The project undertook a detailed comparison and analysis of the holdings of the major Australian academic research libraries and the National Library of Australia which relate to South-East Asia, South Asia, southern and eastern Africa and the Indian Ocean islands. The resulting data was to be used to implement strategies to ensure the most effective and economical national access to information on these areas and, by mapping the combined resources of the Australian research libraries against a major overseas library specialising in these areas, benchmark Australian resources against an international standard.
The participating libraries were:
- University of Western Australia (UWA) (lead institution)
- National Library of Australia(NLA)
- Australian National University (ANU)
- University of Melbourne (Melbourne)
- University of Sydney (Sydney)
- University of Adelaide (Adelaide)
- The University of Queensland) (UQ)
- University of New South Wales (UNSW)
- Monash University
- School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (SOAS) (overseas participant)
The study was focused on the humanities and social sciences, addressing in particular the needs of scholars in such areas for access to contemporary and historical information.
Key issues
Part 1 of the final report identifies several key issues which underlie any approach to national research information policy in the humanities and social sciences:
- Are Australian research library collections in decline, and if so what is the extent and rate of the decline?
- How might funds to meet the information needs of Australian researchers in the humanities and social sciences be most effectively used?
- How do Australian collections relate to overseas collections?
- What might national policy objectives both in terms of new acquisitions and the management of existing collections be?
To undertake the analysis the Automated Collection Analysis Services (ACAS) of OCLC, a major North American bibliographic utility, was used. The ACAS analysis (using iCAS software) provides an automated approach to the analysis of library collections, enabling counts of the total holdings of each library in the chosen areas, profiling by date of publication, and enabling analysis of the degree of overlap in the collections and the number of titles uniquely held.
Seven libraries extracted their records from the National Bibliographic Database. Two used their own local databases, while the complete holdings of SOAS, which had been used in an earlier UK study, were still available and were augmented with recent additions.
Following the de-duplication of records within single collections, the elimination of SOAS records falling outside the scope of the project, and the removal of records that were not able to be analysed the final number of records analysed was 608,323. Of these 32% were SOAS records, 23% were National Library of Australia records, and 44% were records from the Australian university research libraries.
Analysis of general results
Part 2 of the study analyses the general results across all subjects.
Date profile
In all the libraries the great bulk of the collections are of material published since 1970 Peak collecting occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s, though there are indications of a reduction in acquisitions by the Australian universities in the late 1990s. The decline in SOAS’s collecting started in the early 1990s. In contrast to the universities the National Library of Australia maintained its acquisitions throughout the 1990s, even showing a slight increase at the very end of the decade.
Uniqueness
The majority of the Australian universities have between 20% and 30% of their collections unique within the ARLCAP libraries (including SOAS). 56% of the National Library’s collections are unique. In Geography and Earth Sciences and in History and auxiliary sciences the combined unique holdings of the Go8 libraries exceed those of the NLA. In all other subject divisions the unique holdings of the NLA are greater than the combined holdings of the Go8 libraries, highlighting the broad complementarity between the National Library and the university research libraries.
Overlap
All the Australian university libraries with the exception of the Australian National University and the University of Queensland have over 50% of their monograph holdings duplicated in the National Library. 353 titles were held in all ten libraries, of which only two were serials.
Part 3 of the report takes advantage of the ability to analyse the results at a more detailed level, the level which would be of most direct relevance to individual scholars. The examples chosen were political science history. Within the history collections more detailed analyses were made of the history of southern Africa and of India. And within the history of southern Africa a detailed study was made of the works published between 1880 and 1910, the period of the Boer wars.
The main points which emerge from this part of the study are that:
- Individual university library collecting varies over time and reflects local needs and priorities.
- There is a high degree of complementarity within the Australian libraries at a narrow subject level, often extending to a complementarity in the periods of collecting strengths. None of the university libraries is uniquely strong.
- In the areas studied the joint holdings of the Australian university libraries exceed the holdings of the National Library of Australia. The Go8 collections contain much material that is unique within the group of libraries studied, with a high probability that it is unique within the whole of Australia. However in some subject areas, and in its serial collections, the National Library has a higher number of unique titles than the Group of Eight libraries. The National Library’s holdings exceed those of any of the individual universities, although in a few very narrow areas a single university may have more holdings.
- The combined Australian monograph holdings exceed the holdings of the SOAS Library, but there are variations between subject areas. Australian serials holdings are very much higher than those of SOAS.
Conclusions
Part 4 of the study examines the policy implications of the data analysis. It is suggested that different sets of conclusions may be drawn depending upon which of four fundamental approaches to national collections policy are taken. The first can be characterized as the ‘national’ or ‘proudly independent’ approach, the second the ‘international’ or ‘neo-colonialist’ approach, the third the ‘futurist’ approach, and the fourth the ‘hybrid’ or ‘selective’ approach. The advantages, risks and policy positions which flow from each position are analysed.
However there are some conclusions which are valid for all approaches:
- National collections policy should be informed by quantitative data, and that this is only possible through the use of computer records which use cataloguing and classification standards.
- National research information policy should extend beyond university libraries to encompass other research-collection holding libraries.
- All Australian research-collection holding libraries must cooperate in collection development, collection management, and in resource discovery and delivery mechanisms. Means of ensuring the effectiveness of this cooperation should be considered.
- Universities cannot from their own resources acquire or maintain resources to support a national information resources policy.
- National research information policy should pursue the virtual rather than the physical relocation of historical collections.
- Any measures that would increase the effectiveness of resource-sharing mechanisms, particularly between the National Library and the major university research libraries, should be pursued.
- As a first step in the process of dissemination and discussion of this report senior staff of the National Library of Australia and the research-intensive university libraries should review the results of the analysis and consider the wider implications for collection development and policy among Australian research libraries.
Beyond this point recommendations vary according to the approach taken. Decisions on the most appropriate approach for Australia must be debated and taken before a full set of policies can be reached.
Conclusions supporting the Nationalist approach
- National collecting policy should to provide the greatest possible amount of research information from within Australia.
- Given its preeminence in its chosen areas of strength it is essential that the National Library retain and develop its role as the country’s leading research library in its selected areas, and develop its collections commensurately.
- Funding should be available to support the purchase of high-cost resources that have the highest priority of the combined university libraries.
- Funding for meeting the costs of purchase and associated processing costs of major retrospective collections to increase the national information stock should be available.
- Funding should be available to enable the addition of all research collections that are uncatalogued to be added to the national bibliographic database, and the upgrading of sub-standard records.
- Storage facilities should be established to ensure that now and in the future no titles held in Australia should be discarded. These facilities might involve existing infrastructure or might involve the creation of new ones. To inform this debate the preservation and storage facilities available in the major research libraries should be reviewed.
- A ‘clearinghouse’ scheme should be established to ensure that valuable research material is not discarded and that strong collecting areas may be augmented by material which is not required elsewhere.
Conclusions supporting the Internationalist approach
- National collecting policy should be restricted to Australiana.
- Central funding support for collection development, whether of current or retrospective resources, should be restricted to those sources for which purchase or lease is the most cost-effective national solution.
- No national provision for preservation, retention or storage is required.
Conclusions supporting the Futurist approach
- The same as the Internationalist approach, except that national collecting policy should be restricted to electronic resources.
Conclusions supporting the Selective approach
- National collecting policy should relate to national research priorities.
- Given its preeminence in its chosen areas of strength it is essential that the National Library retain and develop its role as the country’s leading research library in its selected areas, and develop its collections commensurately.
- Funding should be available to support the purchase of current high-cost resources that closely relate to the national research priorities.
- Funding for meeting the costs of purchase and associated processing costs of major retrospective collections relating to the national research priorities should be available.
- Funding should be available to enable the addition of all research collections relating to the national research priorities that are uncatalogued to be added to the national bibliographic database, and the upgrading of sub-standard records.
- Storage facilities should be established to ensure that now and in the future no titles related to national research priorities held in Australia should be discarded. These facilities might involve existing infrastructure or might involve the creation of new ones. To inform this debate the preservation and storage facilities currently available in the major research libraries should be reviewed with a view to enabling them to fulfill any national preservation responsibilities.
