Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs

Charleston Conference

National Union Catalog: Asset or Albatross?

John P. Abbott Appalachian State University, [email protected]

Allan G. Scherlen Appalachian State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston

Part of the Library and Information Science Commons An indexed, print copy of the Proceedings is also available for purchase at: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston. You may also be interested in the new series, Charleston Insights in Library, Archival, and Information Sciences. Find out more at: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston-insights-library-archival- and-information-sciences.

John P. Abbott and Allan G. Scherlen, "National Union Catalog: Asset or Albatross?" (2012). Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315083

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University . Please contact [email protected] for additional information. National Union Catalog: Asset or Albatross?

John P. Abbott, Coordinator of Collection Management, Appalachian State University Allan Scherlen, Social Science , Appalachian State University

Overview of the Presentation research). Midsize university faculty members work in an environment of rising expectations for A fitting alternate title for this presentation would their research production, and consequently, they be “Archeology or Urban Renewal: Midsize expect their libraries to support them in meeting academic libraries consider the fate of their pre- those expectations. Other demands on midsize digital research tools.” This presentation considers libraries come from the changing nature of library how the challenges faced by libraries in midsize space which is increasingly repurposed from institutions differ from those at larger research collections to seating, computer labs, and housing institutions. Midsize academic libraries face of non-library units in the building. Again, the unique challenges particularly in some of the budget to accommodate those physical space greyer areas of collection management: pre- demands is modest in midsized libraries. digital resources perceived by some faculty to be essential, but which may be more appropriately The Big Sets held or archived by R-1 institutions than midsize. The presentation then addresses the example of The repurposing of library space, as well as the de-selection decisions regarding voluminous need to plan for better use of existing space, paper sets of pre-digital finding aids with a focus brings existing collections under new examination. upon the presenters’ study of midsize library These materials may have escaped scrutiny in the attitudes toward retaining or weeding the iconic past. Appalachian State University, the presenters’ National Union Catalog, Pre-1956 Imprints. midsize institution, faces these demands, but finds little peer-group information in the literature to The Unique Mission of Libraries in Midsize guide them. To reclaim space, we began to assess Universities large, pre-digital, multi-volume sets for their continued use and utility. A walk through the Midsize libraries are often conceptualized as being library stacks revealed several candidates for de- smaller-scale versions of their R-1 university selection consideration: brethren. The presenters contend that midsize academic libraries have a unique role and set of • Many shelves of law materials now accessed challenges that differentiates them from the via Westlaw and/or LexisNexis. larger research or ARL libraries. Solutions and • Extensive back runs of index and abstract obligations related R-1 libraries may or may not fit services now searched online. well with the mission of midsize libraries. Midsize libraries, therefore, need to look to their own peer • Many shelves of printed journals duplicated in group for best practice solutions and JSTOR and other e-journal services. opportunities. • Large sets currently accessible in multiple formats, such as the U.S. Congressional Serials Midsize academic libraries are usually not the Set. libraries-of-record for their state or region and may not be bound to retain the same historic • Pre-digital reference and cataloging tools like collection materials that a research library is the Cumulative Index and the National expected to have and to hold. When compared to Union Catalog, pre-1956 imprints. R-1 libraries, midsized libraries generally have In-house use statistics indicate these paper sets smaller budgets and face greater challenges in receive little current use while occupying large balancing efficiency (use of the budget) and footprints in the physical collection. But each of adequacy (a collection that supports faculty these sets or collections has deep roots that are

Copyright of this contribution remains in the name of the author(s). Collection Development 89 http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315083 not easily pulled: it may represent an earlier large completion in 1981, it received heavy use by monetary investment by the library; it may hold and researchers. For many librarians of iconic status in libraries or the academy; it may that era who are still practicing, the set holds have “just in case” reference potential; or it may almost inviolable iconic status. have unknown users among our student and faculty patrons. The Presenters’ NUC Study

The Case of the National Union Catalog, The presenters, cognizant of the dilemma facing Pre-1956 Imprints (NUC) midsize libraries such as theirs, were hesitant to too swiftly remove a set as grand and iconic as the The presenters found the National Union Catalog, NUC. Rather than act hastily, the presenters pre-1956 imprints (NUC) to be an excellent decided to survey peers to discover how many still example of a set contributing to the dilemma kept or had discarded the NUC and why. Using a facing midsize academic libraries: trying to SurveyMonkey questionnaire, they asked midsize balance the provision of adequate resources for academic library collection development and faculty research while operating within a limited cataloging librarians to respond to 29 questions midsize library budget. The NUC has over 750 about their library’s size, budget, space concerns, oversized volumes and occupies more than 125 retention of the NUC, the nature of their current feet of linear shelf space. Stacked end-on-end, the pre-1956 acquisitions, and if they had discarded set would be taller than New York’s Trump Tower. the set what were the reactions.Sixty-two usable Unbound, the individual pages would cover much responses were received. Approximately three- of Manhattan Island. quarters of the respondents had retained the NUC

Figure 1. National Union Catalog

Created at the end of the analog-only age, the and one-quarter had discarded the set. The NUC’s production was an unprecedented 14-year Keepers generally had larger budgets and few effort on two continents to amass the author-title immediate space concerns. The Discarders had cards of imprints prior to 1956 from the catalogs smaller budgets and were more likely to respond of major North American research libraries. The that they had pressing space concerns. The NUC served as a catalog copy source, an Discarders appeared to have fewer options in interlibrary loan finding aid, and a reference tool accommodating new demands on their library’s for librarians and researchers. After the NUC’s space.

90 Charleston Conference Proceedings 2012 The Keepers retained the set because of concerns not based on: (1) use of the set by the campus; (2) that WorldCat lacked all the NUC entries, thought pressing collection management or cataloging researchers may still use it, and in recognition of needs; or (3) possible public reaction to the NUC’s the expense and iconic status of the NUC. Almost removal. The collection management decision to all the Discarders thought the set was no longer retain the NUC appeared to be based on the lack used by their patrons, needed the space for other of a sufficiently competitive demand for the space purposes, and could obtain needed volumes from the set occupies. Cataloging librarians are more interlibrary loan. The Keepers responded that likely to wish to retain the set just in case there is known NUC users included: a pre-1956 imprint.

Known NUC users? (selected all that apply) An interesting counter-current in academic Lib staff 57% libraries may forestall the disposal of these sets. Faculty 37% Current physical accessions may be reduced in Graduate Students 12% number by the growing proportional shift in Undergraduates 2% acquisition away from space-taking paper Other users 14% and towards e-books. Confidence in JSTOR and Do not know 33% Portico/LOCKSS stability may speed the removal of physical journal volumes as well, opening other However, more than 40% of the Keeper space for repurposed uses. respondents estimated that the NUC was never used in the last year, and 30%estimated only one The NUC and the other pre-digital age sets may to five uses in that year. In both groups, current continue to be held in midsize libraries, in part, accessions included very few pre-1956 imprints, because of inertia and lack of competing space with Discarders reporting essentially no works demands. But where space is an issue, many older than 1956 acquired and needing cataloging midsize library libraries will choose to discard copy. Cataloging librarian respondents favored unused pre-digital paper sets, such as the NUC. retention of the NUC twice as often as collection The generations of librarians who used the NUC management respondents. and other analog sets are passing from the scene in academic libraries, and the incoming digital The majority of Discarders (62%) had removed the native librarian knows little or nothing about NUC in the last five years. The ultimate fates them. An examination of current textbooks in included: collection management and cataloging, for example, reveals scant mention of the NUC. Recycled 54% Similar trends may exist for newly-trained scholars Found home in another library 15% in English and history who once relied on such Other [not sure, state surplus, etc.] 31% tools as the final rocks to look under for answers to age-old questions. Public perception of discarding the NUC was thought by the authors to be a factor in retention. Midsize libraries, comfortable in the diligence of However, only 12% of Keepers worried about a R-1 research libraries to thoroughly retain the public relations backlash if the NUC was more obscure pre-digital finding tools, will discarded. Among Discarders, 85% reported no increasingly find their own way in building midsize regrets with the decision to discard the NUC. library collections. These collections will balance the research needs of midsize institution faculty Conclusion and students against the demands of midsize library space and budgets. Using the NUC as a representative of the various large, pre-digital sets needed to be examined for possible discard, it is difficult to identify compelling trends in the decisions to keep or discard. Retention by the Keeper respondents is

Collection Development 91