Measuring Uniqueness in System-wide Book Holdings: Implications for Collection Management

1
Measuring Uniqueness in System-wide Book
Holdings Implications for Collection Management

• Constance Malpas
• Program Officer
• RLG Programs

2
This presentation

• Summarizes recent data-mining efforts by OCLC
  Programs and Research
• System-wide sample (Summer 2007 Spring 2008)
• ARL unique print books (Autumn 2007)
• Suggests implications for collection managers
• Outlines next steps for RLG Programs
• An opportunity to discuss what additional
  evidence and analysis is needed

3
What we mean by last copy

• Monographic title uniquely-held by a single
  WorldCat contributor
• Cf. single copy repositories, where last copy
  is relative to local/group holdings
• May represent a last manifestation, expression or
  work
• Bibliographic records describe manifestations,
  not copies unique manifestations are the point
  of departure for analysis
• Some are intrinsically unique others are
  rendered unique by erosion of system-wide
  holdings
• Historical data may help document increased copy
  or work-level availability, but werent included
  in the studies presented here

4
Distribution of wealth ARL unique books
20 of the population holds gt75 of unique titles
A classic Pareto distribution
institutional excellence?

(or) a network effect?
Median institutional holdings 19K titles
N 6.95 M titles
5
Why focus on uniquely-held titles?

• Scarcity is common
• limited redundancy in holdings limited
  preservation guarantee, limited opportunity to
  create economies of scale by aggregating supply
• Research institutions bear the brunt of
  responsibility for long-term preservation and
  access of unique titles
• Academic and independent research libraries hold
  up to 70 of aggregate unique print book
  collection
• Continuing costs of managing (storing, providing
  access to) print collections are high use is
  generally declining
• Space pressure on physical plant (on-campus,
  remote) is high understanding distribution and
  characteristics of unique holdings can inform
  decisions about disposition of physical
  collection
• Increased attention to stewardship of special
  collections
• ARL SCWG, CLIR, LC Task Force on Bibliographic
  Control new attention to what constitutes
  special collections, appropriate standards of
  care, modes and metrics of use

6
Challenges

• Identification requires group / network view of
  holdings
• ? WorldCat provides a reasonably proxy for
  system-wide collection
• Some materials (MSS, theses and dissertations,
  etc.) are intrinsically unique not all can be
  algorithmically identified in MARC records
• ? hybrid approach combines computational and
  manual analysis of bibliographic data
• Sparse bibliographic records impede efficient
  work/title matching, may introduce spurious
  measure of uniqueness
• ? external sources (including Google) sometimes
  helpful in filling gaps
• Non-English titles (especially transliterated
  non-roman scripts) are especially difficult to
  match
• ? we resisted the temptation to exclude these

7
Study I System-wide Sampling

• 250 randomly selected, uniquely-held titles
• Limited to printed books (including theses)
  published before 2005
• English-language cataloging only
• Iterative re-sampling required to fill gaps
• Independently reviewed by three project staff
• Level of uniqueness
• Material type
• Results periodically collated for group analysis
• Compare results of individual analysis for
  consistency
• Seek consensus on difficult cases relatively
  few of these
• Re-sample as necessary to fill gaps
• White paper anticipated March 2008

8
Study II ARL uniquely-held books

• Ad hoc analysis by RLG Programs, prompted by IMLS
  Connecting to Collections grant announcement
• How might the existing evidence base be used to
  focus regional preservation investments?
• Based on January 2007 snapshot of WorldCat
  database 13M records for titles (6.95M print
  books) uniquely held by ARL institutions 300
  OCLC symbols 123 institutions
• Iterative analysis examined relative impact of
  theses/dissertations and recent imprints on
  system-wide uniqueness regional and
  institutional distribution of holdings
• Findings shared with ARL Special Collections
  Working Group (October 2007) and selected RLG
  partner institutions (UC CIC ReCAP Harvard
  ASU NYU)
• Heritage Preservation willing to share Heritage
  Health survey data for cross-tabulation on
  as-needed basis

9
Limitations

• Current studies limited to printed books
  excludes serials, special collections only a
  partial measure of uniqueness in system-wide
  collection
• Incomplete representation of world book
  collection for non-English titles especially,
  uniqueness of North American holdings is only
  relative
• Cataloging backlogs of up to 5 years mean that
  holdings for recent acquisitions are imperfectly
  reflected
• Incomplete coverage of rare books and special
  collections prior to (ongoing) integration of RLG
  Union Catalog

10
Our findings distribution of unique titles

• Research and academic libraries hold gt70 of
  aggregate unique print book collection
• while value and utility of these holdings may be
  widely distributed across the library community,
  holdings are concentrated at institutions with a
  research / teaching / learning mandate
• limited data on aggregate use, sources of demand
• Institutional distribution of unique holdings is
  highly skewed, with a handful of libraries
  holding a majority share of collective assets
• ARL unique print book holdings range from 400
  600K titles per institution median holdings
  19K titles
• generally, institutions with large collections
  hold more unique materials but absolute size of
  collection is not an indicator of relative
  uniqueness

11
Based on a randomly selected sample of 250
uniquely-held print book titles in WorldCat (Jan.
2007)
12
Unique Print Books in ARL Institutions
CRLs focus on theses and dissertations is
evident most uniqueness is attributable to
these holdings
Institutions with younger collections, actively
seeking to increase scope of coverage - NCSU,
Temple are building uniqueness in new titles
13
Content-type Distributions CRL and ARL
Intrinsically unique content, only copies
May include first copies in cataloging queue
uniqueness subject to rapid erosion
14
Our findings levels of uniqueness

• 60 of titles represent unique works
• Ex Report and recommendation on a proposed
  loan equivalent to US70 million to the
  Islamic Republic of Pakistan for a power plant
  efficiency improvement project (1987) World
  Bank report held by George Washington University
• 15 of titles represent unique manifestations
• Ex. Gallipolis an account of the French five
  hundred and of the town they established
  compiled by Workers of the Writers' program of
  the Work projects administration (1940)
  microform pamphlet held by Yale University
  related manifestations at 40 libraries
• 5 of titles represent unique expressions
• Ex E.J. Luck. A pedigree of the families Luck,
  Lock and Lee (1908) book held by Masssanutten
  Regional Library, VA similar title (Luck, Lock)
  by same author, pubd in 1900, held at LC
• 20 of titles not unambiguously unique
  duplicate or near-duplicate records can be found
  in WorldCat
• Ex K. Kimura. Edo no akebono (1956) book held
  by Harvard Yenching apparent duplicate
  (cataloged with original scripts) held by Waseda,
  Yale

15
Our findings content characterization

• Material types
• 35 are books (gt50pp)
• most appear to be non-fiction titles, less likely
  to have additional manifestations
• 20 theses and dissertations
• many at Masters level unlikely to be held
  beyond issuing institution
• 15 government documents
• mostly federal and state, may be duplicated in
  depositories
• 10 pamphlets
• unique content, but rarely useful in isolation
• 10 analytics single articles or issues bound
  as a separate volume
• non-unique content
• lt5 early imprints
• lost treasures?
• Small numbers of by-laws, scripts, legal briefs,
  minutes, etc.

16
Implications

• Institutions with significant unique holdings may
  benefit from splitting the difference between
  unique works and manifestations
• unique manifestations and analytics should be
  judged with an eye to provenance history unless
  they contribute to local distinctiveness,
  immediate action may not be warranted
• A preliminary sort by material type may help
  guide local decision-making regarding the
  physical disposition of unique holdings
• pamphlets and technical reports may be
  candidates for cataloging enhancement and storage
  transfer books may be short-listed for
  digitization and/or transfer to special
  collections
• Institutions with smaller unique print book
  collections may benefit from collective action to
  aggregate supply (through effective disclosure)
  and demand (through special resource-sharing and
  digitization initiatives) around specific topical
  and disciplinary interests
• local collections gain in significance when
  presented in context with related holdings

17
Recommendations

• Adopt a nuanced understanding of relative
  uniqueness when assessing local holdings
• Unique manifestations may not represent unique
  intellectual content, but may have other value
• As artifacts ? special collections
• As a networked resource ? increased availability
• Unique works may gain relevance and value when
  presented as part of a larger disciplinary or
  topical collection
• Theses and dissertations may benefit from special
  discovery tools, integration in local scholarly
  communications initiatives
• Pamphlets and technical reports may be virtually
  aggregated for specific communities of use
• Maximize disclosure of unique holdings to
  increase their impact and value
• Focus on use and utility of unique holdings to
  ensure long-term preservation, enduring value to
  parent institution

18
Whats Next . . .

• Holdings validation study will examine a sample
  of scarcely-held (lt5 copies) US imprints in
  North-American research libraries
• Compare current WorldCat holdings to historical
  holdings looking for signs of collection
  erosion elimination of local backlogs
  (diminishing uniqueness)
• Compare local holdings to current WorldCat
  holdings location changes/storage transfers,
  withdrawals
• Assess impact of local preservation actions on
  system-wide holdings (availability, condition)
  and potential value of full disclosure
• Collaborative effort with RLG partner
  institutions anticipated Spring/Summer 2008

19
Some closing observations

• Opportunities
• Large research libraries hold a wealth of unique
  materials long tail resources with broad
  potential audience
• Aggregated bibliographic data supports
  programmatic analysis and enrichment work-level
  clustering, identification of duplicates
• Largest institutions, with enduring commitments
  to retention and access, hold majority of
  potential at risk titles
• Challenges
• Libraries ill-equipped to measure potential
  demand for unique holdings
• Technical and social infrastructure for
  aggregating supply is lacking
• University presses are potential distribution
  partners, but alliances are weak

20
Questions, Comments?

• Managing the Collective Collection work agenda
• Data-mining for management intelligence
• Shared print collections
• http//www.oclc.org/programs/ourwork/collectiveco
  ll
• Midwinter RLG Update Session
• 130-330
• Marriott 302-304
• Contact
• Constance Malpas
• Program Officer
• malpasc_at_oclc.org

21
Median institutional holdings 96k unique titles
N5.9M titles