Search results

Few issues in recent times have so provoked debate and dissention within the library field as has the concept of fees for user services. The issue has aroused the passions of our profession precisely because its roots and implications extend far beyond the confines of just one service discipline. Its reflection is mirrored in national debates about the proper spheres of the public and private sectors—in matters of information generation and distribution, certainly, but in a host of other social ramifications as well, amounting virtually to a debate about the most basic values which we have long assumed to constitute the very framework of our democratic and humanistic society.

This chapter introduces Building Back Better Libraries (BBBL) as a critical concept for improved library planning both prior to and following a disaster or other emergency. Building Back Better, an idea widely discussed in the disaster recovery literature, seeks to use the difficulty of a disaster as an opportunity to go beyond the status quo and to promote changes that result in stronger, more resilient communities. The authors will define BBB elements and frameworks, building upon those to create a model for library disaster planning and recovery, and applying it to cases involving space and facilities, collections, services, and people.

Literature on the Building Back Better concept and frameworks, as well as library emergency response, was reviewed. This source material was used to develop a modified framework for improved library disaster planning and recovery. The Building Back Better Libraries framework is discussed and applied to cases involving library facilities and spaces, collections, and services, and its implementation through a disaster planning team is reviewed.

Though all libraries hope to avoid disaster, few succeed. One survey found that as many as 75% of academic library respondents had experienced a disaster or emergency. Evidence also suggests that few libraries are prepared, with as many as 66–80% of libraries reporting that they have no emergency plan with staff trained to carry it out. Even when plans are in place, the rush to respond to immediate needs following a disaster can overwhelm the ability to pursue effective long-term planning. Building Back Better, when framed for libraries, provides a planning tool to balance short-term response with long-term recovery and resilience. The Building Back Better Libraries framework focuses on the areas of risk assessment for library collections and spaces; recovery and rejuvenation for facilities, collections, and services; and implementation and monitoring, with particular discussion of the human element and the role of a library disaster planning team.

The proposed framework, Building Back Better Libraries (BBBL), can be used to strengthen disaster planning in a manner that balances meeting immediate needs with implementing longer term plans to create stronger and more resilient libraries.

Although aspects of BBB ideas are present in existing library literature, the concept is not formally defined for the library context.

The purpose of this paper is to gather an overview of different research fields that study collection building amongst heritage amateurs (e.g. amateur archaeologists, family and local historians, etc.).

First, the paper will define the term heritage amateur and then identify possible fields in which these groups and their collection building have been studied. A snowball procedure was used to collect material for the study.

While there is an overlap between some of the subjects and fields examined, there is a potential for more collaboration resulting in a deeper understanding of collection building amongst heritage amateurs.

The term heritage amateur is not widely used, and the identification and collection of material for the review rely on the definition and understanding of this term and the groups included under it.

This review of existing literature will benefit researchers and practitioners in the fields of education, information science, museums, libraries and archival studies, as well as the multidisciplinary area of heritage studies.

There is a growing institutional and political interest in making digital heritage collections available to the general public, and this paper argues that an important part of this is understanding how heritage amateurs already do this.

This paper will connect narrow interest areas such as participatory heritage or serious leisure and show how their angles on heritage amateurs differ and compare.

In November 2001, Scott Carlson, in the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote an article on library use titled “The deserted library: As students work online, reading rooms empty out—leading some campuses to add Starbucks” (Carlson, 2001). The essence of this chapter is that many librarians, facing dramatic declines in library gate counts resulting from the wealth of electronic resources accessible remotely, were beginning to move away from traditional conceptions of the library as primarily a repository for print collections. Carlson describes the “tough sell” that the Georgia College and State University in Milledgeville had experienced when planning a $19.5 million library addition in the mid-1990s. In response librarians had begun “fighting back” with “plush chairs, double-mocha lattes, book groups, author readings.” Still, no one knew whether these stratagems would enhance learning or bring its readers back.

The Greenstone digital library software is an open‐source system for the construction and presentation of information collections. Collections built with Greenstone offer effective full‐text searching and metadata‐based browsing facilities that are attractive and easy to use. Moreover, they are easily maintainable and can be augmented and rebuilt entirely automatically. The system is extensible: software “plugins” accommodate different document and metadata types. Greenstone incorporates an interface that makes it easy for people to create their own library collections. Collections may be built and served locally from the user’s own Web server, or (given appropriate permissions) remotely on a shared digital library host. End users can easily build new collections styled after existing ones from material on the Web or from their local files (or both), and collections can be updated and new ones brought online at any time.

In Britain, university libraries encountered a decline in funding later than in the US, but had never enjoyed support sufficient to permit ambitious acquisitions schemes designed to extend the national information resource which together academic library collections constitute. Hitherto new technology, so far from reducing the output of literature in conventional formats, has merely enlarged the number of the claimants for limited funds: snared cataloguing networks, while offering economies, threaten to erode the position of the scholar‐cataloguer, so posing a threat to parity with academic staff. Never, Ratcliffe argues, has the need been greater for the combined expertise of library staff and faculty in collection‐building for the future.

The following describes a number of technologies and exemplary service designs that foster better Internet finding tools in libraries and more cooperative and efficient effort in Internet resource collection building. Our library and partner institutions have been involved in this work for over a decade. The open source software and projects discussed represent appropriate technologies and sustainable strategies that will help Internet portals, digital libraries, virtual libraries and library catalogs‐with‐portal‐like‐capabilities (IPDVLCs) to scale better and to anticipate and meet the needs of scholarly and educational users.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the approach to collection development that has characterized the building of the ARTstor Digital Library.

The approach adopted is a brief history, overview, and analysis of the development of the ARTstor collections.

The paper finds that ARTstor has sought to pursue a strategic approach to collection development, taking as its point of departure the needs of potential users.

The paper offers an inside view of the development of a new non‐profit digital library.

Building a Web‐based e‐library may be the most important thing a library ever does. An important role for librarians in all types of libraries is the planning and/or building of Web‐based e‐libraries. Offers a practical discussion of developing and implementing a collection plan for building Web‐based e‐libraries. The starting point for developing any collection plan is an assessment of the function of and need for an information collection and the audience it will serve. Discusses some guidelines and practical strategies on where and how to find, identify, evaluate and select appropriate Web‐based information resources. Focuses on Web‐based information resources rather than other electronic information resources such as CD‐ROM or fee‐based databases that have been discussed extensively in recent literature.

This chapter discusses how digital project management has fundamentally changed the nature of collection service models in university archives and special collections.

Through a conceptual overview of case studies, this chapter examines the establishment of “digital content hubs,” with a special focus on the ways in which a variety of library units share the work of surfacing distinctive collections through cross-functional team-building.

To successfully build “digital content hubs,” academic libraries have embraced a new alignment to incorporate special collections and archives staff, services, and collections more holistically into larger library collecting initiatives and organizational structures. This chapter posits that, through the stewardship of digital projects, archivists and librarians have had to sharpen and expand requisite managerial and technical skills to support “distinctive collection teams” who work cross-functionality with outward-facing approaches to integrated collection building. In addition to embracing assessment tools and diversified funding strategies, archives and special collections have also adopted new collaboration models reliant on centralized but flexible project management structures that emphasize cross-training, complementary subject and technological specializations, and a team-based focus in order to ensure interoperability, sustainability, and broad accessibility of digital collections.

This chapter offers readers a new way of conceptualizing “distinctive collection teams,” proposes some strategies for marshaling resources from across library units, and suggests ways in which librarians and archivists can collaborate on content selection, copyright clearance, metadata creation, and web design and information technology development.