Electronic collections in academic libraries: How does UMUC measure up?

Abstract: How do UMUC’s electronic library resources compare to those of other academic libraries in institutions that operate in UMUC’s segment of the academic marketplace? Information & Library Services conducted a study in 2011 to find out. The findings showed that UMUC’s collections compare favorably with those of similar academic institutions and validate the library’s annual database selection and review process.ELECTRONIC COLLECTIONS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES: HOW DOES UMUC MEASURE UP? STEPHEN MILLER, ASSOCIATE PROVOST | STEPHEN.MILLER@UMUC.EDU | X2037 UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, INFORMATION & LIBRARY SERVICES Abstract Methodology Part 1 Methodology Part 3 Objectives Reference Findings The objective of the project was to show the value and robustness of UMUC’s library research database collection by benchmarking against the holding of other institutions. Benchmarking is a standard professional practice (ACRL, 2011), however this study expanded beyond comparing reported statistics to directly compare collection holdings. Association of College and Research Libraries. (2011). Standards for academic libraries in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries First, used Carnegie Classifications in institution type and curriculum coverage to select an 11 member peer group; used only non-profit universities because holdings viewable without login. Fourth, analyzed the findings by creating different arrangements of data - alphabetical, by most subscribed, and UMUC-only databases - and produced spreadsheets for key stakeholders. How do UMUC’s electronic library resources compare to those of other academic libraries in institutions that operate in UMUC’s segment of the academic marketplace? Information & Library Services conducted a study in 2011 to find out. The findings showed that UMUC’s collections compare favorably with those of similar academic institutions and validate the library’s annual database selection and review process. Methodology Part 2 Second, harvested A-Z lists of database holdings from peer group’s library Web sites to create a list of databases for each institution. Basic: Masters-L Size and Setting: L4/NR (10k+ FTE, Nonresidential including Online-Only) Undergrad Instructional Program: Balanced/SGC (Balanced arts & sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence) Graduate Instructional Program: Postbaccalaureate-A&S/Business (Postbaccalaureate with arts & sciences (business dominant)) Third, de-duplicated and scrubbed the data, merged lists into a single Excel spreadsheet, color-coded for analysis. 1,190 databases Peer group institutions hold a similar core set of databases, confirming that the Library’s holdings are comparable and that the selection process is effective. There were curricular and cost rationales for databases not subscribed to by UMUC and for databases only subscribed to by UMUC in almost all cases