> Nick,
>
> -------------you wrote in response--------------
>
> > So I would look for:
> >
> > 1) the title count and
> > 2) what was spent over the last five years for books,
> > periodicals and microforms and
> > 3) what was spent over the last five years for automated
> > information sources (lexis, westlaw, dialog, cd-roms, etc.)
> >
> > The first figure give some idea of the effectiveness of historical
> > collecting over a long period of time, and the last two figures tell
> > you something about what is being done today and was done in the
> > recent past.
> >
> ---------------------------------------
>
> I've always wondered about electronic access to materials in regard
> to book count. Access to materials in any form/format (micro,
> hardbound, softbound, electronic) seems to me to be just that, access
> to materials for the patrons. Using amount spent on services would
> not reflect use, with blanket monthly charges and free access
> through internet gopher or other special $ arrangements.
>
> Margaret Coyne voice phone: 610-519-7235 fax: 610-519-7033
> Villanova U. Law Lib. internet: mcoyne@lawlib.law.vill.edu
Margaret:
It is true that dollars spent is not the same as "use." But it does
give some indication of what the institution is doing to maintain
its collections and to add to the amount of material available for
use. Neither volume counts nor dollars spent figures actually tell us
that the volumes are ever read or the databases ever accessed.
Although we do collect statistics on hours of lexis and westlaw use,
we cannot, obviously, collect statistics on hours of book reading or
microform machine use. Anyway, the measurement of use goes more to
the quality of the patron than the quality of the library.
Therefore, I still think the figures on dollars spent are useful.
The interesting questions are ones which we cannot really reduce to a
simple statistical measurement for a simplistic Annual Review of
Legal Education publication. They might include: amounts of time
spent looking for something that is in the catalog but not on the
shelf; ratio of ILL books in print vs. ILL books not in print;
average time to complete an ILL transaction; percentage of electronic
materials on databases actually cataloged as library holdings;
percentage of books in shelflist actually still in the library; etc.
I guess what I rebel at most is not so much the fact that volume
counts are misleading as that so many of us are so willing to
participate in what is, after all, a giant lie: that the quality of
libraries can validly be compared on the basis of the number of
volumes they report in their collections. I have no problem
reporting volume counts. I am perfectly comfortable with reporting
number of table lamps too, if the ABA wants it. I just don't think
either measure is a measure by which we should be compared to others;
and that is why I object to having volume counts _published_ in a way
that makes it easy, or even natural, to compare them.
If, as we so often say, librarians are educators, then it is time
that we educated our faculties and deans, and the bar. We have
written numerous articles among ourselves, most notably Arturo
Flores' article in 79 Law Library Journal 241. They were good enough
to convince me. It is time now for some articles in the Journal of
Legal Education, and in the ABA Journal as well. Let's convince
lawyers and deans.
This may get easier if the lawsuit by the Massachusetts School of Law
gets anywhere. Part of the School's argument against ABA standards
has to do with volume counts too.
==================================================
Internet: NTRIFFIN@LAWLIB.LAW.PACE.EDU :-)
;-)
Nick Triffin Tel: (914) 422-4275 |-)
Pace Law Library Fax: (914) 422-4139 ;-)
78 North Broadway %-)
White Plains, NY 10603 ;-)
==================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST