Evidence Summary
Print Book Circulation Longevity
Dropping at a Small Canadian University Library
A Review of:
Belvadi, M. (2021). Longevity of print book use at a
small public university: A 30-year longitudinal study. Insights, 34(1),
26. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.562
Reviewed by:
Jordan Patterson
Associate Librarian
A. P. Mahoney Library
St. Peter’s Seminary
London, Ontario, Canada
Email: jpatte46@uwo.ca
Received: 6 June 2022 Accepted: 20 July 2022
2022 Patterson. 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.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30181
Abstract
Objective – To inform future collecting decisions
by ascertaining the circulation longevity of print books within an academic
library.
Design – Longitudinal data analysis of two
circulation datasets.
Setting – Library catalogue of a small public
university in Canada.
Methods – The researcher established two datasets by selecting books with viable
circulation data from the institution’s holdings. Using each book’s Library of
Congress classification number, the researcher mapped each book to three other
categorization schemes. The first scheme, Becher-Biglan
typology, categorizes books as belonging to either applied or hard and pure or
soft fields of study. The second scheme, called in the paper “major subjects,”
uses a traditional broad subject categorization (e.g.
arts, sciences, health, etc.), and the third scheme categorizes books by the
academic programs at the researcher’s institution. The researcher then analyzed
the circulation data through the lens of these three categorization schemes.
Main Results – Part 1, which considered the
collection’s older circulated books, found that books had an average
circulation longevity of 10 years. About 14% of books circulated for only one
year, and about 24% of books circulated for less than five years. Among the
newer books considered in Part 2, 37% circulated for just one year and 64% had
a circulation longevity of four years.
Conclusion – Books in applied and hard fields generally have greater longevity
compared to pure and soft fields. Books in professional and STEM fields
generally have greater longevity than books in the humanities and arts,
contrary to conventional library wisdom. Print book circulation
longevity appears to be dropping. Subscription and on-demand acquisitions
options may prove to be a more efficacious use of resources than ‘just-in-case’
print collecting.
Commentary
As libraries continue their march into the future,
perhaps no issue in academic libraries today is so centrally pressing as the
usage of print books. The pessimist might ask, if print books are not used, why
should libraries spend all the time, energy, and money required to purchase,
process, catalogue, shelve, and store them? Or forego the opportunity of using
that time, energy, and money space for another purpose? Beyond merely
functioning as a potential net drain on a library’s resources, a focus on print
books may actively hinder the library in providing services patrons need and
desire.
Evaluated with Glynn’s (2006) critical appraisal
checklist, this study satisfies accepted standards of validity. The sampling
for this study had to be precise to obtain viable data, but the researcher’s
inclusion and exclusion criteria limited her from providing a fuller picture of
print book circulation at her institution. While the study compares circulation
statistics for items across different disciplines, one important point of
comparison is passed over in the researcher’s decision to omit from her study
any figures for items that did not circulate at all. The researcher made this
decision to avoid distorting the statistics with a large
number of items reporting “0 years” of circulation longevity; however,
without the number of comparable items that never circulated (within the same
timespans the paper considers), the circulation figures presented in the paper
do not convey their full potential significance.
The difference would be, for instance, a circulated
print item’s longevity compared to a broader print collection, as opposed to a
circulated print item’s longevity compared to other circulated items. It is
eye-opening to learn that, of recent books that circulate, 64% do so for four
years at maximum; it would be instructive to learn also how many books never
circulate at all. Presented even briefly before proceeding with a finer
analysis of circulated items, figures on uncirculated items would provide
important context and bolster the researcher’s questioning of the value of
‘just-in-case’ print acquisitions. It’s a small quibble with an otherwise
impressive and important study, and ultimately, non-circulating books were not
the focus of this research. A comparison of circulated and non-circulated items
could form the basis of a fruitful future study.
As the researcher demonstrates in her literature
review, this is the only investigation into print resource longevity with a
timeframe as long as thirty years. Given the
importance of the question, more studies would be welcome. Libraries allocate
more and more funds toward digital resources every year, at the cost of print,
and this study makes a compelling case for continuing and even hastening that
trend. Attractive and efficient e-book packages allow libraries to optimize
their resources toward the needs of the present, but any strategic choice
requires sacrifices and trade-offs; librarians may well consider whether this
option is optimized toward the needs of the future as well.
References
Belvadi, M. (2021).
Longevity of print book use at a small public university: a 30-year
longitudinal study. Insights, 34(1), 26. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.562
Glynn,
L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information research. Library
Hi Tech, 24(3), 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154