Evidence Summary
Planning, Coordinating, and Managing Off-Site Storage is an Area of
Increasing Professional Responsibility for Special Collections Departments
A Review of:
Priddle, C., & McCann, L. (2015). Off-site storage and special
collections: A study in use and impact in ARL libraries in the United States. College & Research Libraries, 76(5), 652-670. doi:10.5860/crl.76.5.652
Reviewed by:
Melissa Goertzen
Collection Development Analysis & Support
Librarian
Columbia University Libraries
New York, New York, United States of America
Email: mjg2227@columbia.edu
Received: 6 Nov. 2015 Accepted: 1 Feb.
2016
2016 Goertzen.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To measure the use of off-site
storage for special collections materials and to examine how this use impacts
core special collections activities.
Design – Survey questionnaire containing both
structured and open ended questions. Follow-up interviews were also conducted.
Setting – Association
of Research Libraries (ARL) member institutions in the United States of America.
Subjects – 108
directors of special collections.
Methods – Participants
were recruited via email; contact information was compiled through professional
directories, web searches, and
referrals from professionals at ARL member libraries. The survey was sent out
on October 31, 2013, and two reminder emails were distributed before it closed
three weeks later. The survey was created and distributed using Qualtrics, a
research software that supports online data collection and analysis. All
results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Qualtrics.
Main
Results – The final response rate
was 58% (63 out of 108). The majority (51 participants, or 81%) reported use of
off-site storage for library collections. Of this group, 91% (47 out of 51)
house a variety of special collections in off-site storage. The criteria most
frequently utilized to designate these materials to off-site storage are use
(87%), size (66%), format (60%), and value (57%). The authors found that special
collections directors are most likely to send materials to off-site storage
facilities that are established and in use by other departments at their home
institution; access to established workflows, especially those linked to
transit and delivery, and space for expanding collections are benefits.
In regard to core special collections activities, results indicated that
public service was most impacted by off-site storage. The authors discussed
challenges related to patron use and satisfaction. In regard to management and
processing, directors faced challenges using the same level of staff to
maintain two locations instead of one. Also, the integration of new workflows
required additional oversight to ensure adequate control at all points of
process. Static staffing levels and increased levels of responsibility impacted
preservation and conservation activities as well. A central concern was the
handling of materials by facility staff not trained as special collections
professionals. In regard to the facilities themselves, a general concern was
that commercial warehouses do not always provide the kind of environmental
control systems recommended for storage of special collections materials.
Of the total sample group, 12 participants (19%) said their institution
does not use off-site storage for special collections. When asked if this may
occur in the future, four directors (33%) said they anticipate off-site storage
use within the next five years. Lack of space was listed as the primary
motivation.
Conclusion – Study findings provide evidence for
what was previously known anecdotally: planning, coordinating, and managing
off-site storage is a significant professional responsibility that will only
grow in the future. As primary resources are integrated into research,
teaching, and learning activities, the acquisition of special collections
materials will continue to grow. Discussions regarding off-site storage
workflows and strategic planning will continue as professionals seek
compromises that meet the unique needs of acquisition, preservation, and public
service.
Commentary
Every day library professionals consider how to make the most of a
precious resource: library space. One strategy is investment in off-site
storage facilities. The authors stated that the implementation of off-site
storage by ARL member libraries increased during the last three decades.
Benefits of off-site storage include preservation-quality environmental
conditions and convenient storage of materials; challenges are linked to a lack
of direct patron access and removal of collections from library stacks (Deardorff
& Aamot, 2006).
Despite a large body of professional literature that addresses
advantages and challenges connected to off-site storage, few studies explore
its impact on special collections. Two notable exceptions are papers by LaFogg
and Weideman (2001) and Sundstrand (2008, 2011), which examine the preparation
and planning required when relocating archival materials. The study at hand
provides evidence for the impact, both positive and negative, of off-site
storage on core special collection activities.
The strengths of the study include the suitability of the methodology to
the central research question, well-defined criteria for the selection of
participants, and the clear presentation of data collection strategies and
study findings. The value of the study lies in its uniqueness: through the
survey tool, the authors capture observations, thoughts, and opinions regarding
the impact of off-site storage on ACRL competencies such as public service,
management, preservation, and processing. The findings provide evidence for
what was previously known anecdotally and provide a baseline for future
studies.
One limitation the reviewer found is that the authors did not provide an
operational definition of the term “off-site storage” to survey participants.
As this term conjures up varying connotations, a definition may have provided
greater clarity. Also, future research including the point of view of staff
that do not hold administrative positions would provide insight into the
practical aspects of integrating off-site storage into daily responsibilities.
However, the authors acknowledge these limitations and neither impacts the
importance of the research findings to the professional community.
As the authors observe, the high response rate indicates that further
studies exploring retrieval methods, collection management, and integration of
off-site workflows and services are a logical next step. Research projects like
these would assist in the development of strategies surrounding retrieval time
and delivery, distance, and the perceived loss of browsability (Barclay, 2010).
As demands on library space increase, documentation of best practices and
strategies linked to off-site storage for special collections is beneficial to
both the professional and research communities.
References
Barclay, D.
(2010). The myth of browsing: Academic library space in the age of Facebook. American Libraries, 41(6). Retrieved
from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2010/05/19/the-myth-of-browsing/
Deardorff,
T. C., & Aamot, G. J. (2006). SPEC
Kit 295: Remote shelving services. Retrieved from http://publications.arl.org/Remote-Shelving-Services-SPEC-Kit-295/
LaFogg, M.
C., & Weideman, C. (2001). Special collections. In A. N. Nitecki and C. L.
Kendricks (Eds.), Library off-site
shelving: A guide for high-density facilities (pp. 205-218). Englewood:
Libraries Unlimited Inc.
Sundstrand,
J. K. (2008). Placing manuscript and archival collections into an automated
storage and retrieval system at the University of Nevada, Reno. Journal of Archival Organization, 6(1),
71-80. doi: 10.1080/15332740802235380
Sundstrand,
J. K. (2011). Getting to MARS: Working with an automated retrieval system in
the Special Collections Department at the University of Nevada, Reno. Journal of Archival Orgainzation, 9(2),
105-117. doi: 10.1080/15332748.2011.602604