Conspectus Summary

This is the report of my findings from the conspectus study, conducted from 1996 to 1999. A technical report of my methods is also available online. A hard copy of these reports, as well as of the reports for all the divisions, will be made available on reserve in the Library in the near future. The web version should be considered authoritative.

I wish to thank all the people who made this report possible with their hard, often tedious, work, as well as the positive feedback and constructive criticism they gave me.

    Paul G. Streby
    Collection Development Librarian
    February 18, 1999

Table of Contents

Overview of the conspectus process
--Non-WLN divisions
--Government documents
--Internet resources
--Other libraries
--1990 accreditation report

Overview of results
--Periodicals
--Funding

Summary of ratings

Links to division reports

Overview of the conspectus process

The object of the assessment was to determine the collection's strengths and weaknesses, which will enable the library and teaching faculty to plan its growth in a more informed way. The project involved most of the librarians, in many cases acting in consultation with the departments for which they serve as liaisons.

For the assessment, the Thompson Library used the "conspectus" approach of WLN (formerly the Western Library Network, recently merged with OCLC), published in the WLN Collection Assessment Manual, 4th ed. (1992). (A fifth edition, Using the Conspectus Method: A Collection Assessment Handbook, came out in late 1997, in the middle of the conspectus project. Unless otherwise noted, standards and citations are taken from the 1992 edition, hereinafter referred to as CAM). The conspectus assigns each item in the Library's collection to one of twenty-four subject-based divisions, which are, in turn, divided into categories and, optionally, categories into subjects. Each division is assigned three ratings: one for the current level of strength, one for the current acquisitions commitment, and one for the goal level. The ratings cover the breadth, depth, currency, and accessibility of the collection, and are measured by a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods. Their definitions are summarized at right:

0Out of scope
1Minimal level
1aMinimal level, uneven coverage
1bMinimal level, even coverage
2Basic information level
2aBasic information level, Introductory
2bBasic information level, Advanced (Appropriate for community college students)
3Study or instructional support level
3aBasic study or instructional support level (Adequate to support lower division undergraduate courses)
3bIntermediate study or instructional support level (Adequate to support upper division undergraduate courses; not adequate for master's degree programs)
3cAdvanced study or instructional support level (Adequate to support master's degree programs)
4Research level (Adequate to support doctoral research)
5Comprehensive level

Most of the divisions were assigned a goal level rating of 3b, because they support undergraduate majors. The divisions that support master's programs received the rating of 3c; divisions that do not directly or indirectly support academic programs received ratings between 0 and 3a.

The following criteria were used in assigning ratings for the current collection strength:

  • The number of titles in a division. This is based upon a formula that takes into account the annual domestic publishing output for each division.
  • The percentage of books in standard bibliographies.
  • The percentage of subscriptions to periodicals indexed in standard sources.
  • Special formats, media, and collections available at the Library.
  • The language of the materials.
  • The average age of the titles in the division.
  • The acquisition rate.
  • The readership level of books and periodicals in the division.

In addition to using these criteria, some of the librarians consulted instructors for their opinions regarding the strength of the division in question.

The conspectus method was selected for several reasons:

  • It gives the Thompson Library's administrators and librarians reliable information for assessing strengths and weaknesses in the collection. This in turn allows for more systematic and informed development of the collection over the next several years.
  • It provides information to respond intelligently and effectively to shifting budget priorities.
  • Finally, it allows for objective comparison with the collections of other libraries that have used the WLN conspectus.

One potential objection to the conspectus approach is that it does not take into account the allocation formula used in devising the library budgets for the academic departments. This is actually an advantage; it provides a fresh vantage point for assessing how well the collection is meeting a widespread standard, and how well the allocation formula is enhancing collection development. It may point to a need to review the allocation formula.

Non-WLN divisions

The WLN divisions are arranged around the Library of Congress call number system (LCCN). Some academic subjects supported by the Thompson Library's collection, e.g. public administration and women's & gender studies, could not be studied adequately within the framework of the WLN conspectus, because they are interdisciplinary in nature. The LCCN does not lend itself to cross-disciplinary subjects, for such fields tend to be scattered across the call numbers.

A separate but related problem was that the divisions are broken into categories that do not always accurately reflect the ways in which academicians subdivide their fields. For example, within the Political Science Division, there are no separate categories for political theory or comparative government, even though these are central subjects within the discipline. Arguably, these topics are implicit in the WLN categories, but they are too important and intellectually distinct to be subsumed under a more general category. To lump them under a broader category would make the results significantly harder for people, especially outsiders, to interpret or draw meaningful conclusions.

To resolve these problems, several non-WLN categories were devised within existing divisions to better reflect the nature of those disciplines. There were also two separate non-WLN divisions: Public Administration and Women & Gender Studies. Future analysis of the collection will probably necessitate creating non-WLN divisions for African-American Studies, American Culture, and Communication.

Government documents

The government documents collection was not studied as part of the conspectus. Although it is an important source of information in the Library, it was not included in the study for two major reasons.
  1. It is not arranged in a manner parallel to the rest of the collection. Materials are grouped according to the government office that produced them rather than by subject. This makes it hard to correlate holdings in government documents to the arrangement of the conspectus.
  2. Government documents are less accessible in practice than the rest of the Library's holdings, primarily because they are catalogued separately.

Internet resources

The World Wide Web is an increasingly important source for information, and the Thompson Library provides access to it and has organized access to some of its resources through its homepage. In assessing the collection, it was decided, with some reservations, to leave Internet resources out of the equation, for the following reasons:
  1. Printed materials still enjoy primacy in academia. Because of its novelty, the Web has not gained the acceptance among students or faculty that has long been enjoyed by printed materials. Some instructors discourage or even forbid their students from using Internet bibliographic sources. Until Web resources gain a level of acceptance close to that of printed materials, it seems unwise to consider them using the same sets of standards for a traditional collection.
  2. There are many ambiguities and uncertainties in measuring a Web-based collection. Because it is still so novel, formal and informal standards for measuring the viability of a Web collection are still underdeveloped.
    • There are numerous and widely agreed-upon rules of thumb for determining the quality of a new monograph. Although some rules of thumb exist for assessing quality in a website, these rules are themselves new and relatively untested.
    • Standard bibliographies, which are a major tool for rating the collection, either do not exist for the Web, or are so quickly outdated that they are reliable for only a very short time.
    • The universe of materials available on the Web is extremely difficult to quantify. A "metasite" may provide links to 100 other sites, which in turn link to still more sites. There is no good answer to the question of whether this metasite should be counted as one resource, as 101, or as 1,001. Additionally, the number of websites is growing at a phenomenal rate, with many if not most sites receiving little or no public notice. There is therefore no real benchmark for determining what constitutes an adequate-sized collection.
  3. The reliability of materials available on the Web is extremely uneven.

Although it might be objected that with the advent of the Web, countless materials are now available to library users, this argument is essentially hollow. By such logic, the Library's collection has always been superlative, because students always had the option of going to other libraries or ordering materials from bookstores. The fallacy of this statement is fairly obvious. The conspectus is measuring what is available here, not what is hypothetically available elsewhere.

Other libraries

It might be objected that as part of the University of Michigan, the Thompson Library benefits from the holdings of the Ann Arbor campus. This is true but irrelevant. The conspectus is a measure of the collection available locally. For many if not most students, it is inconvenient at best to make a trip to Ann Arbor for books needed for research. Interlibrary loan is available, but it is not any easier or quicker to retrieve a book from the Ann Arbor campus than elsewhere.

The Thompson Library does indeed have reciprocal borrowing arrangements with the libraries of Mott Community College, Baker College of Flint, and Kettering University. However, the number of books that can be borrowed is limited, and the Thompson Library does not share an online catalog with these institutions. Furthermore, there are no agreements for cooperative collection development.

Finally, it is very arguably unethical to rely on the holdings of other institutions to serve the needs of UM-Flint students, faculty, and staff. Students might legitimately wonder what their tuition money pays for if they routinely must go to another library to conduct ordinary research for their classes.

1990 accreditation report

In its report, the accreditation team in 1990 listed among its concerns:
    The library facilities are a major area of concern. This concern encompasses the collection (breadth and depth), space, and accessibility. The growth in graduate programs requires more and better access to relevant periodicals and references. As new programs have been added, the library holdings have not kept pace. ... ("Report of a Visit to University of Michigan-Flint," pp. 27-28).

UM-Flint is going to be evaluated for accreditation from the North Central Association again in 1999. While progress has been made in many areas, (e.g. moving to a facility of adequate size, automating circulation and adding MIRLYN), the Library's slow and inadequate collection growth could be a liability.

Overview of results

The Thompson Library appears to have, on the whole, a solid, albeit slender, core collection of books, and a relatively impoverished periodicals collection. The book collection is aging and badly in need of both pruning and new growth in order to build on the core already in place. More collection development tools (such as bibliographies) are needed to help the librarians and UM-Flint teaching faculty add to the collection in a more systematic manner. Moreover, the lack of a viable collection development policy has probably hampered rational collection growth.

Periodicals

WLN publishes the following standard for periodicals collections:

1bSome general periodicals + Reader's Guide and/or other major general indexes
2aSome general periodicals + Reader's Guide and/or other major general indexes
2b2a + wider selection of general periodicals + 30% or more of titles indexed in the appropriate Wilson subject index + access to that index
3a50% or more of titles indexed in the appropriate Wilson subject index + access to that index
3b75% or more of titles indexed in the appropriate Wilson subject index + access to that index + wide range of basic serials + access to non-bibliographic databases
3c3b + 90% of titles indexed in the appropriate Wilson subject index + access to the major indexing & abstracting services in the field

CAM, p. 69
To check these, a list of Wilson-indexed periodicals was compiled, and the periodicals were assigned call numbers (based on UM-Ann Arbor's or Michigan State University's call numbers) and broken down by WLN division. Next, two percentages were calculated: the percentage currently subscribed to by the Thompson Library and the percentage of the periodicals the Library does not subscribe to but which are available full-text to patrons through FirstSearch, Lexis-Nexis, ProQuest Direct, and SearchBank.

The periodicals collection is inadequate. For the collection as a whole, the Library should attain a collecting level of at least 3b. Of course, individual divisions might call for a higher or lower periodicals rating. Still, once the variations are balanced out, an overall periodicals rating of 3b seems appropriate.

Of the 2,222 Wilson-indexed periodicals surveyed, the Library has ongoing print and/or microfilm subscriptions to 673 (30%). This, in itself, amounts to a conspectus rating of 2b for the collection as a whole. This does not include full-text access through the Web databases. Once full-text access through the Web is included, the number of subscriptions to Wilson-indexed periodicals rises to 1184, bringing the percentage up to 53%.

Although nominally this is within the 3a range, WLN does not regard electronic subscriptions as adequate substitutes for print resources unless, inter alia, they contain "graphics, charts, and other features" (Using the Conspectus Method, p.73). With the partial exception of ProQuest Direct, the full-text Web access that the Thompson Library holds is text-only. For many periodicals, this does not matter, but for some, e.g. arts periodicals, text-only access is no substitute for access in print. Moreover, quality control in the databases is uneven, and students appear, on the whole, less familiar and sometimes less comfortable using electronic full-text.

There are other problems with the Library's periodicals collection:

  • There are not enough periodical subscriptions for an academic library. As of early 1998, the Thompson Library subscribed to 1,185 journals. A comparison with the libraries of peer institutions shows that this is greatly below the average of 2,254 journal subscriptions per library. (See Appendix A).
  • There is inadequate coordination of points of access. This is mainly due to the novelty of electronic access, but it still needs to be addressed.
  • A central journals list is needed. Patrons often have to check two or more lists to determine if a periodical is available at the Library.
  • There are no MIRLYN records for electronic-access journals. Although creating them would require a substantial amount of effort both initially and over time, it is crucial to provide patrons with the information they need to most effectively use the library resources that they are paying for with their tuition.
  • The Library has no control over the journals available through FirstSearch, SearchBank, ProQuest Direct, and Lexis-Nexis. Access to these periodicals can be cancelled by their owners or by the vendors. Numerous full-text periodicals have in fact been cancelled and new ones added. This creates an element of instability to the Library's access to electronic journals.

Funding

According to WLN standards, for a rating of 3b, which is adequate to support an undergraduate collection, a library should collect 15-20% of the total number of academic books published each year. Of course, materials for some divisions should be collected at a higher or lower level, depending on what sort of academic programs they support. Nevertheless, a 3b rating seems like an appropriate goal for the collection as a whole. By this standard, the Library's budget has not grown sufficiently in many years.

According to the Bowker Annual Library and Book Trade Almanac, from 1991 to 1995 there were 307,431 academic books published or otherwise made available in North America. To attain a 3b acquisitions rate, the Library should have added between 46,115 and 61,486 titles to its collection between 1991 and 1995. During this period, however, the Library ordered 33,267 titles (11% of the total) and catalogued 31,315 (10%).

The trend seems to be worsening. In 1996, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 74,262 academic books were published or made available in North America. That year, the Library ordered 4361 monograph titles and catalogued 4636. These amount to, respectively, 5.9% and 6.2% of the total for the year. In 1997, the Library ordered 4,275 titles and catalogued 3,412. These amount to 5.8% or 4.6%, respectively, of the total for 1996. In 1998, the Library ordered 3857 titles (5.2%) and catalogued 4629 (6.2%). The actual percentage of titles acquired in these years is probably even lower, because the publishing output has risen every year since 1991.

The chart below shows the serious falling-off of the already inadequate growth rate (as noted above in the 1990 accreditation report).

The Library's 1997-1998 budget had $117,944 in its free balance (i.e. the amount allocated to academic departments for books, and not carried over from the previous year), plus $25,000 allocated (and not carried over) in funds for reference and individual librarians, for a total of $142,944 for monograph acquisitions. For each division, both the actual free balance and a "weighted total" were factored in. The weighted total represents the free balance plus a proportional share of money from the budgets for reference and the librarians. See the table below for a more detailed summary of these data. The figure for the 1998-99 budget is $107,758 in the free balance, plus $35,608 for librarians and reference, for a total of $143,366. This is an increase of a mere $422. Money carried over from previous budgets was not included, because presumably some money from the current budget will be carried over to the next year. Thus, the carry-over amounts balance each other out.

Based on the 1996 publishing figure, the Library should add between 11,139 and 14,852 titles each year to collect at the 3b level. At an average cost of $49.86 per title, this would cost between $555,391 and $740,520 for book acquisitions alone. (This does not include periodicals, electronic databases or other products, or processing costs). The current budget falls far short of being able to attain this goal.

Because this figure is so much higher than the free balance, a 10% acquisition rate might be a more attainable immediate goal for the collection as a whole. Some divisions would, of course, require a higher percentage (for graduate programs), or a lower percentage (for disciplines not taught at UM-Flint). Any departments that already exceed 10% should at least maintain their existing level of funding, inasmuch as no department (except Education) currently meets WLN standards for acquisitions.

As noted above, a grand total of 74,262 titles were published or made available in 1996. An acquisitions rate of 10% would entail having added about 7426 titles at a total cost of $370,260 for monographs alone (i.e. $227,316, or 159%, more than the actual monographs allocation).

At a 10% acquisitions rate of new materials, there is no danger of running out of space. The Thompson Library building has enough shelf space to hold 350,000 volumes, and there are currently only about 225,000 bound volumes (including periodicals). The extra space, combined with a program of regular and prudent withdrawals of outdated materials (standard practice in most academic libraries), should allow for ample growth of the collection well into the 2020s.

Monograph Acquisitions: Actual & Recommended, 1997-98
Division Book allocation Weighted allocation Est. 1997 price per vol. Est. no. vols. buyable Avg. annual publishing output Est. % of output acquired AC Min. allocation to buy 10% of publishing output
Agriculture - - $59.13 - 910 - 2a $1774*
Anthropology $920** $1115 $31.15 36 486 7% 2b $1526
Art & Architecture $3577 $4335 $47.90 91 2162 4% 2a $10,346
Biological Sciences $4107 $4978 $70.25 71 2081 3% 2a $14,612
Business & Economics
    School of Management
    Economics

$5297
$3876

$6420
$4698

$39.00
$43.94

165
107

3305
2704

5%
4%

2b
2a

$12,909
$11,683

Chemistry $797 $966 $134.32 7 530 1% 2a $7119
Computer Science $4039 $4895 $44.78 109 1436 8% 2b $6448
Education $11,946 $14,478 $30.79 470 1924 24% 3b $14,478*
Engineering & Technology $2910 $3527 $65.63 54 5580 1% 2a $36,521
Geography & Earth Science $3261 $3952 $53.67 74 733 10% 2b/3a $3952
History & Auxiliary Sciences $7970 $9659 $29.19 331 5773 6% 2b $16,843
Language, Linguistics, & Literature
    Foreign Languages
    English

$4557
$10,150

$5523
$12,301

$28.33
$25.95

195
474

4305
6888

5%
7%

2b
2b

$12,182
$17,880

Law - - $52.18 - 1465 - - $7670
Library Science - - $42.92 - 936 - - $4034
Mathematics $2644 $3204 $42.58 75 1555 5% 2b $6642
Medicine
includes Health Care, Medical Technology, Nursing, & Physical Therapy
$14,314 $17,348 $58.02 299 5260 6% 2b $30,519
Music $4466 $5413 $36.42 149 1065 14% 3a $5413*
Performing Arts $2289 $2774 $35.45 78 665 12% 3a $2774
Philosophy & Religion $6643 $8051 $31.70 254 3892 7% 2b $12,331
Physical Education & Recreation - - $27.81 - 146 - 3a $779
Physical Sciences $1384 $1677 $80.47 21 1583 1% 2a $12,714
Political Science $4964 $6016 $41.96 143 1965 7% 2b $8266
Psychology $1322 $1602 $33.96 47 931 5% 2b $3158
Sociology
includes Sociology, Criminal Justice, & Social Work
$12,072** $14,631 $32.77 446 3216 14% 3a $14,631

* To preserve current level of acquisitions
** The Departments of Sociology and Anthropology share a budget; the book allocation is divided based on enrollment. See the reports for Sociology and Anthropology for details.

Summary of ratings

Below is a summary of the conspectus ratings. It shows figures only at the division level; figures for the individual categories are contained in the division reports on the Library's homepage. (See above for an explanation of the ratings).

Ratings
DivisionCurrent LevelAcquisitions CommitmentGoal Level
Agriculture2a2a*2a
Anthropology3a2b**3b
Art & Architecture2b2b3b
Biological Sciences2b2a3b
Business & Economics3a2a3b/3c
Chemistry2b2a3b
Computer Science2a/2b2b3b
Education3a/3b3b3b/3c
Engineering & Technology2a2a2b/3b
Geography & Earth Science2a2b/3a3b
History & Auxiliary Sciences3a2b3b/3c
Language, Linguistics, & Literature3a2b3b/3c
Law3a2b*3b
Library Science3a3a*3b
Mathematics3a/3b2b3b
Medicine2a2a3b/3c
Music3a3a3b
Performing Arts3a3a3b
Philosophy & Religion3a2b3b
Physical Education & Recreation2b3a*2b
Physical Sciences2b2a3b
Political Science3a2b3b/3c
Psychology3a2b3b
Sociology3a3a**3b/3c
Public Administration3a3a*3c
Women's & Gender Studies3b-3b

* Has no departmental allocation; based on acquisitions rate
** Based on shared budget

Select Data Comparison with Peer Institutions
Institution Enrollment* Volumes in
library
Volumes per
student
Periodicals
Drake University (Des Moines, IA)3876475,912122.782955
La Sierra University (Riverside, CA) 1195225,311188.551422
Middle Tennessee State U.12,091604,01749.963507
Pepperdine University (Malibu, CA)5890339,46057.633186
University of San Francisco6808603,34188.622381
University of Texas-Dallas3312554,547167.443811
Northern Michigan University7179511,40471.241932
Indiana University-Northwest4046206,60051.061860
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh10,382400,00038.531790
UM-Dearborn8185284,49434.761209
University of Southern Indiana6280196,41931.281577
Moorhead State University5610367,33465.481601
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater9719352,50036.302036
University of Minnesota-Duluth7497457,00060.962676
SUNY at New Paltz6958470,00067.55NA
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse8659356,27741.151866
UM-Flint4278 180,50742.191185
AVERAGE6586 387,36358.812187
* Estimated; part-time students counted as 0.5 FTE.
Sources: Internal UM-Flint data, College Blue Book, 1997, and American Library Directory, 1997-98.

Division reports:

Thompson Library Home