Title Protection Rules

From C-Pirate Flickr Stream

No one likes to discard books, no matter how much sense it makes. Psychology and emotion loom larger in deselection decisions than do data and reason. Prompted by my partner Ruth Fischer, we've recently begun experimenting with a different way of thinking about this, one that shifts the focus from rejection to protection. The question "what must we save?" is proving far more productive and positive than the question "what do we have to remove?"

The change in orientation is partly rhetorical, but also has a basis in reality. The change requires that overall responsibility for deselection be assigned at the institutional level. In some cases, that may mean the library as a whole, rather than collection managers; in others, it may mean the College or University which is pressing for additional space or reduced costs, rather than the library.

The institution needs more space for users. Large portions of the print collection are not being used. An obvious solution is to store or discard those many low/no-circulation items. The institution decrees that deselection must be pursued. Titles that have not circulated in many years automatically become candidates for deselection. The institution as a whole bears responsibility for this decision, and affirms the general direction and parameters.

This general candidate list, however, is only the starting point. Some categories of titles may need to be protected, regardless of how little they are used. This is where the subject librarian's work begins, and where a new psychology can be adopted. Instead of active deselection, the process becomes a form of triage: protecting those items that most need protecting. It is a given that not all can be saved; the institution has said so. The subject librarian, then, must determine which categories of material are most important to retain.

In the SCS parlance, these decisions are expressed as "title protection rules." Title protection rules allow for some titles to be exempted from deselection, but also force prioritization. As importantly, it shifts the energy of selectors toward preservation rather than elimination, but in the context of a institutionally-mandated deselection project. Progress can be made, but the most critical exceptions can also be honored.

Certain title protection rules come up with regularity in our discussions with libraries. As described in a previous post, appearance on authoritative lists might inspire retention. Award-winners (Nobel, Pulitzer, National Book Awards, etc.) and "classic" or "seminal" works in a subject are other general categories that may warrant protection. But other, more localized exceptions are also common:

• Titles written by faculty members

• Books or collections donated by important alumni or benefactors

• Books that were part of the library's founding collection

• Titles in areas where the collection is known to be weak

• Titles important to emerging disciplines on campus

• Areas where retrospective collection building has recently occurred.

• Titles with high levels of image-intensity (e.g., arts)

• Titles from publishers well-regarded in a discipline

• Titles in series important to a discipline

From C-Pirate Flickr Stream

These are just examples, of course. Every library (and potentially every discipline represented in the library's collection) is likely to require its own title protection rules. But even from this modest list, the potential variety is clear. Perhaps less obvious is the difficulty of shaping these criteria into effective rules, and avoiding the need for title-by-title decisions. And even if a rule can be defined, the necessary data may not be readily available.

For instance, in order to identify and protect works by faculty authors, a list of faculty authors is needed. Where can this be generated? Should staff as well as faculty authors be included? Do we limit the list to current faculty, or attempt to capture historical contributions as well? To match the author list against the library's catalog, some authority control work may be necessary. Identifying titles donated by well-known alumni or purchased from endowed funds can create similar logistical problems, especially when the only indicators are a physical bookplate or the use of a specific fund.

Some of these are solvable problems, and the degree of effort involved in finding a solution may provide one more measure of the ultimate value of these titles to the library. Articulating title protection rules is an important step in that process.

Core Titles and Circular Logic

Here at Sustainable Collections Services, we are working with several libraries to identify low/no-circulation titles in their collections. We then gather additional information about those titles, to help inform deselection decisions. It has been interesting to learn what sorts of supplementary information are most important. Some data needs are obvious, such as the number of holdings in WorldCat, or whether a title already resides in a shared regional storage facility.

But other information is often wanted. For instance, there is a great fear of discarding a title of recognized value, and many librarians wish to know whether a title appears on some form of "authoritative list." Examples of such sources are Resources for College Libraries;  CHOICE's Outstanding Academic Titles, and Doody's Core Titles in the Health Sciences.

These lists have been developed to help libraries identify the most important titles --the core titles--for specific types of collections. Criteria for inclusion vary depending on audience level and discipline, but CHOICE's list illustrates one well-defined set:

A title's presence on such lists often--and in many cases appropriately--affects the decision to deselect. To accommodate this,SCS introduced the concept of "title protection" rules, which describe categories of books that are exempt from withdrawal--regardless of their circulation history. There are many other types of title protection rules (e.g., faculty authors, donations from prominent alumni), which I will describe in a subsequent post. But title protection rules based on authoritative lists present an interesting conundrum.

Core titles, are, by definition, books that every library should have. Not surprisingly, they tend to be widely held. They have been deemed valuable by an external, expert reviewing authority. This judgment is subsequently reinforced by collective agreement, expressed through widespread acquisition. These titles are well-regarded and so are widely bought. They remain well-regarded because they are widely held. But this cycle of logic does not address the question of use.

Authoritative lists are excellent collection development tools, assuring that the most important titles in a discipline are represented in the collection. But what sort of deselection tools are they? Core titles are not only the most widely held, but are typically the most easily re-acquired, and the most likely to be available in digital form. But are they also the most widely used? If a "core" title has not circulated in 15 years, how do we weigh that fact against its designation as a core title? So far, most libraries seem inclined to protect these titles from deselection, regardless of use patterns.

This may be exactly the right decision, but there is also an oddly circular logic at work. This title was deemed important, so many libraries bought it. Its designation as a core title inspires librarians to protect it from deselection. Core lists are one element in evaluating collections. We want out collection to measure up. Other libraries are keeping core titles. We will keep core titles.

image from shirtaday.com

Absent consideration of use, this logic will lead us  (as a community) to retain hundreds or thousands of copies of the same titles--simply because they appear on the same lists that inspired us to acquire them in the first place. If they are indeed well used, this is a good thing. But if they are little-used, we will miss an opportunity release thousands of feet of shelf space with virtually no risk.

We at SCS are curious whether "core" titles experience higher circulation rates than other titles, and hope to quantify that in some fashion in the near future. They certainly should, given their acknowledged quality. It remains important to know which titles appear on these and other authoritative lists (such as those used for accreditation), but as one of our focus group participants put it back in January: "I'm starting to think that use trumps everything." In our view, it doesn't necessarily trump everything, but it should always be part of the data that drives deselection decisions.

Misspent Funds or Strategic Reserve?

My colleague Andy Breeding recently forwarded a Cornell University report from its Task Force on Print Collection Usage. The report, released in November 2010, resulted from the Task Force's charge "to conduct a wide-ranging study on the use of the circulating print collections." It is one of the most thorough studies of its kind. The findings, though perhaps not surprising, were nonetheless stark. Among them (with emphasis added):

Approximately 55% of the books published since 1990 and held in Cornell's collections have never circulated.

For books published in 2001, 64.5% had not circulated by the end of 2009.

Of books in circulation on April 19, 2010, only 10.7% were charged out to undergraduates.

Cornell, as a research library with a mission to collect for both current and future scholars in its community, is careful to state that the import of these numbers is far from clear. The report demonstrates how much use varies by discipline (with Math circulating a higher percentage of its holdings than any other discipline), and the Task Force argues forcefully that no "one size fits all" solution exists. They emphasize the need for greater understanding of the data before action. In their words:  

• High or low circulation rates should not be attributed to a single straightforward cause, particularly in light of wide variation in the role of print monographs in different disciplines.

• The Library should not adopt specific across-the-board targets for the circulation rate of print monographs acquired for the collection.

• The Library should not halt or diminish acquisitions in particular non-English languages absent a detailed understanding of language distribution among the disciplines and across the broad patron base on campus.

This is good stewardship.But the competing priorities faced by Cornell--and by other research libraries--are evident in their own questions:

"If half of CUL's monograph purchases of the last twenty years have circulated, is that a lot or a little? Precious resources are being spent to purchase, house, and preserve these books, but to what extent should this be regarded as misspent funds and to what extent as investment in a strategic reserve?"

At the heart of this distinction between misspent funds or investment in a strategic reserve lie a number of thorny issues. How should we value use? How do we balance the budgetary pressures of the present against responsibility to the future? And perhaps most importantly, who should bear the cost of a strategic reserve?

The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve

It's instructive to consider the language used around other strategic reserves, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Phrases  such as "guarding against an interruption in supply", "emergency stockpile", "maintain readiness for emergency use", "to cope with unexpected events", are common. At bottom, however, they can be reduced to a single concept: "just in case." This is the very phrase most often used to describe the philosophy of academic library collections, at least until recent years. It is an important role, and it is an expensive role.

A strategic reserve of both print and digital scholarship seems an obvious choice. But like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, this should be coordinated at the national or regional level, and the costs should be borne by the entire community which depends upon that reserve. As a community, we have begun to move in this direction, through participation in trusted print repositories and trusted digital repositories such as Hathi Trust.. Investment in these programs, through both dollars and contributed collections, will gradually assure that "misspent funds" are converted to something more lasting and cost-effective.

The 75% Solution

According to an excellent white paper entitled Library Stacks and Shelving, [written by Earl Siems and Linda Demmers and provided through the Libris Design Project [http://www.librisdesign.org], supported by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act]:

"Optimum capacity for a working collection requires shelves that are only 70-75% full. This extra space is not considered future growth space, but is the space required for collection management, efficient reshelving, interfiling of new acquisitions, and multi-volume sets."

Using this benchmark, a standard 36" wide, 90" high, dual-facing section of metal shelving should optimally contain:

• 336 fiction titles (at 8 per linear foot)
• 252 scientific/technical titles (at 6 per linear foot)
• 420 non-fiction titles (at 10 per linear foot)

This means that, on average, there should be 9" of free space on each 36" shelf, to assure efficient management of the print collection--i.e., to allow reshelving to proceed quickly, and to avoid constant shifting of crowded sections of the stacks. Take a walk through your own collection with this in mind.

This also suggests a target for deselection projects and perhaps one kind of metric for a sustainable collection. A sustainable collection is one that keeps stacks at 70-75% of their nominal capacity. Something that looks like this:


rather than like this:

In addition to reducing labor for shelving and shifting, the 75% rule also provides a better browsing experience (to the degree that users are still browsing!), and reduces the risk of damage to items in the collection.

Patron-Driven Re-Acquisition

At first blush, a relationship between deselected print monographs and patron-driven acquisition (PDA) is far from obvious. In a typical deselection project, the prime candidates are books that have not circulated for 10-20 years. Recent imprints are excluded since they have not had enough time to prove themselves. In short, withdrawal candidates are the books patrons don't want. 

PDA titles from the major eBook aggregators, on the other hand, are intended to offer rich discovery and evaluation metadata for books that patrons might want. When the record set is further refined by application of an approval profile, the result should be books that patrons are most likely to want, given the curriculum and research interests of the institution they serve. Best case, those criteria might be further enhanced by analysis of historical purchase and use patterns.

And never the twain shall meet. Well...not so fast.

The prospect (never mind the act) of removing books from library shelves makes everyone nervous.This is a good thing, until we as a community are certain that all content is archived to our satisfaction. But for collections and public services librarians, there is also that primal belief that it would be better to have immediate access to a withdrawn title, just in case a patron ever wanted it. For most titles, this need will be accommodated by shared print storage agreements, or inter-library loan.

But there are other options. In cases where a Hathi Trust public domain title is available, that offers essentially a free online replacement. For that availability to be made clear and convenient, the Hathi URL is simply added to the cataloging record for the print version. This can be done simultaneously with the removal of the item record for the print version being withdrawn. In this example, that converts the library's catalog record to a do-it-yourself PDA record.

Clearly, the same principle can be applied to any eBook provider with PDA capability. Since the bibliographic, item, and holdings records for a withdrawn book have to be changed or removed anyway, the insertion of another URL would add almost no time to the process. Instead of suppressing or deleting a record for a withdrawn title, the library converts it to a PDA record, retaining its discoverability, but with a different delivery option. That option might be one-click electronic access, short-term rental, or re-acquisition through purchase (in addition, of course, to calls from storage or ILL).

By combining this record conversion with print deselection, the shelf space is freed, and the cost of maintaining an unused print version on the shelf is eliminated. But the potential for access remains intact, and in some cases actually improves. It's a solution that could satisfy both deselection and service objectives, a rare combination. Let's call it patron-driven re-acquisition (PDR). It's a technique that could work with eBooks, but also with print-on-demand (POD) providers. The key would be to have relevant URLs available at the time the withdrawal decisions are made, ready for batch matching and insertion into candidate file bib records.

At present, the degree of overlap between withdrawal candidates and titles available through PDA programs is probably miniscule. It would be interesting and useful to quantify that. But even if it's small now, that overlap will continue to grow.  The possibilities are quite interesting.

What We Need To Know

Box Lunches:   $42/each
Room Rental:   $250/day
Audiovisual:     $200/day
Coffee:             $75/gallon
Soda, Teas       $  5/each

Total cost:  more than you'd think

Informed conversation about monographs deselection: priceless

During ALA Midwinter in San Diego, R2 conducted three focus group sessions around "Sustainable Collections Services (SCS), the data-driven deselection tool we are developing. In all, R2/SCS heard from from 40 librarians, representing individual libraries of all sizes, as well as several consortia. A full summary of those discussions will be available shortly, but here are some excerpts, preceded by a glimpse of the Mad Men-style conference room in which two of the sessions were held:

SCS Use Scenarios
We asked attendees (a mix of directors, collections, and technical services people) to enumerate the ways in which a deselection project might first manifest itself in their institution. In our experience to date, this can vary widely, and has implications for project design and management. Grouped thematically, responses included:

• Space issues: the need to free space for a teaching center, learning commons, more room for students. In some instances, this becomes a "rapid response" scenario, where budget woes have scuttled existing expansion plans.

•  Joint consortial or regional action: As noted in a previous post, much effort is going into rationalizing shared print collections. Issues of duplication within the group and expression of archival commitments figure prominently here. For titles held in very small numbers, candidates for digitization might be identified. 

• Continuous deselection versus projects: several libraries noted that integrating deselection as a routine part of operations would be preferable to large-scale standalone projects. In some cases, it may be necessary to meter deselection activities to match the capacity of technical services units to perform necessary record maintenance.

•  Resistance to deselection: in cases where resistance is high, SCS could be used to demonstrate criteria and outcomes (to the title level) before taking any action. Use as an educational tool for stakeholders, when combined with educational presentations to faculty and staff, was seen as desirable. 

• Targeted collections or locations: Examples included the need to close a Biology branch, or tackle computer science books. 

• Project management and workflow design: While some libraries simply wanted access to data and the ability to run "if, then" lists, many recognized that they do not have staff or management capacity to handle additional work of this nature. There was strong interest in project management services, and perhaps consulting on workflow design related to record maintenance and disposition options.

Andy Breeding (l) and Rick Lugg (r) in full showman mode

At the outset, we described our work and results to date, focusing in particular on the Excel dashboard assembled for Grand Valley State University, one of our three partner libraries. In this action photo, apparently excerpted from surveillance video, you can practically feel the innovation!  Here some additional issues arose:

• Some libraries have immediate deselection needs, and may need to act before the "FDIC Layer" is fully in place.

•  Libraries want to define their own risk tolerance and criteria, and use SCS data to gauge the effects of various scenarios--which may vary by subject or material type. In the memorable words of one participant: "Build a tool, not a moral compass -- we'll provide that."

• Concerns were raised about misleading impressions caused by the use of Paul Courant's  $4.26 cost figures published in "On the Cost of Keeping A Book." Most believed that those figures were valid, but since this money cannot be directly recovered by deselection, great care must be taken in managing expectations of Provosts and University administrators.

•  Similarly, it is vital to have a clear plan for use of any space freed by deselection, and the funding lined up to convert that space.

On behalf of my partner Ruth Fischer, and our new SCS business partner Andy Breeding, a hearty thank you to the librarians who took the time to attend and to share their perspective on these important issues. The learning continues.

The FDIC Layer



L-R: Ivy Anderson (CDL and WEST); Bruce Hulse (WRLC); Aisha Harvey (Duke); Judy Russell (Florida); Bob Kieft (Occidental); Marie Waltz (CRL); Lizanne Payne (CRL and WEST); Rachel Frick (CLIR); Mark Sandler (CIC); Mark
Watson (Oregon/Orbis Cascade Alliance)                                                                                                                                                                    

One of the biggest fears related to deselection is the inadvertant loss of an important work from the scholarly record. This is a legitimate fear, as evidenced by the academic library community's efforts to prevent such occurences. The principle that no content shall disappear from the record has become the cornerstone of legacy print collections management. It takes a village to assure secure and accessible archives, especially when we drill down into what's required.

To paraphrase Ithaka's What To Withdraw framework (developed in relation to print journals), content security and accessibility is best assured by adopting multiple strategies:

• A secure digital archive
• An accessible digital surrogate
• A dark print archive, representing an agreed number of copies and conditions
• A light print archive, representing multiple copies distributed regionally

For monographs, the needs are very similar. But the infrastructure to support print archiving to these levels is still developing. Many talented people and relevant organizations are committed to developing this "FDIC layer", as I like to call it. The role of this FDIC layer is to provide overall archival security that allows individual libraries to act locally and independently, safe in the knowledge that the scholarly record is intact. At present, that security is incomplete, but growing:

• Hathi Trust provides a secure digital archive for more than 5 million monographs.

•  Hathi Trust public domain titles are freely viewable in full-text. Millions of other eBooks can be licensed to provide accessible digital surrogates.

•  A dark print archive for books does not yet exist, and it is possible that a completely dark archive may not be necessary, provided sufficient copies remain in the collective collection. There is some thought that monographs now in high-density storage may represent the beginnings of a print archive, but it is essential that retention commitments be standardized and disclosed clearly. Greater coordination is needed.

• A light print archive exists only informally at present. The distribution of copies throughout a consortium can be seen in shared catalogs. The distribution of copies throughout the collective collection can largely be seen through WorldCat holdings. Here again, disclosure of print archiving commitments and a coordinated approach are needed.

Historically, this level of preservation, and the security of the scholarly record, have been the province of large research libraries. Smaller libraries have counted on the larger libraries to perform these functions--to run the FDIC layer.  But increasingly, even the largest of these institutions, (even when acting in concert) cannot support the entire corpus and community by themselves. There is a need for every library to contribute to the integrity of the collective collection--by committing to archive specific titles and publicizing those commitments. The most promising avenue for such disclosure is use of the MARC 583 field in a WorldCat record, and work is underway to test the viability of this approach.


Meanwhile, organizations such as WEST (Western Regional Storage Trust), CRL (Center for Research Libraries), ASERL (Association of Southeastern Research Libraries), OhioLINK, the Center for Institutional Cooperation (CIC), ReCAP (Research Collections and Preservation Consortium), Ithaka Strategy + Research, and OCLC's Office of Research and numerous others have come together to plan and build a network of trusted repositories that will provide the foundation of this FDIC layer. A great deal of work has already been done under planning grants from the Institute for Museum and Library Studies (IMLS). WEST, in particular, has made enormous strides, with 89 libraries expressing interest in joining its efforts to coordinate print archiving and storage.

For the past few years, an ad hoc group of people interested in these issues has met during each ALA conference. The group has no official name or organizational locus. Its meetings are generously underwritten by LYRASIS, which also organized a national discussion on the future of print monographs collections in October 2010. Bob Kieft, College Librarian at Occidental College, has provided excellent leadership, facilitating discussion and information sharing among a wide range of voluntary participants. At the ALA Midwinter meeting in San Diego (pictured above), more than two dozen organizations were represented.

In addition to those named in the caption above, this session included: Ed Shreeves (Iowa); Karla Strieb (ARL); Bryan Skib (Michigan); Ross Housewright (ITHAKA S+R); Dennis Massey (OCLC Research); Sam Demas (Carleton College & MLAC); Julie Gammon (Univ of Akron/OhioLINK), Rick Lugg (R2); Sharon Farb (UCLA); Peggy Seiden (Swarthmore); Joni Blake (GWLA); John Berger (ASERL); Rick Clement (Utah State); Kim Armstrong (CIC); Tim Cherubini (Lyrasis). There are at least another 20 people regularly involved in these discussions.

These people, and others, are in the early stages of creating the archiving infrastructure necessary to safely and responsibly manage the drawdown of duplicative, low-use monograph collections. Creating this network of shared print (and digital) repositories--this FDIC layer-- is of critical importance. As a community, we are fortunate to have so many good people attending to this issue. The groundwork done by these "volunteers" will ultimately help rationalize the massive capital investment represented by print collections.