1.Define the Problem: The library has invested moderately in electronic collections yet we had never considered a weeding process of our serials print collection to correspond with this investment. This is not altogether surprising considering the understandable reluctance of an academic library to discard print materials. However, the space challenges presented by the limited current study areas are forcing students to sit on the floor in study groups. The serials collection is currently held in two separate shelving areas on two different floors, the substantial portion on the second floor while about one third of the collection is on the first floor. We need to reallocate the space on the first floor for student study areas. In order to combine the serials into one area we need to discard an appropriate amount of print serials already available electronically and purchase new serials databases that will allow us to discard additional print serials. Additionally, the university community needs to be assured that we are investing in sustainable electronic materials in order for this to be done successfully. Approximately 50,000 linear inches of available space will be needed in order to accommodate the remaining first floor serials collection into the second floor serials shelving area after the collection is weeded. A commitment from the university to support these collections financially would be needed or they would not be sustainable by the library.
2.Identify the Criteria: First the requirements of the university needed to be reviewed. Psychology, Business, Chemistry & Physics, and Biology & Environmental Sciences were at the forefront of departments that had invested heavily in electronic collections. In addition to these disciplines, Health Sciences and Education could benefit substantially from a 24 hour electronic library as those programs had students in multiple locations with substantial online enrollment as well. Intentionally left out of the project were some departments where electronic access to materials was not optimal, studio arts and music & theater were most notable. A local holding report of the print collection was generated. Identified and separated out were those journals belonging to Health Sciences, Psychology, Education, Business, Chemistry & Physics, and Biology & Environmental Sciences. Titles that took up less than 72 inches of shelf space were not priced or included unless they were part of database packages we were considering purchasing or had already purchased, (these smaller print runs are available on a list for possible future reductions). Additionally, print collections that are provided by a for-profit publisher or aggregator were not included as these collections are static and therefore less sustainable. This left not-for-profit aggregators like ITHAKA/JSTOR and Project Muse along with professional associations and organizations.
3.Weigh the Criteria: Reasonably assured continuing access, or sustainability, to online editions of the print publications that are discarded is of the utmost importance. As not-for-profits tend to assure access to their membership they are less static than publisher collections, (that can be sold and resold to other publishers or access discontinued), or for-profit aggregator collections, (where publications are sometimes dropped from platforms due to pricing or licensing agreements). Therefore sustainability is allotted 50%. Although space recovery and cost are somewhat equivalent in consideration, the overall concept of the project is to recover space so I have placed this slightly higher, at 30%, than cost, which I have given 20%. This is also partially due to the fact that additional costs will be mitigated by cancelling corresponding print subscriptions.
4.Generate Alternatives: in addition to discarding duplicative not-for-profit serials, duplicative for-profit serials from aggregators or publishers could be discarded if necessary. Any additional linear inches of for-profit print publications could be purchased electronically and the corresponding print could be discarded. Any combination of the following would be adequate to support the space needs by the library:
a. Not-for-profit print collections in the aforementioned disciplines that overlapped previously purchased electronic collections, (25,000 linear inches).
b. Purchasing identified association back-files and JSTOR files, (any needed amount)
c. Collections already purchased from for-profit publishers and aggregators , (10,000 linear inches)
d. Additional back files from for-profit publishers, (any needed amount)
5.Rate each alternative on each criterion: Collections were given a positive, (Yes), Sustainability rating if they were not considered static and if the library could be reasonably assured of continued access. Collections were given a positive, (Yes), Space rating if ample space to shift the collection could be generated. Already owned collections were both give a negative, (No), Space rating as not enough space would be recovered through discarding the corresponding print of available online collections. Collections were given a positive, (Yes), rating if no additional costs would be incurred.
6.Compute the Optimal Decision:
The optimal decision according to the evaluation of the criteria is that the library purchase additional not-for-profit collections from individual associations, from JSTOR, and from Project Muse. This optimal decision, while both sustainable and space conscious, does not account for the added cost incurred and could potentially be refused by the university as cost prohibitive.
The weakness in this model, primarily due to space considerations, is that there is no single optimal decision for this undertaking, a combination of two or more approaches must be taken. Discarding already owned duplicative print titles, from both the not-for-profits and the for-profits, will not recover enough space for the relocation of the collection. Additionally, purchasing all new collections, (even if they are all collections from not-for profits), with no regard for what is already on the shelves wouldn’t be prudent and may in fact be cost prohibitive as the library is dependent upon additional funding from the university for this endeavor.
The purpose of following this model was to evaluate the different courses of action possible, and choose a feasible course of action, that was suitable and appropriate for both the library and the university. The model allowed for me to logically examine my heuristics, arrive at a more thoughtful conclusion that discounted my emotional reactions to the options, and to come up with a solution that was ultimately fair after observing the limited study areas in the library. Upon further examining my decision I have identified the biases in my decision making process. Following is an examination on the biases that I perceived in my project concerning replacing print journals with electronic journal collections to make available additional student study space in the library.
The primary bias I had to deal with in this decision had to do with my previous experience working with not-for-profit publishers and for-profit publishers in a corporate setting. My observations for this project were related to my previous position and were still relatively fresh in my mind. To avoid the “ease of recall” bias that Bazerman and Moore identify as an “availability heuristic”, (2009, p.18), based upon my recent previous observations I investigated the current state of journal retention in both for-profit and not-for profit databases. Initially, I checked our holdings report against the back-files supplied by the individual association databases we are looking at and was satisfied that they are inclusive of the print holdings we are seeking to discard. Additionally, to ensure that I wasn’t predisposed to ruling out an alternative that may have had greater success in an academic environment, I checked the content reports of the for-profit aggregators of databases that we currently own to see if my previous conclusions were still valid. I discovered upon this examination that a lot of annual activity on their additions/deletions lists still exists. I then contacted the not-for-profit aggregators from databases that we currently own, as the project hinges upon adding more libraries to these databases, to find their additions and deletions. Correspondence from this aggregator revealed that since inception only one active title no longer participates in their collections. This additional effort to examine my previous disposition allows me to comfortably argue that the not-for-profit databases I am seeking to include are much less static than the for-profit databases and are therefore more sustainable for our needs and more suitable for the library.
While researching this bias I uncovered another potential source of bias and that was my overconfidence. Overconfidence is described by Bezerman and Moore as a bias emanating from the “confirmation heuristic”, where one recollects “confirming rather than disconfirming evidence” or “supportive rather than contradictory evidence”, (p. 37). After working with electronic collections for a prolonged period of time in a corporate environment I hadn’t considered the idea that some of the academic departments, despite their investment in virtual libraries, may object to seeing the print collections related to their disciplines discarded. Additional training may also be required for some researchers. Diane Nelson points out that the “lack of knowledge about how to use” e-journals and the “lack of awareness” about what is available are the two major obstacles to implementing e-journal collections in libraries, (2001, p. 207). Further investigation will be needed to ensure that this learning curve is not still applicable with faculty in these departments. Although we have carefully chosen the collections, and the university administration is willing to fund this project, heretofore I have not accounted for possible reluctance from the faculty, or the student body, to support this project. An overwhelming resistance to discarding the print material, no matter how carefully the material has been chosen, and how great the benefits would be could substantially thwart this endeavor.
My suggestion would be to look into the expense of off-site storage facilities for the serials, explain to the departments that this is not a charge we are willing or able to absorb, and offer them the opportunity of either fund the storage themselves or integrate the collections into available space in their buildings.
These two biases, “ease of recall” and “overconfidence”, were rooted in my desire to make a decision quickly so that we could begin the inception of the project within this fiscal year and qualify for additional available funding. As this project was not “shovel ready”, in order to qualify for the available funding needed, I completed the project as expeditiously as possible, sacrificing a complete examination of these underlying motives. Upon further reflection regarding biases I identified a significant process step that had been previously overlooked. Going forward with this project, I feel that it would be advisable to lobby our liaisons in the various affected departments for support at this time to evaluate if discarding the duplicative not-for profit collections and purchasing additional not-for-profit collections is the best viable alternative for a sustainable e-serials collection.
References:
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2009). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.
Nelson, D. (2001). The Uptake of electronic journals by academics in the UK, their attitudes towards them and their potential impact on scholarly communication. Information Services and Use, 21, 205-214. Retrieved from Business Source Complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment