Staff Papers

What Makes Libraries Relevant in the 21st Century? Measuring digital collections from three perspectives

A paper by Roxanne Missingham, National Library of Australia at the Information Online 2003 Conference.

Abstract:

Digital collections are a fundamental part of all libraries in the 21 st century. While the fields of library science and information science have approached digital libraries differently, the concept of a digital collection core to theories in both. To assess the value of digital collections in a discipline three perspectives are proposed – that of the information seeker, the library and the publication/information environment. The paper proposes a series of indicators to develop digital footprints in these three perspectives which can be used to assess the relevance of libraries and their digital collections.

Introduction

A new world has opened to information seekers of all types with the emergence of the Internet and digital publishing. Students, teachers, researchers and those with a casual information need can all obtain a rich array of resources from any networked computer anywhere the world. The wide adoption1 of the Internet as a means of communication has seen the flourishing of digital publishing and a vast increase in the ability of individuals to access this information environment 2. It has provided a means for new virtual communities to development across the globe.

The new environment has resulted in a move of scholarly publishing from print to dual electronic and print formats, with libraries increasing acquiring electronic resources and making these accessible through the desktop of their users. The change has been profound, however it has resulted in a remarkably complex transformation of resources and services.

The creation of new mechanisms for identification of information and knowledge resources has led to the emergence of a plethora of “digital libraries”. Current information science debates exist as to the definition of “digital” and “virtual” libraries, with all agreeing that the move to digital collection is a permanent feature of the information landscape.

Currently library science is intensely focused on digital libraries – their development, technologies and use. Information science has also developed a significant body of research into digital libraries. Both have separate conceptions of what a digital library is, and of the range of issues worthy of investigation. This paper explores the fundamental concepts of a digital library and digital collections; proposes a means of assessing the value of digital collections and libraries, which can be used in any discipline; and creates a new means of answering the question “What digital collections should be provided by a library?”

Digital libraries and collections

By 2002 use of the term ‘digital library’ is so frequent that rarely does an issue of any major journal in library and information science not include an article on this topic. The origins of thinking about information retrieval for an automated database are generally traced back to Vanevan Bush, a very early origin indeed. Modern interpretations of the concepts of a digital library have expanded significantly from Bush’s original proposal.

A recent study (Watstein, Calarcoa, Ghapery) of the use of terms related to the concept of a digital library, demonstrated very low occurrence of the terms and concepts through the 1970’s, an increase in the 1980’s and an explosion in use since 1994. This undoubtedly relates to the emergence of the World Wide Web ( WWW) and the study points out that some confusion has emerged with a tendency to refer to the whole WWW as the ultimate digital library.

So what is a digital library? Levy & Marshall (1995) proposed that a digital library encompassed:

  • Collections containing fixed, permanent documents
  • Collections were based on digital technologies
  • The libraries were used by individuals working alone.

This perhaps almost clearly encapsulates the information science proposed of a collection of digital documents created to enable or support activities such as learning, research and teaching. Others have provided a broader perspective. Bawden and Rowlands (1999) and Rusbridge (1998) provided a more holistic view with the emergence of the term ”hybrid library”. This approach situates the digital library as:

“…a physical space or virtual space, or a combination of both, in which a significant proportion of the resources available to users of that service exist only in digital form.” (Bawden and Rowlands p 11)

The hybrid library however

“… provides an environment and services which are partly physical and partly virtual. Though it assumes an ideal of clear integration of information provision, regardless of format or medium, it does not assume, as the full digital library does that migration of all materials to digital form is either feasible or desirable” (Bawden and Rowlands p13).

Fundamentally digital libraries are collections, in the case of traditional libraries offered as a component of their collections and services. In the case of digital libraries which are solely online, collections of documents form the basis of information spaces or communities.

Digital libraries thus comprise collections which may either be part of a larger whole with printed resources, or a total service. This study takes the perspective that digital collections form a core component of the infrastructure of a library. The digital collections have a major impact on libraries often increasing the accessibility of resources, for example from the desktop of staff, students and researchers as well as often increasing the range of resource available through aggregate services such as Sciencedirect (Elsevier’s electronic journal collection)

To offer a digital library collection many traditional library roles are required such as selection, acquisition, resource discovery services and administration (Lagoze and Fielding 1998). It is the transformation of these roles in the new online environment that is critical to the success or value provided by libraries.

Value of digital libraries

Much has been written about the value of libraries, with a more recent emphasis on the value of digital libraries. The literature on digital library value has, however, tended to focus on the need to increase the use of the digital resources, presuming that increased use is increased value. Studies of barriers and methods to overcome these barriers predominate (for example Robinson 2000).

Others have proposed that value exists from the development of new modesl of communication. A new model of scholarly communication has been proposed as the formation of virtual communities (Lynch, Harnard, Odlyzko). This model is based on the presumption that increased digital library production, often preferably through “free” access, will result in the creation of higher value.

It is undoubtedly true to say that there has been increased production of and access to digital or online information with the emergence of the World Wide Web (Lesk). The issue of determining the value of these collections is not a simple matter. The national expenditure on access to the internet or production of electronic resources, a favourite topic for those seeking to “measure” the Internet, does not in itself provide an understanding of the value placed by the demand side on digital libraries.

To investigate the issue of value in depth, it is useful to re-evaluate the purpose of a library – Rangarathan (1931) provides the basis for library purpose as:

Books are for use
Every reader his book
Every book its reader
Save the time of the reader
The library is a growing organisation.

Reflecting on this fundamental statement of library theory in an electronic environment, Gorman and Crawford suggest that it is a valid basis for the assessment of digital libraries. To take this further, the concept of value can be seen from the perspective of the “reader”, or user, in the ability to locate and use that material which is relevant to their information need. This suggests that the streams of digital library research into usability, performance of virtual communities, new scholarly communication models and information seeking behaviour are a part of establishing an assessment of value. If the new uses of information provided an insight into value, perhaps the more fundamental issue arises of not just how information is found, but also the level of availability of relevant digital collections for the reader.

Collections comprise many types of material, such as journals, monographs, conference papers, theses, original materials (such as manuscripts, pictures) and maps. For research and scholarly communication, the major resource documents have traditionally been journals in the scientific disciplines and a more even mix of journals, monographs and conference papers in the humanities (Herman, King, Tenopir, Brockman, Garfield). All of these resources are now in digital and print forms, to varying degrees.

These are three major players in the digital library environment – individual users or information seekers, libraries with their digital collections and information producers. Information exists within a classical economic environment of supply and demand, with a pricing framework undergoing significant transformation with the emergence on new consortial purchasing models. The collections are produced, collected by libraries and used by researchers, teachers, students, community members. Collections would be expected to overlap when the three perspectives are taken into account, but all could be expected to have different scope and some different attributes.

Chart 1: Perspectices for digital collections  

Chart 1: Perspectives for digital collections

Information seekers utilise digital information which is available through their library or libraries. In addition, they will access online information resources outside those supplied by their library. The resources may be freely available on the Internet and published by a scholarly community such as e-print collections. Information seekers have also traditionally sought information from outside formal information production systems, through colleagues, personal contacts and other resources most often described as the “invisible college”.

Libraries collect and make available digital collections. Australian university libraries exemplify a rapid move to digital collections – in 2001 Australian universities subscribed to over 934,000 journals of which over 614,000 were titles obtained through digital journal aggregate collections (Council of Australian University Libraries 2002). Each library, while selecting the resources of highest significance for their user community, must balance this against their financial resource base. Libraries rely on their own collections and alos on accessing collections of other libraries and information suppliers to provide their service. The ability to provide material through inter library lending and document supply these days encompasses some online resources, including selected e-journals.

Information producers in a digital environment will produce resources that may be offered or accessible though a library, either online to customers or via purchase on demand. Some material may, however, have licence restrictions which mean that it is not available unless the library subscribes to the service. Individual users may also have accounts with information services, such as Nature or IEEE Digital Library, that enables them to directly access information resources.

To apply Ranganathans principles to this situation, the reader would be optimally served by the library which enabled access to the required or relevant resources. Ranganathans third principle would be met when the library enabled the relevant resources to be available, whether known to users or not. To put this in the perspective of value, the digital library creates value when the collections, needs of users and information production are in synchronisation or harmony. A lack of value would occur where the overlap between these three aspects is minimised. To refine the assessment of overlap, and establish a basis for development of relevant metrics, objective analysis of the nature of digital library production, acquisition and use is required. For this analysis to occur we need to investigate the objective and subjective worlds (Popper,) as both need to be assessed to derive comparisons for overlap and gap analysis.

Measures of the value of the library which reflect the match between the three perspectives can be made within specific disciplines. Comparsion could also occur between different disciplines to establish whether the much reported variation between humanities and science was demonstrated in digital collections in Australia. An analysis of the value through this approach will enable, for example, usage needs to be considered within the total usage of information by the “reader” not just the number of searches the of online resources in the digital library resources available through their library. To understand this a new theory, ecological footprints, can be utilised to provide new insights.

Ecological footprints & digital footprints

The theory of ecological footprints is a very recent addition to environmental theories, emerging in the 1990’s. Wackernagel and Rees published their theory in 1996 and the model has been used to assess the impact of man on the environment around the world. Most recently in Australia, it formed a part of the conceptual basis for Foran and Poldy’s study of future scenarios for Australia’s population and resources. Ecological footprints is based upon the understanding that the resources required to support people, both as individuals and as geographically based communities, for example a city, extend beyond the boundaries on that person or community. The resources required to support people include energy, food, and water that are provided from the surrounding area. Thus a city will have a footprint which will extend down waterways and into farmland, as the resources produced are required to sustain the city.

The three aspects of this theory which are most relevant to a study of digital collections are:

  • the concept of multiple resources, in the digital context this can be applied through a granular approach, incorporating study of breaking digital libraries through constituent parts such as journals, theses, monographs, conference papers and communication/email files;
  • the mapping of resource use for digital libraries through multidimensional measurement to create a footprint that can be represented visually for more effective communication;
  • comparative analyses, of digital collections, allowing consideration of resource availability, use and information need, with the potential to extend to multiple library collections or indeed even a national approach to collections..

To take the frame of reference of a digital footprint for collection,s a unit approach based on disciplines is taken in this paper. Research suggests that there are significant differences between the humanities and science in the use of print and electronic material. The research also suggests that there are different usage patterns by format of material, for example with scientists relying very heavily on journal literature. Within the sciences variation also exits between disciplines with a high use of technology, such as microbiologists and those in more traditional disciplines such as zoology. To undertake a study of digital footprints, specific disciplines need to be chosen for analysis. This would enable a baseline study to be established with a defined community for the purpose of determining the information production environment and enable collection of valid data samples. Comparative studies of disciplines in the humanities and sciences could also provide insights into the use of collections and issues relating to the development of lirbaries and support programs, such as information literacy activities.

Research Questions

To assess the value of digital library collections offered by libraries three research questions are proposed:

  1. What are the key indicators to measure the digital footprint of individual needs, library collections and digital information production?
  2. What are the results of applying this analysis to a discipline, or selected disciplines?
  3. What information can be gained from such as assessment on the development of digital library collections, or new models of access to collections through collaboration, to best meet the need of the users and thus create a higher value information space?

At this stage test indicators are being developed and measurement will occur in 2002. Information on the details of the indicators proposed for this assessment follow.

Assessing digital footprints

The three components, or perspectives, on digital libraries proposed above (individual, library and information producer) need to be measured consistently in order for comparative assessment to occur. The key data sources are generated from selected disciplines based on formats of information.

The degree of the digital footprint will be a measure that combines the absolute number for availability, use or production of electronic material in the digital collection. Information will also be collected on the extent of print material to establish a comparative basis for considering the extent to which the collections have moved from print to digital. The hybrid library, after all, is conceived on the basis that the balance between print and electronic resources is established at an appropriate level. For the digital footprints to be compared over time, particularly as collection balance between print and electronic resources changes, both need to be included in the study.

 

Individual

Digital Library

Producer

E-journal

Print Journal

Usage sample survey

Availability (for example using Journal Citation Reports® Impact factors)

Production (directories, JCR impact lists)

E-theses

Print theses

Usage sample survey

Availability numerical

Availability numerical

E-monograph

Monographs

Usage sample survey

Availability numerical

Availability numerical

E-Conference Proceedings

Conference Proceedings

Usage sample survey

Availability numerical

Availability numerical

E-Print

Journal papers

Usage sample survey

Availability numerical

Availability numerical

E-Interlending

Print Interlending

Usage sample survey

Sample Survey

Availability numerical

E-Personal publication

Print Personal publication

Usage sample survey

Sample Survey

Availability numerical

Further discussion

Because this is a work in progress, the results will be available over the next two years. I hope to be able to report on the completion of the study at the next online conference.

The rapid pace of change in digital publishing and scholarly communication appears to have reduced. This enables this study to both set a benchmark for future comparison and also set a standard that can be used to measure digital collections across institutions and disciplines.

The challenge for libraries offering digital collections is to meet new user need and to establish and maintain the appropriate digital footprint. The equilibrium required between print and digital collections is a fine balance. Increasing pressure on library budgets, price increases particularly for journals gives library resource managers challenges in balancing collections. The emergence of new purchasing models, such as consortia, can help maintain equilibrium, however new opportunities to consider collection building and access on regional and national bases can be explored. Australia is fortunate to have a strong information history of cooperation for access to collections through interlending. New models for collaborative collection building have been trailed, and may be reconsidered with the moved to digital collections and increasing financial pressures. Some of the fundamental infrastructure to enable new models of collection development can be found in the National Bibliographical Database and consortia catalogues.

Any study of digital footprints needs to include long term development and collection evolution. The future measurement of relevance could be assessed in terms of changing information production and user trends.

Ecological theories of population balance and equilibrium are very relevant to analysis of variation and long term evolution of digital collections. Hawkins has suggested that economic overshoot theory should be considered together with ecological theories to review changing patterns.

Conclusion

Digital collections are a fundamental part of the operation of every library in the twenty first century. Juggling our resources to ensure that readers, or users, are best served through a mix of print and electronic resource,s provides a significant challenge for libraries. By using the concept of the hybrid library and combining an analysis of value based upon the matching of digital footprints, as they exist to users, libraries and information producers, new insights can be gained into collection development and delivery.

Vanevar Bush’s vision of an online access system can be tempered by the pragmatic reality of the hybrid library. Thus we can approach the challenge of determining the extent of digital and print collections armed with new insights.

Bibliography

  • Association of Research Libraries, New Measures: Developing Statistics and Performance Measures to Describe Networked Information Services and Resource for ARL Libraries: Discussion Prospectus. Washington, D.C., Association of Research Libraries, 2000
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Household Use of Information Technology , Australia , 8146.0, Canberra , ABS
  • Bawden, D. and Rowlands, I. (1999) Understanding digital libraries: towards a conceptual framework, British Library. Research and Innovation Report; (170), Boston Spa, British Library research and Innovation Centre
  • Bishop, A. P. (1998) “Logins and bailouts: Measuring Access, Use, and Success in Digital Libraries”, Journal of electronic publishing, vol 4 no 2, http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-02/bishop.html
  • Bishop, A. P., et al (2000) "Digital Libraries: Situating Use in Changing Information Infrastructure." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51 (4): 394-413
  • Borgman, C. L. (2000) From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: access to information in the networked world, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press
  • Brockman, W. S. et al (2002), Scholarly Work in the Humanities and the Evolving Information Environment, Washington, D.C., Council on Library and Information Resources and Digital Library Federation
  • Brodie, Maxine, The impact of change on research libraries: the State Library of New South Wales, in Proceedings of the ALIA2000 biennial conference, 2000, http://www.alia.org.au/conferences/alia2000/proceedings/maxine.brodie.html
  • Bush, V. (1942) “As we may think”, Atlantic Monthly, 176 (1) pp. 101-108 (1945)
  • Council of Australian University Libraries (2002) CAUL statistics 2001, http://www.caul.edu.au/stats/caul2001.xls
  • Crawford, W. and Gorman, M. (12995) Future libraries: dreams, madness & reality, Chicago, American Library Association
  • D-Lib Working Group on Digital Library Metrics, http://www.dlib.org/metrics/public/index.html
  • Foran, B. and Poldy, F. (2002) Future Dilemmas: Options to 2050 for Australia's population, technology, resources and environment , Canberra, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Working paper series 02/01
  • Garfield, E. (1980) “Is Information Retrieval in the Arts and Humanities Inherently Different from that in Science? The Effect that ISI’s Citation Index for the Arts and Humanities is expected to have on future Scholarship”, Library Quarterly, 40-57
  • Harnad, S. (1990) “Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry”, Psychological Science, 1: 342 - 343 http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad90.skywriting.html
  • Harnad, S. (1991) “Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge”, Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2 (1): 39 - 53
  • http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad91
    .postgutenberg.html
  • Harnad, S. (1998a) “For Whom the Gate Tolls? Free the Online-Only Refereed Literature”, American Scientist Forum. http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/amlet.html
  • Harnad, S. (1998b) “On-Line Journals and Financial Fire-Walls”, Nature 395(6698): 127-128 http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature.html
  • Hawkins, B. L. (2000) “A View on the Ecology of Information”, In Marcum, D. B. (ed) Development of Digital Libraries: An American Perspective, Librarianship and Information Science Contributions in, No. 95, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press p 187-210
  • Herman, E. (2001) “End-users in academia: meeting the information needs of university researchers in an electronic age. Part 1”, Aslib Proceedings, 53 (9), pp.387-401.
  • Herman, E. (2001) “End-users in academia: meeting the information needs of university researchers in an electronic age. Part 2.”, Aslib Proceedings, 53 (10), pp.431-457.
  • King, D.W. and Tenopir, C. (2001) "Using and Reading Scholarly Literature," in William s, M. E. (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, Medford, NJ, Information Today, Inc., pp. 423-477
  • Lagoze, C. and Fielding, D. (1998) Defining Collections in Distributed Digital Libraries D-Lib Magazine, Nov., http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november98/lagoze/11lagoze.html
  • Lancaster, F. W. (1995) Are evaluation criteria applied to “traditional” libraries equally applicable to digital libraries?, http://edfu.lis.uiuc.edu/allerton/95/sl/lancaster.html
  • Lesk, M. (1995) “The Seven Ages of Information Retrieval”, IRLA UDT Occasional paper no 5, http://www.ifla.org/VI/5/op/udtop5/udtop5.htm
  • Lesk, M. (2000), “ The Future Value of Digital Information and Digital Libraries”, In Marcum, D. B. (ed) Development of Digital Libraries: An American Perspective, Librarianship and Information Science, Contributions in, No. 95, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press p 63-82
  • Levy, D. and Marshall, C.C. (1995) "Going Digital: A Look at Assumptions Underlying
    Digital Libraries," Communications of the ACM, 38, 4, 77-84
  • Lynch, c. (2002) "Digital Collections, Digital Libraries and the Digitization of Cultural Heritage Information", First Monday, 7(5), http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_5/lynch/
  • Lynch, C. A. (1994) "Scholarly communication in the networked environment: reconsidering economics and the organizational mission", Serials Review, 20 (3), p.23-30
  • Mogge, D (1999) “Seven Years of Tracking Electronic Publishing: The ARL Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters and Academic Discussion Lists”, Library Hi Tech 17, no. 1 (1999): 17-25
  • Odlyzko, A. M. (1997) “Silicon dreams and silicon bricks: the continuing evolution of libraries”, Library Trends 46 (1), pp. 152-167.
  • Poll, R. (1999) "The House that Jack Built: the consequences of measuring", Performance measurement and metrics, sample issues, August p 9-30
  • Popper, K. R. & Eccles, J. C. ( 1977), The Self and its Brain, Springer International
  • Popper, K. R. (1972), Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Clarendon Press, Oxford
  • Ranganathan, S. R. (1963) The Five Laws of Library Science, Madras, The Madras Library Association, 1931
  • Robinson, L. (2000) “A strategic approach to research using Internet tools and resources”, Aslib Proceedings; 52 (1), p.11-19
  • Rusbridge, C. (1998) "Towards the hybrid library", D-Lib Magazine, July/August, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/rusbridge/07rusbridge.html
  • Saracevic, T. and Kantor, P. B. (1997) “Studying the value of library and information services: Part I. Establishing a theoretical framework,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (6), p.527-42
  • Saracevic, T. and Kantor, P. B. (1997) “Studying the value of library and information services: Part II. Methodology and taxonomy”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (6), p.543-63
  • Sassone, Peter G, (1987) "Cost-benefit methodology for office systems", ACM transactions on office information systems, vol 5 no 3, p 273-289
  • Tenopir, C. and King, D. W. (2002) " Reading Behaviour and Electronic Journals", Learned Publishing 15, pp 259-265
  • Tenopir, C. and King, D. W. (2000) Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians and Publishers, Washington, D.C., Special Libraries Association
  • Thawley, John (ed) (1992) The Value of library and information services: papers presented at a seminar held in Melbourne, September 19 1990, Melbourne, CSIRO, Information Services Branch, Library Network Services
  • Varian, Hal R. (1999) "Economics and search", SIGIR Forum, Fall
  • Varian, Hal R. (1995) Pricing information goods, 1995, Ann Arbour, Mi, Department of Economics, University of Michigan
  • Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. E. (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, Gabriola Island, B.C., New Society Publishers
  • Watstein, S. B., Calarco, P. and Ghaphery, J. (1999) “Digital Libraries: Keywords”, RSR/Reference Services Review, 27 (4), pp 344-352

Footnotes

1. Mogge, D (1999) reports an increase in the digital publication of scholarly journals and newsletters from 110 in 1990 to 3,414 in 1997 .

2. For example access to the Internet has increased significantly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) found that “in 2000 over half (53%) of the households in Australia, or 3.8m households, had access to a computer at home and one third (33%), or 2.3m households, had home Internet access ”

Back to the top