uniqueness and collection overlap in academic libraries

34
Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries Charleston Conference November 6, 2009 Michael Levine-Clark Sara Holladay Margaret M. Jobe

Upload: michael-levine-clark

Post on 08-Jul-2015

152 views

Category:

Education


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Levine-Clark, Michael, Sara Holladay, and Margaret M. Jobe, “Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries,” Charleston Conference, Charleston, S.C., November 6, 2009.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Charleston ConferenceNovember 6, 2009

Michael Levine-ClarkSara Holladay

Margaret M. Jobe

Page 2: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Introduction

• Are academic libraries building diverse collections?

• Using automated tools such as Spectra Dimension we can:

– compare uniqueness of holdings in pre-established consortia vs. unconnected groupings of similar schools

– analyze percentage of uniqueness in a subject-based analysis

Page 3: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Brief Literature Review: Unique Titles and Duplication

• 72 ARL Libraries - Perrault (1995)

– Decline in the acquisitions rate for new imprints, 1985-1989

– Decrease in the number of unique titles

– Increased concentration of core materials

– Conclusion: collective resource base of research libraries in decline

Page 4: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Brief Literature Review Cont.

• Triangle Research Libraries Network - Armstrong & Nardini (2000)

– 50 year history of cooperative collection building

– 89% of titles held by two or more libraries

– Duplication generally not caused by approval plans

• OhioLink - Kairis (2003)

– High level of duplication in the Central Catalog.

• Academic Libraries- Nardini et al (1996)

– Greater collection overlap in larger libraries.

– Significant collection overlap in history.

Page 5: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

The Data

• Spectra Dimension

– Holdings and Use Data for 45 libraries

• Monographs

• Start date of 1999

• End date varies (2006-2008)

• Data from existing consortia compared to groups of similar libraries

Page 6: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Two Liberal Arts Consortia

Institution Titles Unique Titles % Unique (within group)

Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Liberal Arts 1 64,789 30,255 24.94% 46.70%

Liberal Arts 2 56,475 27,698 22.83% 49.04%

Liberal Arts 3 52,969 21,813 17.98% 41.18%

Overlap 41,553 34.25%

Institution Titles Unique Titles % Unique (within group)

Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Liberal Arts 4 70,059 43,636 28.22% 62.28%

Liberal Arts 5 56,558 30,724 19.87% 54.32%

Liberal Arts 6 75,824 37,194 24.06% 49.05%

Overlap 43,055 27.85%

Page 7: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Other Liberal Arts ComparisonsInstitution Titles Unique Titles % Unique

(within group)Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Liberal Arts 1 64,789 34,297 22.42% 52.94%

Liberal Arts 6 75,824 40,535 26.49% 53.46%

Liberal Arts 7 67,250 32,579 21.29% 48.44%

Overlap 45,548 29.79%

Institution Titles Unique Titles % Unique (within group)

Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Liberal Arts 1 64,789 32,519 21.65% 50.19%

Liberal Arts 4 70,059 37,768 25.14% 53.91%

Liberal Arts 7 67,250 37,211 24.77% 55.33%

Overlap 42,730 28.44%

Page 8: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Liberal Arts Observations

• The unconnected groups do about as well as the two consortia:– Overlap

• Consortium A: 34.25%• Consortium B: 27.85%• Liberal Arts Group A: 29.79%• Liberal Arts Group B: 28.44%

– Unique Titles• Consortium A: 17.98%-24.94% (average 21.92%)• Consortium B: 19.87%-28.22% (average 24.05%)• Liberal Arts Group A: 21.29%-26.49% (average 23.40%)• Liberal Arts Group B: 21.65%-25.14% (average 23.85%)

Page 9: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Liberal Arts Observations

• The unconnected groups do about as well as the two consortia:

– Unique Titles as % of Collections

• Consortium A: 41.18%-49.04% (average 45.64%)

• Consortium B: 49.05%-62.28% (average 55.22%)

• Liberal Arts Group A: 48.44%-53.46% (average 51.61%)

• Liberal Arts Group B: 50.19%-55.33% (average 52.48%)

Page 10: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Liberal Arts Observations

• Size of group may matter– Consortium A: 121,319 titles / 34.25% overlap

– Consortium B: 154,609 titles / 27.85% overlap

– Liberal Arts Group A: 152,959 titles / 29.79% overlap

– Liberal Arts Group B: 150,228 titles / 28.44% overlap

• Size of institution may not

• Cooperation may not

Page 11: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Groups in a Larger ConsortiumInstitution Titles Unique Titles % Unique

(within group)Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Doctoral 1 208,248 34,132 7.21% 16.39%

ARL 3 348,181 124,350 26.25% 35.71%

ARL 4 278,650 70,848 14.96% 25.43%

Overlap 244,355 51.59%

Institution Titles Unique Titles % Unique (within group)

Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Doctoral 1 208,248 104,993 32.55% 50.42%

Doctoral 3 129,914 47,936 14.86% 36.90%

Doctoral 4 133,645 55,188 17.11% 41.29%

Overlap 114,436 35.48%

Page 12: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Groups in a Larger ConsortiumInstitution Titles Unique Titles % Unique

(within group)Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Doctoral 3 129,914 59,067 22.18% 45.47%

Doctoral 4 133,645 71,692 26.92% 53.64%

Doctoral 5 116,799 48,800 18.32% 41.78%

Overlap 86,801 32.59%

Institution Titles Unique Titles % Unique (within group)

Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

Liberal Arts 7 67,250 33,809 18.71% 50.27%

Masters 1 55,848 24,688 13.66% 44.21%

Doctoral 5 116,799 72,644 40.20% 62.20%

Overlap 49,582 27.44%

Page 13: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Other GroupsInstitution Titles Unique Titles % Unique

(within group)Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

ARL 2 359,826 172,579 28.19% 47.96%

ARL 3 348,181 104,931 17.14% 30.14%

ARL 4 278,650 69,076 11.28% 24.79%

Overlap 265,546 43.38%

Institution Titles Unique Titles % Unique (within group)

Unique Titles as % of Local Collection

ARL 5 196,144 83,469 21.76% 42.55%

Doctoral 1 208,248 80,633 21.02% 38.72%

Doctoral 2 172,541 72,496 18.90% 42.02%

Overlap 146,966 38.32%

Page 14: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Larger Collections = Greater Overlap

• Consortium C (1): 51.59% (473,685 titles)

• Consortium C (2): 35.48% (322,553)

• Consortium C (3): 32.59% (266,360)

• Consortium C (4): 27.44% (180,723)

• ARL Group: 43.38% (612,132)

• ARL/Doctoral Group: 38.32% (383,564)

Page 15: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Larger Collections = Greater Overlap

• Consortium C (1): 51.59% (range: 139,933)

• Consortium C (2): 35.48% (78,334)

• Consortium C (3): 32.59% (16,846)

• Consortium C (4): 27.44% (60,951)

• ARL Group: 43.38% (81,176)

• ARL/Doctoral Group: 38.32% (35,707)

(Range is difference between largest and smallest collections)

Page 16: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Unique Titles

• Consortium C (1): 7.21%-26.25% - Avg 16.14% (473,685 titles)

• Consortium C (2): 14.86%-32.55% - Avg 21.51% (322,553)

• Consortium C (3): 18.32%-26.92% - Avg 22.47% (266,360)

• Consortium C (4): 13.66%-40.20% - Avg 24.19% (180,723)

• ARL Group: 11.28%-28.19% - Avg 18.87% (612,132)• ARL/Doctoral Group: 18.90%-21.76% - Avg 20.56%

(383,564)

Page 17: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Unique Titles

• Consortium C (1): 7.21%-26.25% - Avg 16.14% (Range: 139,933)

• Consortium C (2): 14.86%-32.55% - Avg 21.51% (78,334)

• Consortium C (3): 18.32%-26.92% - Avg 22.47% (16,846)

• Consortium C (4): 13.66%-40.20% - avg 24.19% (60,951)

• ARL Group: 11.28%-28.19% - Avg 18.87% (81,176)• ARL/Doctoral Group: 18.90%-21.76% - Avg 20.56%

(35,707)

Page 18: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Size matters

• In 5/6 cases, largest collection is most unique

(exception: range=12,104, difference=.74%)

• In all cases, smallest is least unique

• In 5/6 cases, largest collection has most unique titles as % of local collection

• In 5/6 cases, smallest collection has fewest unique titles as % of local collection

Page 19: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Two Liberal Arts Consortia –Subject Analysis (Am Hist – E)

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Liberal Arts 1 2,921 25.69% Unique to Base 37.69%

Liberal Arts 2 1,393 29.24% 8.91% Base plus one 43.55%

Liberal Arts 3 2,494 51.73% 19.34% Base plus two 18.76%

Overlap 46.06%

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Liberal Arts 5 2,934 30.28% Unique to Base 52.42%

Liberal Arts 4 2,360 22.63% 22.78% Base plus one 34.63%

Liberal Arts 6 2,101 37.90% 8.86% Base plus two 12.95%

Overlap 38.08%

Page 20: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Other Liberal Arts Comparisons –Subject Analysis (Am Hist – E)

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Liberal Arts 1 2,921 26.18% Unique to Base 47.55%

Liberal Arts 6 2,101 34.13% 13.18% Base plus one 37.52%

Liberal Arts 7 2,656 33.24% 24.13% Base plus two 14.93%

Overlap 36.51%

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Liberal Arts 1 2,921 25.24% Unique to Base 47.62%

Liberal Arts 4 2,360 33.82% 16.39% Base plus one 37.69%

Liberal Arts 7 2,656 33.24% 22.07% Base plus two 14.69%

Overlap 36.30%

Page 21: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Liberal Arts Observations –American History (E): Uniqueness

• Unique to Base Library

– Consortium A: 37.69% (27.42%, 33.24%)

– Consortium B: 52.42% (21.42%, 49.03%)

– Liberal Arts Group A: 47.55% (33.27%, 48.19%)

– Liberal Arts Group B: 47.62% (38.26%, 45.78%)

(Numbers in parentheses are the values if other libraries in the group are the base)

Page 22: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Liberal Arts Observations –American History (E): Overlap

• Overlap– Consortium A: 46.06%

– Consortium B: 38.08%

– Liberal Arts Group A: 36.51%

– Liberal Arts Group B: 36.30%

• Held by Base Library and Two Others:– Consortium A: 18.76% (21.97%, 39.34%

– Consortium B: 12.95% (16.10%, 18.09%)

– Liberal Arts Group A: 14.93% (16.42%, 20.75%)

– Liberal Arts Group B: 14.69% (16.15%, 18.18%)

Page 23: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Groups in A Larger Consortium –Subject Analysis (Am Hist – E)

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

ARL 3 8,535 11.70% Unique to Base 13.98%

ARL 4 7,516 75.92% 7.78% Base plus one 27.62%

Doctoral 1 6,716 68.51% 6.14% Base plus two 58.41%

Overlap 74.38%

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Doctoral 1 6,716 6.14% Unique to Base 9.32%

ARL 3 8,535 87.06% 11.70% Base plus one 16.45%

ARL 4 7,516 77.84% 7.78% Base plus two 74.23%

Overlap 74.38%

Page 24: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Groups in A Larger Consortium –Subject Analysis (Am Hist – E)

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Doctoral 1 6,716 25.88% Unique to Base 35.82%

Doctoral 3 3,485 36.42% 7.89% Base plus one 41.80%

Doctoral 4 5,215 50.13% 16.59% Base plus two 22.38%

Overlap 49.64%

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Doctoral 4 5,215 34.74% Unique to Base 51.39%

Doctoral 3 3,485 34.67% 17.19% Base plus one 35.09%

Doctoral 5 2,605 27.46% 10.66% Base plus two 13.52%

Overlap 37.41%

Page 25: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Groups in A Larger Consortium –Subject Analysis (Am Hist – E)

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Doctoral 5 2,605 27.69% Unique to Base 50.83%

Liberal Arts 7 2,656 40.42% 27.19% Base plus one 35.55%

Masters 1 1,459 22.38% 11.98% Base plus two 13.63%

Overlap 33.14%

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Liberal Arts 7 2,656 27.19% Unique to Base 48.95%

Doctoral 5 2,605 39.65% 27.69% Base plus one 37.69%

Masters 1 1,459 24.77% 11.98% Base plus two 13.37%

Overlap 33.14%

Page 26: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Other Groups –Subject Analysis (Am Hist – E)

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

ARL 2 8,090 14.46% Unique to Base 20.01%

ARL 3 8,535 76.98% 8.11% Base plus one 17.19%

ARL 4 7,516 65.80% 7.09% Base plus two 62.79%

Overlap 70.34%

Institution Titles Overlap (with base)

% Unique (within group)

Overlap

Doctoral 1 6,716 14.08% Unique to Base 20.19%

ARL 5 5,643 60.99% 9.01% Base plus one 33.14%

Doctoral 2 6,448 65.49% 14.23% Base plus two 46.66%

Overlap 62.68%

Page 27: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

American History Comparisons -Conclusions

• Research Libraries - not as unique as one would expect?

– Overlap:

• ARL/Doctoral Group (Consortium): 74.38%%

• Doctoral Groups (Consortium): 49.64%/37.41%

• Smallest Group: 33.14%

• ARL Group: 70.34%

• ARL/Doctoral Group: 62.68%

Page 28: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

American History Comparisons -Conclusions

• Research Libraries - not as unique as one would expect?

– Base + Two:

• ARL/Doctoral Group (Consortium): 58.41%/74.23%

• Doctoral Groups (Consortium): 22.38%/13.52%

• Smallest Group: 13.63%/13.37%

• ARL Group: 62.79%

• ARL/Doctoral Group: 46.66%

Page 29: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

American History Comparisons -Conclusions

• Research Libraries - not as unique as one would expect?

– Most Unique Collection:

• ARL/Doctoral Group (Consortium): 11.70%

• Doctoral Groups (Consortium): 25.88%/34.74%

• Smallest Group: 27.69%

• ARL Group: 14.46%

• ARL/Doctoral Group: 14.23%

Page 30: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Conclusion

• Consortial agreements do not seem to lead to decreased overlap.

• Larger libraries duplicate each other more than do smaller libraries.

Page 31: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

Future directions

• Detailed subject analysis.

• Comparative analysis of use.

• Survey of libraries contributing holdings information to Spectra Dimension about collection development patterns.

• Overview of local programs/curricula.

Page 32: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

References

• Kim Armstrong and Bob Nardini, “Making the Common Uncommon? Examining ConsortialApproval Plan Cooperation,” Collection Management 24, no. 1-2 (2000):87-105.

• Rob Kairis, “Consortium Level Collection Development: A Duplication Study of the OhioLINK Central Catalog,” Library Collections, Acquistions, & Technical Services 27 (2003):317-326.

Page 33: Uniqueness and Collection Overlap in Academic Libraries

References Cont.

• Robert F. Nardini, Charles M. Getchell, Jr., and Thomas E. Cheever, C. M. Getchell, “Approval plan overlap: A study of four libraries,” Acquisitions Librarian 16 (1996): 75-97.

• Anna H. Perrault, “The Changing Print Resource Base of Academic Libraries in the United States,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 36 (Fall 1995):295-308.