COLLECTIONS ADVISORY GROUP Meeting: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 1:30 - 3:00 pm, 251 Moffitt Present: P. Bischof (Recorder), S. Calpestri, D. Fortner, B. Glendenning, B. Weil (Chair) C. Wanat; Absent: J. Roberts Ex-officio: K. Frohmberg, B. Kornstein, J. Spohrer; Guests: M. Burnette, R. Green 1. MINUTES of meeting June 3, 1998 were approved. 2. ANNOUNCEMENTS B. Weil sent e-mail to P. Abell requesting authorization for selectors to spend up to 20% of last years allocation prior to the entry of allocations for this year being made. Response was "yes," and this information will be forwarded to all selectors. The final version of the last quarterly report will be available soon. **Selectors need to verify this report's accuracy because this data will form part of the basis of funding decisions in the next fiscal year. J. Hood will bring forward monies to cover liens already appearing on current fund reporting statements. 3. COLLECTION ALLOCATION ANALYSIS--Continuation of discussion, based on Summary of CAG work as of 6/23/98 prepared by Chair Weil. B. Glendenning suggests breaking out data from M.A. and Ph.D. student populations. B. Schottlaender's analysis implies that Ph.D. students use of collections is three times as much as Undergraduate use. If we use a weighted formula, we need to be clear on the meaning of this weighting. K. Frohmberg pointed out that the Map Room's collection is truly interdisciplinary, and it is not clear how to identify who its users are. Perhaps Maps should be a fund handled similarly to our treatment of other interdisciplinary funds. P. Bischof described a concern regarding Section B, Organizational level and structure to analyze; Library organization vs. academic structure and call number ranges assigned to departments. In trying to analyze area studies collections, major complexitie s exist in terms of how to map call number ranges on departments, more specifically the complexity of discerning call numbers, departments and fund correlations, especially for area studies funds, but also for the former USA/COM funds. For example, we can associate the African Language and Literature call number range PL8000 to PL8844 as serving Africanists in the Linguistics Department as well as certain other faculty in various African Studies positions around the campus in varied dep artments. The difficulty arises in that acquisitions in those call numbers are supported by Bill Whitson's linguistics fund, by Africana funds, and by germ, frenm, italm, and others, including Main's interdisciplinary fund, of which at least $10,000 to $1 5,000 went to purchase linguistics materials for Main in the past fiscal year. To cite another example, the Slavic Languages and Literatures Department is predominantly served by the call number range PG. This call number range is supported in part by the English language literature fund (litrm), the slavm, and the polm fund as well as to a smaller extent by the germm and the frenm funds. This complexity exists for most Main subjects. How fine a level of detail do we want to analyze? C. Rubens has data re all ILL transactions last year obtained from OCLC, and we might be able to analyze this by call number, although she lacks department identification. A sort by language might also be possible. In addition such other categories of use as BIOSHARE and ENGI's commercial purchases might be analyzed. C. Wanat suggests to exclude MRC and VCDL from the overall summary report. Since the VCDL fund was spent essentially in thirds; for Social Sciences, Humanities, and Sciences, to treat these funds as interdisciplinary is reasonable and feasible. It was dec ided to split this fund in three for the summary report. A UC Systemwide Collection Budgets chart for 96/97 shows Berkeley's serials expenditures at a ratio of 69%, with an average of 72.3% for the 9 campuses. One objective of last year's serials cancellations was to free-up money for areas underfunded last year. Why is it so difficult to align funds with campus departments and programs? Firstly, area studies do not map to the way departments are structured, and secondly departments do not map to LC classification. In addition, collection development is done by relatively few librarians vis a vis numbers of faculty, resulting in an amalga mation of CD assignments. Thus our funds to not map very well to faculty deployment by discipline, and when we try to show how funds map to departments and groups of disciplines, the numbers seem confused and confusing. We collect to cover disciplines: not departments. Volume and Unit Cost: J. Spohrer: We have not taken into consideration quantifications of the way differences in patterns of use for disciplines which might suggest that users of discipline A use more materials than users of discipline B. In his UCLA study, Brian Schottlaender got costs from selectors, who utilized information from Bowker and their own educated guesses. Bowker Annual gives this information for academic books distributed in North America however omits data for area studies, and other interdisciplinary fields. G athering volume and cost information cannot be done immediately, but could be undertaken over a period of months, and could serve as a point of departure for FY 2000 funding allocations. It is important to remember that this is an estimate! S. Calpestri suggests that our collection analysis data does not address electronic resources, and thus we need a cateogry of data to represent this part of our collections and their use. Principles: 1. This analysis should assist us to identify underfunded areas, particularly emerging disciplines that are by concensus not well- served by our existing funding structure. 2. We may utilize funds to encourage cooperative collection development; perhaps set aside money for special projects, or one-time additions to those funds managed by selectors who enter into cooperative agreements. 3. Original intent for the CDL was for each campus to pay former cost of print editions, with the CDL to pay for additional costs for electronic versions. It may be necessary to utilize collections funding for CDL-type projects. 4. We may also have to pay for titles issued only in digital form, filling in behind the VCDL money for ongoing commitments. 5. We may want to support access projects-- means of document delivery. 6. We may want to support initiatives to change the economic basis of publishing and distribution. At least one science department is interested in starting its own journal. 7. In future we recommend that endowment money be reported to indicate how it supplements and supports collections--at the minimum, by broad subject categories. 8. We seek to fund inflation needs of past patterns of acquisition if we can justify the need to do so. 9. Fund allocation should be reflective of the campus faculty f.t.e. and graduate and undergraduate enrollments.
![[ HELP/FAQ ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/help.gif)
![[ CATALOGS ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/catalogs.gif)
![[ COMMENTS ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/comments.gif)
![[ HOME ]](http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Images/home.gif)