electronic Formats

Download A Collection Development Policy Incorporating Electronic Formats

Post on 09-Mar-2017




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 11 November 2014, At: 10:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &amp;Information SupplyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzil20</p><p>A Collection Development Policy IncorporatingElectronic FormatsRob Strong aa Townsend Memorial Library , University of Mary Hardin-Baylor , Belton, TXPublished online: 24 Oct 2008.</p><p>To cite this article: Rob Strong (1999) A Collection Development Policy Incorporating Electronic Formats, Journal ofInterlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &amp; Information Supply, 9:4, 53-64, DOI: 10.1300/J110v09n04_07</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J110v09n04_07</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor &amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzil20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J110v09n04_07http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J110v09n04_07http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>A Collection Development PolicyIncorporating Electronic Formats</p><p>Rob Strong</p><p>ABSTRACT. Includes the rationale for a collection developmentpolicy for electronic resources, and a sample collection developmentpolicy. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com ]</p><p>KEYWORDS. Collection development policies, collection develop-ment, electronic resources, CD-ROMs</p><p>Access is a keyword newly defined in all fields that require re-search. The social sciences and humanities, traditional supporters offormats that can be preserved for use and reuse by a steadily growingline of readers, is now accepting the inevitable challenges of technolo-gy. The growth of such projects as Project Guttenberg, OCLCs Elec-tronic Collections On-line, Johns Hopkinss Project Muse, and JSTORhave reformed the landscape with which libraries must deal. We nolonger enjoy a single copy physical format environment. Many titlesare now accessible several ways, better suiting the access needs of theuser. Libraries must develop policies to incorporate these new accessdemands into their structures.The last two decades have seen information widely published in</p><p>books, journals, audiovisuals, CD-ROMs and now directly on-line. AtTownsend Memorial Library, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, weare beginning to address these newest changes with meaningful strate-gies that will affect holdings for many years. We needed to confront</p><p>Rob Strong is Director of Learning Resources, Townsend Memorial Library,University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Belton, TX.</p><p>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &amp; Information SupplyVol. 9(4) 1999</p><p>E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 53</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:30</p><p> 11 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &amp; Information Supply54</p><p>the rapidly accelerating changes challenging libraries. Faculty, stu-dents, and other patrons are already requesting titles in formats we arenot prepared to order, process, shelve, preserve, or reference. Theearly guidelines will be discussed in some detail and some ramifica-tions examined.The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, a Southern Baptist universi-</p><p>ty, enrolls over 2,000 undergraduate and 300 graduate students. Orga-nized in 1845 as the female division of Baylor University, it continuedin this mission until 1971. Prior to becoming coeducational, mencould take classes but could not graduate. It is now a coeducationalgeneral university with a historically liberal arts curriculum but incor-porates business, nursing, and education programs. A Masters degreemay be earned in education, computer science, psychology, business,or health services administration. Townsend Memorial Library wasconstructed in 1962 and remodeled in 1994. At that time it was wiredto accommodate electronic technology for at least the next decade.However, the very next year the network wiring had to be expandedbecause student demand for public networked terminals doubled. Weforesaw neither the explosive growth of nor the demand for access toelectronic resources.Electronics were introduced to most libraries with OCLC catalog-</p><p>ing in the early 1970s. It remained a fixture with minimal change forthe next six or eight years. By the late 1980s software programs werebeing introduced that greatly increased the capabilities of the sharedOCLC cataloging database, especially serials holdings and union lists.Best of all, interlibrary loans could be queued and requested in a batchmode. Interlibrary loan capacity increased but the number of person-nel remained relatively static.The next few years saw computer hardware and software compet-</p><p>ing for the newest development. In libraries this race was at leastperipherally determined by OCLC. There was no pressing need formost libraries to upgrade hardware beyond the point OCLC accommo-dated. But, as new software packages were developed, as on-linesystems were introduced and entered the developing library on-linepublic access catalog market, and as libraries and campuses becamenetworked, the need for more powerful and versatile hardware andsoftware became a necessity. The products were rapidly introduced,filling a vacuum; communication with administrative supervisors re-sponsible for multiple academic areas became the next activity. Justifi-</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:30</p><p> 11 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Rob Strong 55</p><p>cation of needs, cost effectiveness, and reductions in the rate of staffgrowth were universal pleas.Again, external lending benefited early from electronic develop-</p><p>ments. Interlibrary loan and document delivery felt the impact ofincreased bibliographic access quickly. During the four-year period,1994-1998, borrowing from Mary Hardin-Baylor increased more thansixty-five percent. Relevant materials became more identifiable andgenerated more requests. Single interface indexing is the recurringvariable. Users may now quickly examine several probable cumula-tive indexes from a single electronic location, and the patron does nothave to be in the library or even on campus.The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, in its</p><p>1992-1993 Criteria for Accreditation, 5.2.2 Services, states that insti-tutions must provide . . . where appropriate, access to external biblio-graphic data bases and must provide students with opportunities tolearn how to access information in a variety of formats so they cancontinue life-long learning.1 These were first included eight yearsearlier in the 1984 edition. Two years later, this wording reflected therising importance of different formats, especially electronic, to ade-quate research. The new 5.1.2 Services now reads: Emphasis shouldbe placed on the variety of contemporary technologies used for ac-cessing learning resources. Libraries and learning resource centersmust provide students with opportunities to learn how to access infor-mation in different formats so they can continue life-long learning,and Convenient, effective access to electronic bibliographic data-bases, whether on-site or remote, must be provided when necessary tosupport the academic programs.2 This change in wording drives theintroduction of electronic access in those libraries the Southern Asso-ciation accredits, even if it was not being mandated by user demand,competition for students, and the economics of collection develop-ment.University of Mary Hardin-Baylor became automated beyond</p><p>OCLC in 1994 with the purchase of an integrated system from Innova-tive Interfaces, Inc. The next year a CD-ROM network with six differ-ent databases was added. The Internet and the World Wide Web(WWW) quickly followed. All access points were networked in thelibrary. In 1997 the library began incorporating FirstSearch Panorama,ABI/Inform, EBSCO Academic Search and PA Abstracts into its on-</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:30</p><p> 11 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &amp; Information Supply56</p><p>line access and decreased reliance on the CD-ROM network. Some ofthe databases are full-text, some only indexes.The choice to maximize all access through the WWW was a</p><p>gamble. The CD-ROM network was reliable but could not be accessedoff-campus; identical or similar databases could be accessed over theWWW with greater ease by authorized patrons but access was nowdependent on hardware located outside the library. Switching access tothe Web eliminated additional network hardware and software mainte-nance. The only factors arguing for dual networks were high serveruse on the WWW causing delays that were not evident on the CD-ROM network, and having all of our resources unavailable if localaccess to the Internet went down. It appeared the advantages out-weighed the disadvantages. Our decision has thus far been validatedbecause problems we have experienced have been primarily localrather than connectivity issues.Students accept the variety of resources, difficulties of remote ac-</p><p>cess, configuration and heavy remote server use, and printing prob-lems with less aggravation than they exhibit when hard copy tools arenot on the shelf. Faculty have displayed less widespread acceptance oflibrary resource technology, although they agree with its necessity.Dealing with the two primary clients of an academic library, providingtechnical assistance for remote users, and selecting appropriate elec-tronic tools that will support the curriculum has challenged librarians.Electronic resources have narrowed Marshall McLuhans global</p><p>village concept to give it library specialization. Patrons now expectlibrary services that were until recently far beyond not only a novicelibrary users abilities but also exceeded the services most librariesnormally provided. Students rely on interlibrary loan, fax, documentdelivery, Ariel and personal visits to other collections for resources theuser has remotely identified. Texas has initiated both a statewide cou-rier for interlibrary loan and a users card that will allow students,faculty, or staff associated with one university or college to personallyborrow materials from another university. The users home institutionmust assume financial liability for materials borrowed but it greatlyreduces barriers to the sharing of intellectual information. These pro-grams have encouraged students and faculty to familiarize themselveswith access methods to view remote library catalogs. This again hasled to an increase in interlibrary loan. The worlds bibliographic re-sources are at least more easily determined, if not acquired.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:30</p><p> 11 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Rob Strong 57</p><p>Almost daily libraries receive advertisements for electronic accessto directories, bibliographies, indexes, encyclopedias, journals, bio-graphical dictionaries, and other reference tools formerly or simulta-neously published in hard copy. The rate with which titles are beingdigitized appears to be increasing. As the user becomes more adeptand demanding, hardware and connection prices decline, and digitalresources become more available libraries will be expected to dealwith electronic full-text as a standard format. Faculty at University ofMary Hardin-Baylor are already requesting some electronic titles rath-er than hard copy.Policies written at University of Mary Hardin-Baylor deal with the</p><p>issues raised by the new formats. The policies are in their infancy andare certainly subject to revision as needs change and new problems areidentified. They are, however, an initial attempt to deal with a newopportunity for service.</p><p>FORMAT SELECTION AND PROCEDURE</p><p>1. If a resource is one we have been requested to purchase, we willadd it in hard copy if available, or if unavailable, we will add it inany format, in the following order of precedence: on-line, micro-form, CD-ROM.</p><p>2. If we have purchased a title in the past and it is available bothon-line and in hard copy, we will continue to purchase it in hardcopy. A hard copy may or may not be purchased, however, if theitem is available free of charge through the Internet, as are manyfederal and state documents. If a bibliographic record alreadyexists on our OPAC for those free titles, the holdings will be up-dated noting the new location as the specific URL. If the websiteis not an exact duplication of the print version, the print versionwill continue to be purchased.</p><p>3. If we purchase a title, it will be cataloged.4. If a title is cataloged and it is Internet accessible in format, wewill assign the URL to the appropriate MARC field.</p><p>5. If a title formerly acquired in hard copy is electronic in format,we will continue to acquire it in the new format until it is specifi-cally evaluated for need. Archival retention and access of titlesand issues will be a primary factor in the decision.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity o</p><p>f W</p><p>inds</p><p>or] </p><p>at 1</p><p>0:30</p><p> 11 </p><p>Nov</p><p>embe</p><p>r 20</p><p>14 </p></li><li><p>Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &amp; Information Supply58</p><p>6. If a title is Internet accessible in format, we may or may notplace it as a link on the web page. From our web page, links willbe provided to a select group of high quality websites. Thesewebsites will not be cataloged on our OPAC. We will not providelinks from the web page for cataloged titles because they willhave an embedded URL in the MARC record.</p><p>7. Access to digital resources will be secured for as many simulta-neous authorized users as possible. That use will be construed toinclude any authorized user wherever located. Resource...</p></li></ul>


View more >