collection management in australian academic libraries: an american perspective

Pergamon Library Acquisitions: Practice Br Theory, Vol. 18. No. 2, pp. 147-156, 1994

Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. AU rights reserved

0364-6408194 $6.00 + .oO

COLLECTION MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

An A~e~~~n Perspective

BARBARA G. LEONARD

Coordinator of Collections and Fiscal Planning

Clark Library

San Jose State University

San Jose, CA 951924028

Internet: [email protected]

Abstract - This paper discusses coilection management in Australian academic libraries. The author’s sabbatical project was interviewing over 30 academic librarians in October/November of 1992 in eight of the largest research university iibraries in Australia. These librarians gave their opinions on selection, acquisition, assessment, budget allocation, cooperative arrangements, and resource sharing. This paper also explores the recent changes in the higher education system in Aus- tralia and its impact on Australian universities and libraries, as welf as the part Austraiia’s distance from suppiers plays in procurement of materials.

INTRODUCTION

Collection management librarians throughout the world are consumed with a complex array of pressures and problems such as increasing amounts and formats of information to be col- lected, serials inflation, and reduced funding. This paper examines collection management practices in Australia, focusing on the experiences of eight university libraries. Australia is similar to other English-speaking countries along several dimensions. We share the same first lan- guage, a similar culture, and a democratic political system. In librarianship, we share similar bibliographic control methodologies, an interest in the growing uses of technology in libraries, and a common pool of vendors. Like Great Britain, Australia has recently reorganized higher education into a single, centralized system. Additional challenges facing Australian

147

148 B. G. LEONARD

librarians include the re~rcussions from this new system, which is increasing numbers of university students without an increase in funding.

The geographic factor makes Australia inherently different from Great Britain and the United States. Australia has a large land mass of 2.9 million square miles, with 85% of its population living in urban areas along the coast. The population is 17.5 million which is less than one half that of the state of California (Great Britain 55.5 million).

Due to its small population, Australia does not have a large publishing industry, as is prev- alent in the U.S. and Britain. There are very small presses (fewer than 25 titles) that publish Australiana, works on Aboriginal culture, children’s books, and Australian fiction. Some small independent Australian publishers buy rights to books published elsewhere. University presses exist but are publishing a limited number of titles. The Australian government sub- sidizes publishing by university presses and publishers of first novels [I]. Thus, the factors of population, distance, and low publishing output provide challenges for Australian university libraries in collection management. Recent changes in higher education occurring since 1987 create additional challenges.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

Higher education in Australia can be characterized as predominantly public in nature, dependent on the federal government for funding, and, until recently, elitist. The goals and structure of higher education have been reviewed by national commissions regularly. These commissions consistently justify educational expansion “. . . essentially on human capital ~guments about the benefits to the individu~s, the society, and especially the national econ- omy” [Z].

Prior to 1987, the higher education system in Australia consisted of two segments: the universities and the colleges of higher education. Universities had responsibility for research, post- graduate training, and undergraduate teaching. The colleges of advanced education granted degrees in areas such as teaching, nursing, and the performing arts.

In 1987, the Australian National Government issued a policy paper, Higher Education: A Policy Statement [3], thereafter known as the Green Paper. Via the Green Paper, the Aus- tralian Commonwealth, advocated for the federal government’s prominent role in higher education and promulgated a single (rather than a binary) unified system of higher education. One of the main virtues of the Commonwealth’s total control of the funding of higher education was the commitment on the part of the national government to the creation of a system whereby a student in a u~versity in a smaller city such as Perth might have the same oppor- tunities for higher education as a student in the more metropolitan cities of Sydney or Mel- bourne [4].

The overriding reason for this change in policy-the demise of the binary system-was the urgent necessity to harness higher education more directly to the needs of the national econ- omy [5]. Great Britain made a similar move in 1991 by announcing “. . . its intention to abol- ish the ‘binary line which had become an obstacle to progress’ and to establish a single framework for higher education” [6].

Each Australian institution of higher education is now funded, for teaching purposes, on a basis determined by its institutional profile, not on whether it is a university or a college. Resources for research are made available on a competitive basis according to this institutional profile 171. The Commonw~th Relative Funding Formula (RFM) was devised to assess the costs of teaching different disciplines. Those disciplines based on lectures and texts, human-

Collection Management in Australian Academic Libraries 149

ities and the social sciences, are cheaper to fund than those based on labs and equipment, the sciences. These values applied to the profiles of the institutions establish an equitable base for future funding [8]. By adding equality and performance into the funding formula, the older established research institutions fear the emergence of the newer universities, now being formed from the combination of two or more colleges of advanced education, as serious competitors.

Student enrollments in higher education are increasing dramatically: from 30,000 in 1946 to over 400,000 in 1989. The government’s goal is to increase these numbers to 675,000 by 2001. In the late 198Os, 41% of 12th year students transferred to higher education immedi- ately. The government’s aim is to increase the upper-secondary retention rate to 65% during the 1990s. Higher education students are 55% full-time, 32% part-time, and 12% external. Onequarter of the students study the exact sciences, one-quarter the hearties, and one-half the social sciences [9].

Even with all this governmental effort, there are not enough places in higher education institutions for all the students interested in attending. Over 300,000 Australians applied to universities in 1992 and 50,000 qualified students were denied direct admission; a 70% increase over those denied in 1991 [IO].

Up to 30% of the operating income of Australian higher education institutions comes from sources other than the government: high fees paid by foreign students, fees on graduate students, organized paid seminars, and rental of facilities. There is a shift away from an academic approach to management to a corporate one. Since 1975, federal support per student has declined by more than 30%. The old universities were smaller and elite; they catered to a tiny proportion of select students. With the changes, there are more students with less faculty who feel less exclusive and less appreciated [ 1 I].

Cutbacks in Commonwe~th funding as well as cutbacks in investment income are being felt at the universities. Five of the six divisions at the University of Western Australia received a 2.3% reduction for 1993. The one exception was the division of Engineering and Computer Science, which received a 6% increase, an exampIe of the funding based on profile (RFM) and student load [12].

The impact of the recent changes in the higher education system in Australia is being felt by the university libraries. As former colleges of advanced education either merge or become universities in their own right, the adequacy of library services and collections comes into question. Can a library that served as a library for a college be transformed overnight into a university library? Can research libraries continue to provide adequate resources in the face of these legislative changes as well as inadequate funding, and new technology? Neil A. Radford, University Librarian at the University of Sydney, thinks not. “. . , rapid and sig- nificant strengthening of the library could hardly be implemented because the official commitment to create new universities without additional costs has starved all institutions of essential funds” [ 131.

Concern is expressed about the roIe of the university library in light of Australia’s empha- sis on the university as a vehicle for training the work force and meeting national economic objectives rather than the traditional university role of developing the mind of the individual and teaching universal knowledge [14]. Burrows sees that the library is now regarded as an academic service like media and computing services [ 151 rather than the traditional research library.

As federal dollars to the universities are decreasing, so are funds to the libraries. Ray Choate, University Librarian at the University of Adelaide, indicates that librarians are under pres- sure from administration to find additional funding for operations, staff, and collections.

150 B. G. LEONARD

Libraries are not receiving the funding for staff raises or for ~n~ationary increases in serials subs~r~p~ons as they had in recent years. As a consequence, paining power fur collections is decreasing at the same time that information resources” costs are increasing dramatically.

THE LIBRARIES

During October and November 1992, interviews were held at eight university libraries. The eight libraries chosen were the largest in collection size in Australia and represent the major university libraries in five of the six Australian states. Because of the collection size criteria, Iibraries of the colleges of advanced education libraries or newly formed universities were not included in these interviews.

The eight university libraries where interviews were conducted are: the U~v~sjty of Queens- land in Brisbane, the Australia National University in Canberra, Monash University in Clay- ton, the University of ~e~bo~~e* the University of Western Australia in Perth, the University of Adelaide, the University of Sydney, and the U~v~sity of New South W&es. Student enroll- ment varies from 10,300 at University of Western Australia to over 36,OOQ at Monash Uni- versity; library staffing size varies from 150 at the University of Adelaide to 270 at the University of Sydney; and total collections budgets range from $2.5 million at the University of Western Australia to over $3.5 million at Monash, Melbourne, and Queensland..

Australian university library collections are split into undergraduate and research &lee- tions. A common characteristje of these eight libraries is that each has a main library and from 2 to 18 branch libraries. The main library normally houses Administration, Technical Services, and the undergraduate collection, The branch libraries contain the more specialized research material and are normally located near the academic dep~ments which the branch supports.

SELECTION OF MATERIALS

The majority of rnonographic works are selected by the teaching faculty (called academic staff in Australia) with reference and interdisciplinary materials chosen by librarians. This practice is based on historic4 precedent with the explanation that the academics have the subject knowledge required for choosing the materials needed for their research. There are devi- ations to this practice involving a sharing of the selection responsibility to varying degrees between the Librarians and the teaching faculty.

Most of the Iibraries visited have a collection d~veiopment librarian or a small ~oIlection deve~upm~t department; each has coordination and liaison roles with the academic departments. One variance in the selection practice is that subject librarians or a branch head may either work very closely with the fact&y in choosing titles for branch libraries or not consult at all with the teaching faculty because these branch librarians are very familiar with the needs of their constituents, At the University of Adelaide, the reference librarians have recently changed their title to subject librarians and have specific responsibilities for liaison work in collection planning with faculty and students in their subjects.

Despite the role of the teaching faculty, the librarians do have more impact in the selection process than may be apparent at first. Vendor notification slips are used widely. At Monash University, the collection development librarian reviews slips as they come in, orders titles he feels are important, and passes the slips on to the subject librarians (who are also reference Librarians at this restitutions. The subject librarians then pass them on to the faculty liaisons

Cokction Management in Australian Academic Libraries 151

with whom they work. Within this chain, there are cooperative efforts going on between librarians who are interested in selecting materials and the teaching faculty.

Another aspect of librarian impact on selection is that the budget is totally controlled by the library. Generally, funds are allocated to the various academic departments after a number of categories are taken “off the top.” These categories include the serials, course work, reference interdisciplinary, and AV materials. What is left is allocated to the departments for the research monographs. All the libraties visited provide extensive reports to the teaching faculty as to the status of their allocations for these materials. In some libraries, the collection development librarians carefully analyze what is being ordered by teaching faculty and often use interdisciplinary funds to add materials to the collections when the subject is not being covered satisfactorily.

ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS

Acquisition of materials is particularly difficult for Australian university libraries because the majority of the books and journals are purchased overseas due to the small output of Aus- tralian presses. Normal acquisition procedure is to buy in the country of origin in that country’s currency. The continual decline of the Australian dollar against every other major world currency is a constant problem.

The major acquisitions methods for monographs are title by title orders, gifts, and exchanges. Major vendors throughout the world are used whenever possible. Criteria for vendors are speed of delivery, service, and price. The University of Queensland library estimates that 80010 of needed materials are not in Australia at the time of ordering. This library finds that overseas vendors supply titles to the library in less time than Australian suppliers. Air freight is the mode of shipment and six to eight weeks is the usual delivery time. If a lecturer requires multiple copies of a single title for a large lecture course, the library may opt to pay a higher price for two copies bought from an Australian supplier that has the title on hand, and order the additional eight copies at a lower price from an American or British supplier with delivery in eight weeks.

Vendor notification slips are one of the principal methods of ordering monographic titles. Approval plans are not an option with overseas vendors because of high return costs and the selection of most monographs by teaching faculty rather than by librarians. Approval plan and deposit arrangements with Australian vendors for Australiana materials do occur in these libraries.

Australian libraries are encouraged by the government and by publishers to buy materials from Australian vendors whenever possible. Some foreign publishers set up ~st~bution arrangements with one agency in Australia and certain publishers’ titles can be bought only through this one agency (ALA publications are acquired through one such exclusive arrange- ment). Even with such independent arrangements, Australian geographic isolation and the country’s low publishing output requires that the majority of library procurement be effected with overseas vendors.

Generally, serials are acquired through subscription agents or through exchange. The Uni- versity of Queensland library acquires 6,500 serial titles, mainly from Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, by exchange. Within the Acquisitions Department, there is an exchange offi- cer whose primary function is negotiating exchange arrangements throughout the world. At the University of Sydney, exchanges are handled by the Collection Development Department. The efficiency of exchanges is being questioned. Australian National University’s policy is that

152 B. G. LEONARD

if an item is commer~i~ly available, it will be purchased, rather than obtained through exchange. Librarians at the University of Adelaide see exchanges as no longer as cost-effective as they had been in the past. Libraries that were once beneficiaries of “free titles” for exchange from their universities are now finding the university charging them for these titles.

All of the university libraries visited do accept gifts for the collection, but with growing space problems they are now more selective about what is added to the collection. However, the Monash University library finds gifts an important source of basic titles for the new branch libraries being formed as a result of that institution’s incorporation of colleges of advanced education into the Monash University system.

ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES

The Australian Higher Education Council’s Libmry Provision in Higher E~~c~t~on Insti- tutions (WO), the Ross Report, indicated that the use of the Conspectus as an assessment tool is an important part of collection management activities in Australian university libraries. However, in the author’s interviews interest in Conspectus activities was lukewarm at best, even though the Ross Report recommended one-time funding for libraries to implement a Conspectus database project. The Ross Report stated that “. . . the implementation of the Conspectus would provide system-wide benefits in reducing unnecessary future costs of acquisition processing, storage and preservation, and under&&g a wide range of resource-sharing activities” [16]. Unfortunately, this funding was not forthcoming.

The librarians interviewed indicated a commitment to the conspectus project in principle but were delaying total implementation for a number of reasons. Australian National Univer- sity and the University of Western Australia have completed conspectus reports and the Uni- versity of New South Wales was near completion at the time of this study. Since the intended funds for these projects were not forthcoming, librarians at the five other libraries do not intend to implement Conspectus until commensurate funds and staff are provided. Other problems are appropriate timing within the academic year and the involvement of the teaching faculty in the process.

An additional consideration is the role of a collection development policy in assessment. Most of the eight libraries do not have a written collection development policy. Some of the librarians interviewed contend that such a policy is not realistic with the continuing changes occurring in higher education such as the amalgamations and the changes within the university’s own profile. In two cases, Western Australia and New South Wales, the collection development policy was written after the completion of the Conspectus project. Other libraries are following this example.

Assessment of the collection for storage does occur as Australian university libraries are run- ning out of shelf space. Most have an off-site storage facility where retrieval of requested items within a few days is the norm. The last copy of any work is seldom discarded. Age and use of the item are the normal criteria for relegation to storage. Monash University which is in the process of planning a new building for occupancy in 1994, is developing a plan to iden- tify 300,000 volumes for transfer to compact storage.

BUDGET ALLOCATION METHODS

Australian academic libraries are no exception to the universal dilemma of how to allocate the materials budget. Of the eight libraries, all but Australian National University take the esti-


mated serials costs off the top. Additional categories that may be taken prior to the allocation of the research monographs budget to the academic departments are course-work materials, reference and interdisciplinary, and AV materials.

The fiscal year in Australia is the calendar year, and serials invoices are normally paid in October. Thus, librarians must calculate in January the inflation rate as well as the probable currency valuation. This calculation is done almost a year in advance so that the funds nec- essary to pay serials invoices can be set aside long before the actual costs are known. Once this amount is calculated and removed from the total collections allocation, the amount available for all other materials is allocated. If the serials estimates made in January are not accu- rate, there are serious problems at the end of the fiscal year.

All libraries use a formula to allocate research monograph funds taking into consideration any combination of the following factors: size of faculty, number of postgraduates for research, number of postgraduates for course work, honors students, average price of books, and inflation. All librarians indicated that there is a certain amount of the “fudge factor” in the formula and that there is a need to come up with a new and improved methodology. There is a concerted effort to keep the serials/monograph ratio at 60%/40% overall with the real- ization that in the sciences the ratio can be as high as 80%/20%.

The exception to the usual formula method of budget allocation is the Australian National University, the premier research institution in the country. The ANU library allocates 5% off the top for general library materials expenditures. The balance is divided among the three major areas in which the library collects (Science 49.7%, Social Science 34070, and Asian Pacific 11.3%). Each area is managed by an advisory committee consisting of teaching faculty and a collection development librarian. Serials costs are included in these proportions so that both the librarians and the teaching faculty have a clear picture of what the serials costs are. The teaching faculty may also change the ratio of serials/monographs within the share of the budget that they control.

RESOURCE SHARING

Australian academic libraries cooperate in a number of areas including the national database ABN (Australian Bibliographic Network), the university librarians organization CAUL (Committee of Australian University Librarians), and groups within individual states such as CAVAL (Cooperative Action by Victorian Academic Libraries). In the area of collections, Australian librarians have concerns regarding cooperation, resource sharing, and cooperative collection development.

From the interviews at the eight libraries, it is clear that collection development and acquisitions librarians feel compelled to “take care of their own” first. Local concerns are the primary consideration, and self-sufficiency is desirable whenever possible. With the increasing number of new universities, the well-built collections of these eight research libraries are now being sought by others and, therefore, are less available to their primary clientele.

Cooperation among the three major university libraries in the state of Victoria, Melbourne, Monash, and LaTrobe is well defined by CAVAL. CAVAL has developed a proposal for a cooperative book-storage facility, operates a reciprocal borrowing program, promotes effi- cient use of information technology, and operates a computerized public access catalog of items held by member libraries [17]. In addition, the collection development librarians of these three libraries do confer with each other on collection matters. These libraries have cooperative buying agreements for expensive items and for large microfilm sets. Yet, librarians

154 B. G. LEONARD

believe that each library still must be self-sufficient for the research needs of the teaching faculty. Undergraduate students often must go elsewhere for materials that they need. For example, a student at Melbourne University indicated that she was told to go to LaTrobe University Library (10 miles away) because they have the “best politics” collection. A librarian at Mel- bourne corroborated this by saying that undergraduates are expected to travel to other institutions if the library does not have the resources needed for their course work.

The University of Western Australia and the University of Adelaide, the major universities in two of the less populated states (Western and South Australia) both participate in reciprocal borrowing arrangements with the smaller universities in their cities, and both are net lend- ers. University of Sydney, the oldest institution in the country, and Australian National University report that cooperative efforts are not a large part of their collection management program.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Australian university libraries provide 90% of the textbooks and materials required for the courses taught by the university. Acquisitions Departments search academic course lists of required readings and place orders for those items not already in the collection. This provision leads to multiple copies of some monographs (up to 10 copies of a single title.) The usual rule is one copy per 20 students in the course. This provision of course materials leads to large reserve collections of books as well as photocopies of journal articles. Australian Copyright Law provides that universities pay a copyright fee per student. This covers the large number of multiple copies of works and photocopies of required journal articles that are on reserve. Many of the reserve collections are open for student browsing and use; although items must be charged out if they are removed from the reserve room. Most of the libraries use the Dewey Decimal Classification System and many of them shelve bound periodicals with the monograph collection.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that Australian university libraries face very similar collection management problems to all university libraries. In addition, Australian academic libraries are challenged by two other factors. The first is the perennial problem of acquiring the majority of library materials outside of Australia. The second factor is that the total impact of the unified system of higher education on the university library’s role in its institution, on the library’s collections, and on future funding is not known. Dealing with these uncertainties is an enormous chal- lenge for Australian academic librarians.

REFERENCES

1. Knapp, John. Academic Book Center, interview with author, 5 August 1993. 2. Clark, Burton R. and Neave, Guy R. Encyclopedia of Higher Education. New York: Pergamon Press, 1992, 31. 3. Dawkins, J.S. Higher Education: A Policy Paper. Canberra: AGPS, 1987. 4. McNichol, Don. “Educational Profiles, Funding Levels, and Coordination, the Green Paper and Previous Pol-

icy,” Journal of Tertiary Education 10 (1988). 32. 5. Clarke, B.R. and Neave, Guy R. Encyclopedia of Higher Education, 31.


6. Williams, Bruce. “The Rise and Fall of Binary Systems in Two Countries and the Consequence for Universities,” Studies in Higher Education 17 (1992), 281.

7. Steele, Cohn. “The Higher Education Revolution in Australia-The Impact on Libraries,“A&xandria !(1989), 2. 8. Sydney Morning Herald (November 16, 1992), 1,4. 9. Clarke, B.R. and Neave, Guy R. &cycIopedia of~igher ~d~cafion, 38, 39.

10. Chronicle ofHigher Education, (June 24. 1992). A33. 11. Chronicle of Higher Education, (December 11, 1991), A37. 12. The Australian, (November 11, 1992), 21. 13. Radford, Neil. “Libraries and Their Place in the Higher Education Process” in Australian Tertiary Libraries, ed.

Colin Steele. Adelaide: Auslib Press, 1992, pp. 20-26. 14, Burrows, Toby. “The University and its Library in Britain and Australia,” Australian Academic and Research

Libraries 19 (1988), 75. 15. Burrows, 80. 16. Higher Education Council. Library Provision in Higher Education Institutions. Canberra: AGPS, 1990, 102. 17. Higher Education Council, 198.

APPENDIX Librarians Interviewed

University of Queensland George Eichinski, Acting University Librarian Jocelyn Priddey, Acquisitions Librarian Spencer Routh, Collection Development Librarian

Australian National University Colin Steele, University Librarian Michael Evans, ALJL, Collection Management Judy Evans, Senior Librarian, Acquisitions Judy Churches, Senior Librarian, Bibliographic Records George Miller, Senior Librarian, Collection Development

Monash University Volkhard Werner, Deputy Technical Services Librarian Robert Stafford, Collection Management Librarian Peter Mitchell, Associate Librarian, Central Support Services Jan Maslen, Technical Services Librarian Janice Droogleever, Branch Librarian for Humanities and Social Sciences Richard Overell, Rare Books Librarian

Melbourne University Juliet Flesch, Principal Librarian for Collections Janet Candy, Head of Technical Services

University of Western Austraiia Arthur Ellis, University Librarian Imogen Garner, Associate Librarian, User Services Shirley Oakley, Divisional Librarian, Administrative Services Toby Burrows, Divisional Librarian, Technical Services Anna Rainford, Research Librarian Paul Genoni, Law Librarian Margaret Jones, Humanities Librarian Anne Batt, Medical Librarian John Meyer, Acquisitions Librarian Erin Fraser, Fine Arts and Special Services Librarian

156 B. G. LEONARD

University of Adelaide Ray Choate, University Librarian Adrienne Jago, Acquisitions Librarian Marie Robinson, Collection Development Librarian

University of Sydney Louise Watters, Acquisitions Librarian Ross Coleman, Collection Management Librarian

University of New South Wales Lionel Robson, Collection Management Librarian

collection management in australian academic libraries: an american perspective

Documents