[Eril-l] funding for DDA/PDA

[Amy Lynn Fry]

Again, if what we're concluding is that because overall circulation is falling, a) we should buy fewer print books, because b) it shows they are not valued by users, I think that's a cognitive leap we should not be making.

To your knowledge, has anyone expressed that conclusion based purely on falling overall circulation numbers?

That is one reason that conclusion has been frequently drawn. It was Dillon's primary argument in his 2009 presentation for the CIC. Pickett, Tabacaru and Harrell (2014) say this. So does Cramer (2013). I argue it is not a valid reason, and have said why in other posts in this thread.

Other reasons given to support that conclusion are that ebooks are used more than print books (they're not), that users prefer ebooks to print books (they don't), and that librarians do a bad job of selecting items that people will use (based on published use studies, I do not think that is a valid reason either).

But I DON'T think it means that users don't need good books, that librarians can't make good decisions about choosing books, or that purchasing print books and even journals is an activity we can turn our backs on wholesale - and a lot of people do think that.

Can you cite any examples of librarians advocating the wholesale discontinuation of print acquisition? I spend a lot of time listening to and participating in the professional conversations around this issue, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose that. I don't deny that there may be people out there taking that position, but I think they'd be pretty extreme outliers.

Well, there's this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/us-usa-florida-library-idUSKBN0GP0W620140825... In 2009 both Lugg and Dillon argued that libraries should do this for 50% of acquisitions, and I believe other libraries have gone to "e-preferred," meaning they only acquire a print book if it is not available electronically, but as far as I know turning our backs on print books wholesale is only for extreme outliers, as you say. But is it really that far away? Given the very disparaging tone we use to discuss print collections? Given the extreme pressure we're under to get rid of them, or stop getting them, despite evidence that they are valued? I do feel I'm fighting for print, and I'm sure I'm not alone. And I'm an e-resources librarian! That's why this is so ironic!
At ARLIS this spring I listened to a museum publisher talk about how most exhibition catalogs will never be produced as ebooks. My dean keeps floating the idea that we don't need print journals, when we have quite a few art journals that are simply not available electronically for libraries.

Is your dean pushing you to cancel the art journals because they're not available online?

Every time she suggests this course of action, which she has done several times, I remind her that not all of our journals are available electronically. I am not entirely sure she believes me, or perhaps she is being pressured by people in university administration who do believe all the journals we need are online. I don't think that is an attitude in administrators that is uncommon.
I have a nearly complete manuscript I am working on with a colleague and plan to make the data available when I publish. The stats are for all firm-order and approval books purchased for the main circulating collection in each fiscal year from 2008-09 through 2013-14.

Great! It will be very interesting to see them. Thanks for your willingness to make them available.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.anderson at utah.edu<mailto:rick.anderson at utah.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20150925/a4731ffc/attachment.html>