Minutes of the Meeting
November 21, 1996
MODEL DISCIPLINE BIBLIOGRAPHERS' MEETING
A meeting of the Education and Biosciences model discipline
bibliographers was held at the Bone Student Center at Illinois State
University on Thursday, November 21 at 10:30 a.m.
Present were: Chad Buckley (ISU), Ann Glenn (NIU), Cecile Jagodzinski
(ISU), Johnson Kuma (EIU), Jane McKeever (UC), Christa Modschiedler (UC),
Sharon Naylor (ISU), Nancy O'Brien (UIUC), Tom Peters (NIU), Diane
Schmidt (UIUC), Jennie Ver Steeg (NIU), and Roslyn Wylie (ISU).
The meeting opened with introductions of those present, since several
people were new to the group. Tom Peters, current chair of the CCMCC,
spoke about the purpose of the day's meeting: to review past model
discipline efforts, to discuss evaluation of the project, and to provide
guidance to future model discipline participants. Nancy O'Brien and Ann
Glenn have agreed to serve, respectively, as coordinators for the
Education and Biosciences bibliographers.
Review of Model Discipline Program
The substantive portion of the meeting began with a brainstorming session
on the positive and negative aspects of the model discipline program.
Additional funding, the ability to purchase duplicate titles, and the
opportunity to meet and discuss matters of interest with collection
development colleagues were regarded as pluses. The inability to
purchase serial titles from the grant money (because the grants are not
ongoing) was seen as a significant problem. Those present also remarked
that it was not certain that this program is helping build true research
collections (e.g., collections with materials in all formats and
languages). The exclusion of smaller schools from the project was also
seen as a drawback. (The original plan of the project was to build up
level 3 collections to level 4 collections.)
Future of the Model Discipline Program
Taking up the thread on the collections of smaller libraries (including
those in community colleges), the group discussed ways to extend
invitations to smaller libraries, and ways to advertise existing
collections. Nancy suggested the notion of "pockets of excellence,"
rather than research collections, as a more appropriate and doable goal.
The group decided that, in order to expand the program to more libraries,
we would need to identify such pockets of excellence in academic
libraries throughout the state; the CCMCC should carry out such a survey.
The survey would consist of two major questions: a self-report on
excellent collections held by individual libraries (in very specific
subject areas and in any format), and a report on other collections in
the state the survey respondents regarded as excellent. The group
thought that the opinion question on other collections would be a good
check on the self-report.
Cecile asked whether we needed a more focused plan for the selection of
model disciplines, since the current model disciplines were largely
selected by a small group. Everyone present agreed that the past
assignment of subjects (some very broad, some very narrow) was more like
a bidding war than a thoughtful collection development process. The
group did not feel, however, that the conspectus would be a useful tool.
Instead, the results of the survey might prove more useful.
The need to make existing collections and purchases from past CCMCC
grant funds more visible was discussed. This group, like the
bibliographers at the July meeting, suggested that these be incorporated
into the CCMP's new web site, currently being developed at Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale.
Ann Glenn suggested that there is a need for more meetings of model
discipline bibliographers, since most have not had contact with one
another since the initial awarding of funds. The group agreed that the
summer meeting of bibliographers might have this as one of its goals. It
was also suggested that this meeting might be an opportunity to partner
small and large libraries with like "pockets of excellence;" grantwriting
sessions could also be part of the program.
General Principles for the Model Disciplines
Cecile asked whether there was a need to formulate a set of general
principles for current and future model discipline projects. This led to
a discussion, first, of the goals of the program. These goals were
suggested:
to identify and support specialized pockets of excellence in various
subject areas, in all formats;
to increase communication among bibliographers;
to increase the personal and professional commitments of
bibliographers and their libraries to the model discipline concept.
The following principles were enunciated by the group:
the model disciplines would focus on identifying and promoting these
pockets of excellence, not on building research collections;
these areas of excellence would be self-reported;
these collections would include materials in any physical format;
bibliographic access to these materials must be available in electronic form (though not through a particular online system);
these materials would be available for circulation and for
interlibrary loan;
duplication of these materials in the state would be acceptable, and
at times, even desirable;
libraries participating in a model discipline would agree to be the
last copy repository for monographs (the group agreed that there needed
to be further examination of materials in other formats, especially
serials);
libraries would agree to a long-term commitment to the model
discipline;
the bibliographers would commit themselves to continuing communication with other model discipline bibliographers in their subject areas.
Questions about process proved to be more difficult than identifying
goals and general principles. These issues need to be included in a
"principles" document:
how do new libraries join new or existing model disciplines?
how do we determine subject areas to be covered?
how do we identify especially fine collections in the state?
what should the role of the CCMCC be in the process?
should approval plans have a role in the process?
The consensus of the group was that the survey (to be repeated
periodically) could serve as a device for gathering information about
collections. The CCMCC could then use information from this survey to
solicit interest in participating in a model discipline. The idea of
using an approval plan was generally found to be less than useful, since
it would duplicate current methods of learning about new materials in a
particular subject area. Finally, the group decided that the minutes
should include details of the discussion on general principles; any
readers of these minutes should send comments to Cecile Jagodzinski at
cecile@mhsgate.mlb.ilstu.edu. Cecile will collate comments and include
them in a draft document for the bibliographers and the CCMCC.
Evaluation
In a discussion of long-term evaluation of the project, the group agreed
that evaluation should be driven by the CCMCC, and that money from the
HECA grant be set aside to conduct this evaluation (which should be done
no more often than every three years). All those present agreed that the
annual reports submitted by individual bibliographers should continue.
The group suggested these areas for consideration in a long-range
evaluation:
interlibrary loan use via DRA and/or OCLC;
longitudinal studies of AMIGOS data;
circulation data;
the "big picture" effects, not just the results in particular subject
areas;
qualitative analyses: what the project does for patrons and for
bibliographers (surveys of faculty and librarians on their perceptions of
the program and/or collections).
Model Discipline Follow-up
The group next discussed ways to maintain commitment to individual model
discipline projects once money from the CCMCC evaporated. It was
suggested that directors of participating libraries be sent letters
annually reminding them of their commitments, inquiring whether
circumstances at their particular institution had changed and thus
affected these commitments, and whether new staff were involved in the
model disciplines. This last was thought to be especially important,
since we need to educate new bibliographers on the program.
Last Copy Guidelines
Cecile distributed a copy of proposed revisions to the model discipline
commitment, which includes a statement about retention of last copies in
the state. All agreed that the CCMCC must consider and approve the
change, but thought that only monographs should be considered as part of
the commitment. If the document is revised, directors must be asked to
re-sign the commitment form. Mention was made of the 1990 "Report on the
Last Copy Center Study," sponsored by the Illinois State Library; no one
present knew of any follow-up actions to that report. A brief discussion
on guidelines for defining "last copy" followed. Nancy, Tom, and Cecile
agreed to work on developing some draft guidelines.
Possible Projects
The group discussed other ways of enhancing the model discipline program:
examine lists of indexed titles (such as ERIC) to determine coverage
in the state;
look at the serial collection in the state for coverage and
duplication (there was mixed reaction to using something like Academic
Press's IDEAL project as a starting point);
-- hold a meeting for bibliographers at least annually;
-- orient new librarians to the model discipline program.
The following actions are to be taken as a followup to this meeting:
attendees (and other interested parties) are to comment on the draft
guidelines and principles for the model disciplines contained in these
minutes;
the CCMCC should conduct a survey to identify excellent collections in
the state;
the CCMCC should consider methods for long-term evaluation of the
project and set aside money for conducting such research;
the CCMCC should consider the proposed revisions to the commitment
document; if the Committee approves the changes, directors must renew
their commitments to the program;
a set of guidelines for last copies of monographs should be drafted;
the issue of last copies in other formats needs to be investigated
further.
The meeting adjourned at 2:17 p.m.
