View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization, 1998-2008

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization, 1998-2008
Language: English
Authors: Regazzi, John J.
Source: College & Research Libraries. Sep 2012 73(5):449-468.
Availability: Association of College and Research Libraries. 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. e-mail: acrl@ala.org; Web site: http://crl.acrl.org
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Academic Libraries, Library Personnel, Expenditures, Users (Information), Surveys, Change, Trend Analysis
DOI: 10.5860/crl-260
ISSN: 0010-0870
Abstract: The study provides an analysis of U.S. academic library spending, staffing and utilization trends from data collected during the period between 1998 and 2008. Data used in this study are part of the NCES biennial survey of approximately 3,700 degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Confirming previous studies, there has been an order of magnitude change in the expenditure of e-books and e-serials; but, contrary to the view of being fiscally restrained, libraries have received investments and increases of approximately 12 percent above inflation over the period with significant increases in nearly every area of library operation. Library staffing is being diversified, while use of physical library assets are in decline for every metric in the study--gate count, reference service, general and reserve circulation. Academic libraries cannot be treated as a homogenous group of institutions, and the study analyzes shifts by type, size, and Carnegie class of institution, illustrating significant difference among these classes of academic libraries, particularly among large doctoral institutions and other academic libraries, with large public and doctoral private institutions driving growth, while small and medium-sized academic libraries have fallen behind in both collections and staff investments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1064874
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHjVLY1mwyh2rJKa-EGnpOQAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMeVrY0JA5KezZ7BpwIBEICBmWccpH04OiecxV5y2qwOfalfS7N5R2NeJSiwEQU1beBJAwQ0tKPCWBqkuW6SKI7OTPfNyM-GcR4GPbxAYYTUfcyHy5APSggxZoaYI4gPnt22f1xKpoJXH78r6dhCDdskoESZtGJqEztza1Qmn6WuQ4i646Y5ReY8-XAB792wfcJjmrP6cxnOT6JvZDr-AGsPU1kOqcMvR-m0Gw==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0079814633;crl01sep.12;2012Sep13.15:09;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN0079814633-1">Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization, 1998-2008 </title> <p>The study provides an analysis of U.S. academic library spending, staffing and utilization trends from data collected during the period between 1998 and 2008. Data used in this study are part of the NCES biennial survey of approximately 3,700 degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Confirming previous studies, there has been an order of magnitude change in the expenditure of e-books and e-serials; but, contrary to the view of being fiscally restrained, libraries have received investments and increases of approximately 12 percent above inflation over the period with significant increases in nearly every area of library operation. Library staffing is being diversified, while use of physical library assets are in decline for every metric in the study -- gate count, reference service, general and reserve circulation. Academic libraries cannot be treated as a homogenous group of institutions, and the study analyzes shifts by type, size, and Carnegie class of institution, illustrating significant difference among these classes of academic libraries, particularly among large doctoral institutions and other academic libraries, with large public and doctoral private institutions driving growth, while small and medium-sized academic libraries have fallen behind in both collections and staff investments.</p> <p>For decades, at professional meeting and in the profes-sional literature, librarians have voiced the view that academic library budgets are being eroded and constrained. These concerns were voiced nearly 30 years ago with the "serials crisis" and the effects that high journal prices were having on the overall fiscal capabilities of academic libraries. Uncertainty in the general economic conditions in the United States, starting a decade ago with the "dot com bust" and as recently as the 2008 recession and recent deficit legislation, has raised more concern regarding the financial viability of academic libraries to meet the growing and changing information demands of students and faculty. This study attempts to provide, however, an evidence-based analysis of U.S. academic library fiscal and funding trends from 1998 to 2008 only, using publicly available research.</p> <p>The study provides an analysis of U.S. academic library spending, staffing, and utilization trends from data collected during the period between 1998 and 2008 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The study seeks to explore and analyze three issues:</p> <olist> <item> What characterizes the shift in overall academic library spending on collections and staffing between 1998 and 2008 and what are the trends that exist according to institutional type (public, private/nonprofit, and private/for-profit), Carnegie classification,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] and size of institution based on student enrollments;</item> <item> What are the shifts in the use of the physical library assets between 1998 and 2008; and</item> <item> Which subsets of institutions, if any, are driving the key changes in library spending, staffing, and utilization?</item> </olist> <hd id="AN0079814633-2">Background</hd> <p>Over the last decade, the role that academic libraries played as a repository of knowledge has come under tremendous economic and technological challenges. A number of studies have identified several key catalysts for these challenges. No longer are academic libraries focused on their traditional mission of being a supporting institution to other academic units. Rather, they are undergoing a transformation to adapt to the changing university campus landscape and, in certain situations, aiming to become the center of scholarly communications.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]</p> <p>In the last decade, the U.S. economy underwent two major financial crises, the dot com bust and the subprime housing market collapse with a period of significant growth between these -- a boom and bust cycle rarely seen in the U.S. economy. These major financial events triggered funding pressures across the globe, resulting in academic libraries facing an intensified period of financial cutbacks.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>] At the same time, the rapidly evolving digital information landscape is forcing academic libraries to adapt from being just a print repository of knowledge to providing a much more diverse set of electronic resources and services, necessitating increased investments that can provide the required higher level of service, but exacerbating funding pressures in this process of transformation. Although most academic libraries receive the majority of their funding from their parent institution and not directly from the government or through private grants, they are nevertheless affected by reductions in private philanthropy and government spending, as their parent institution received their funding from these services, as well as tuition and fees also affected by general economic and market conditions.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]</p> <p>In a landmark study, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) compiled a list of top trends that are affecting academic libraries.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>] Of the top trends, ACRL noted: 1) budget constraints are significant and will affect the development of academic libraries; 2) clientele demands have dictated collection growth toward digital libraries; 3) changes in staffs' skill sets are needed and expanding; and 4) the need to justify the value that academic libraries provide their clientele is increasing steadily.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]</p> <p>Previous studies have looked at these trends from various perspectives. A study conducted by the Lumina Foundation for Education found that academic libraries in the United States are seeing a decline in spending at the end of this past decade from historic highs as a direct result of cutbacks in federal government funding and private sector donations due to the slowdown in the U.S. economy in 2007 and 2008.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>] The prohibitive cost of maintaining a comprehensive collection of research materials particularly for electronic journals with significant price increases over this period of limited budgets and increasing user demands have been equally well documented in this and other studies.</p> <p>Academic libraries' move toward digitalization of their collections will result in additional demands and strain on whatever limited financial resources these libraries have.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>] Although there had been increased overall spending on academic support from 1998 to 2008, according to one study,[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>] such increases are negligible and do not compensate for the rate of inflation over this time period.</p> <p>The changes to digital libraries and user access to electronic information services have resulted in a change of skills required from libraries and librarians. There is now a need for library staffs to have a diversity of skills in technology enabled information access and management systems. The shift from print media to digital services is forcing many academic libraries to reassess the job descriptions and qualifications needed in the contemporary academic library. These new staffing requirements will place additional burdens on an already shrinking funding pool in academic libraries.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>] Others have noted a number of contributors to these trends including: growth in academic library positions not requiring master's degrees in Library Science (MLS); a migration of librarian responsibilities to support staff; increasing use of information technology requiring staff with commensurate skills; and addressing budget shortfalls through deprofessionalization rather than reducing collections.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]</p> <p>With the increased competition for limited financial resources, academic libraries are now facing a need to justify their core existence to their parent institution as well as their clientele. As a result, academic libraries are being pressured to demonstrate the value that they can impart to a student learning outcome. To assist academic libraries in documenting the value of the services they provide, there are several studies into this area, the most notable of which is the ACRL's research project called "Value, Outcomes and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries."[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>] These efforts attempt to document the value of the use of the library for academic faculty, students, and staff in support of their work in the university environment. Since academic libraries are already repository of knowledge, some have seen these accountability demands as an opportunity to capitalize on the effective exploitation of expanded knowledge management initiatives.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>]</p> <p>Some view these challenges as a mixture of threats and opportunities. Many have argued that academic libraries are currently going through a challenging time and many are facing significant financial constraints. This study will look at the overall reported financial, staffing, and utilization trends of academic libraries and analyze how different types of academic libraries may face these challenges differently.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-3">Methodology</hd> <p>Data used in this study is part of the NCES biennial survey of approximately 3,700 U.S. degree-granting postsecond-ary institutions to provide an overview of academic libraries nationwide. The data analyzed for this study comes specifically from the NCES Library Statistics Program. NCES makes available data files for public use for each year in which the survey is conducted. For the purposes of this study, 1998, 2004, and 2008 data were used. The reason for the use of these years is based, in part, on the growth of electronic holdings by libraries after 1998. Indeed, in the documentation that accompanies the data collected during 1998, the NCES notes:</p> <p>In 1998, a substantial number of additional changes were made [to the survey], especially in the collections and expenditures sections. These changes reflect the extensive changes in library services that have occurred with regard to the development of electronic media.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-4">Data Limitations</hd> <p>As is the case with any data set populated by survey responses, there are some inherent limitations that should be recognized and understood before interpreting the results. These limitations can be organized into two areas: those due to methodology and those due to definitional constraints.</p> <p>Methodological limitations include the following three: 1) due to the fact that not every institution responds to the survey, there is the possibility that differences in institution characteristics between responders and nonresponders might distort the results. The percentage of responding libraries has declined between 1998 and 2008, though even the lowest response rate of 86.7 percent in 2008 is very high relative to similar survey efforts, and it is unlikely that statistical outcomes are impacted in any substantive sense; 2) in some cases where institutions responded to the survey but did not provide information to individual items, data have been imputed based upon an established methodology developed by the NCES;[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>] 3) general methodological limitations inherent in any survey research effort, based on sampling errors (noted in the first bullet) and nonsampling errors, meaning errors made by respondents or in the editing of data by the NCES.</p> <p>Definitional limitations impact the ability to analyze collections information related to electronic holdings, in particular serial subscriptions. This is due to the fact that respondents are instructed to count titles twice if they are delivered in both paper and electronic format. This results in two main limitations since 1) respondents were instructed to report separate counts for paper and electronic serials in 1998, making comparisons between paper and electronic holdings with future years impossible; and 2) this eliminates the possibility of developing per-unit costs for electronic serial holdings. This limitation also impacts the ability to analyze expenditures for librarians and other professionals separately, since these reported expenditures are aggregated for librarians/other professionals and not tracked separately.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-5">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0079814633-6">Shifts in Library Expenditures, 1998-2008</hd> <p>This section provides estimates of library expenditures for the period 1998-2008 as well as indications on whether any of these changes are significant. For the purposes of this report, significance testing is based on the results of evaluations between either totals or means for one group and confidence intervals for a comparison group.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>] Throughout this report, an alpha level of .05 was used to determine confidence intervals used in evaluating significance.</p> <p>Figure 1 indicates changes in inflation-adjusted spending in $000 from 1998 to 2008 for all libraries in the study for each major expense category.</p> <p>Table 1 provides expenditure estimates for all institutions for the years 1998 and 2008, as well as indications of significant differences for each of the periods. As figure 1 and table 1 both indicate, there has been an order of magnitude change in the expenditure of electronic books and serials over the time period 1998-2008, a near 4-fold increase and 7-fold increase, respectively. Beyond e-materials and contrary to the view of the fiscally restrained, libraries have received investments and increases of approximately 12 percent above inflation over the period with significant increases in nearly every area of library operation, including 10 percent and 23 percent inflation-adjusted growth for staffing and collection development respectively.</p> <p>Type of Institution. In addition to prominent shifts in the use of e-materials, there are a number of other areas that have seen significant increases (or decreases) and indicate the underlying sea changes taking place in our nation's academic libraries. Table 2 provides a more in-depth view of these changes by viewing them according to institution type, a category that includes public sector institutions, private sector institutions (not-for-profit), and private sector institutions (for-profit). In terms of the increase in the number of institutions, the private/for-profit entities have experienced the greatest increase over the time period from 1998 to 2008. In 1998, there were 457 institutions classified in the survey as private, for-profit, representing roughly 12 percent of all institutions. In 2008, 1 in 5 institutions are now classified as private, for-profit institutions, a more than 60 percent increase in the ten-year period. Public sector and private/ nonprofit institutions, by contrast, have declined over that same period.</p> <p>There are some general observations that can be made upon an examination of table 2, as follows:</p> <p>* There are significant changes across all institutions regardless of type (in some cases, these changes are declines in spending); however, increases in spending on electronic books, serial subscriptions, electronic serials, and other information resources show significant increases, regardless of institution type; * In terms of total volume of spending, public and private/nonprofit institutions maintain the vast majority of spending, making up 98 percent across all three types; nevertheless, in terms of percentage changes, private/ for-profit institutions have nearly doubled total expenditures on an inflation-adjusted basis, reflecting of course the smaller base in 1998 and the explosive unit growth in institutions over the period;</p> <p>* The increase in spending on electronic materials has occurred at the same time that there have been significant declines in spending on computer hardware and software. This is likely due to the shift in usage from library-centered applications to the availability of library materials via the Internet; as this trend has increased, the use of library-centered equipment has declined.</p> <p>* Mass digitization of materials coupled with increasing use of digital access has led to the declining relative value of print materials held by libraries. This shift is likely to become of even greater importance when taking into account the cost of print material or storage costs. While the level of spending on electronic books is still low relative to paper expenditures, the ratio between spending on paper and e-book purchases has declined from 18 to 5 (adjusted for inflation) between 1998 and 2008.</p> <p>* In terms of items in which there has been a decline (in some instances, significant), Preservation and Computer Hardware/Software have seen the largest declines across all three types.</p> <p>Carnegie Classification. Table 3 provides estimates of changes in expenditures according to the Carnegie classification categories that contain the largest number of institutions: entities that grant doctoral, master's, baccalaureate, and associate degrees, as well as all other institutions. For the purposes of this draft, this analysis includes all three institution types: public, private/nonprofit, and pri-vate/for-profit.</p> <p>As is apparent in the tables presented to this point, significant changes are found across all institution types according to our collapsed Carnegie typology. In particular, electronic books, serial subscriptions, and electronic serials have seen significant increases in expenditures on an inflation-adjusted basis. Interestingly, traditional books have seen significant declines among both master and baccalaureate degree-granting entities, in direct contrast to doctoral institutions, which have also experienced a significant increase in inflation-adjusted expenditures for printed books between 1998 and 2008.</p> <p>Size of Institution. An additional manner by which to view differences in spending is to segment institutions according to size. This is based on the enrollment data as provided through the IPEDS[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>] public use data files. Segments according to size are based on information provided by the Carnegie Foundation and how they define classification segments. In the case of both type of institution and Carnegie classification, our size categories are closely matched to differences between those two variables, as table 4 below indicates. This similarity exists for both 1998 and 2008 data.</p> <p>Table 5 provides information on changes in expenditures by size class. The size class of each institution is based solely on the level of enrollment at each institution. The categories indicating size class (<1,000; 1,000-2,999; 3,000-9,999; and 10,000+) are based on those used by the Carnegie Foundation in classifying four-year institutions.</p> <p>As noted in previous tables, table 5 indicates further significant changes in the other areas. The increase in expenditures (inflation-adjusted) for electronic books, electronic serials, and other information resources has been significant regardless of size class designation. However, Preservation has seen significant declines across all size class categories, with the largest decline in the size class category 3,000-9,999, generally associated with public institutions.</p> <p>Figure 2 plots all these institutional variables, type (with private/nonprofit and private/for-profit grouped together), Carnegie classification, and size on two dimensions: staff expenditure and collection expenditures. Depending upon how much libraries increased or decreased their spending for staff and collections, four quadrants of library development over the period were constructed: expanding staff (those with increased staff expenditure and decreased collections expenditures), expanding collections (increased collections expenditures and decreased staffing expenditures), balanced leading (increased expenditures in both staffing and collections) and balanced lagging (decreased expenditures for both staffing and collections expenditures). The size of the bubble represents the total expenditure for that category of library. Additional axes were also created using the average increased spend for staffing (9.5%) and collections (22%) across the entire population. For example, in figure 2 the bubbles in the upper right corner of the graph illustrate that large and doctoral institutional libraries have increased their collections and staff spending well above the mean for all libraries during the period, while the bubbles in the lower left corner of the graph demonstrate that small and very small libraries have lagged the group in both staffing and collection development.</p> <p>What is clear from this graph is that the large, doctoral, private universities are driving and leading the investments in academic libraries, with inflation-adjusted increases of 13 percent for staff and 25 percent for collections. Many other libraries, particularly small to medium-sized public and community college libraries, are not able to keep up with this pace of investment. Small and medium-sized libraries are lagging far behind, with decreases in both staff and collections expenditures and total expenditure. Though community college libraries have decreased their investments in collections, they have increased their staffing expenses over the period.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-7">Shifts in Staffing, 1998-2008</hd> <p>This section explores shifts in the use of librarians and other professional staff between the years 1998 and 2008 across institution classes as explored in the previous section. Across all institutions, while changes in the staffing level of librarians has increased slightly (9%), the use of other professional staff has increased at a much more significant rate (51% in the time period under study). The use of all other paid staff (except student assistants) has declined by 6 percent, and student assistant staffing has declined by 15 percent. Table 6 provides this information according to Carnegie classification. Analysis is based on mean staff FTEs per institution; expenditures per institution, and expenditures per staff FTE per institution, which may be thought of as annual average wages per occupational category. Analyzing changes based on mean levels allows us to discern changes from 1998 to 2008, taking into account increases based on increases or decreases in the number of institutions participating in the study.</p> <p>The trend in using other professional staff over the past decade is revealed most clearly when looking at differences according to Carnegie classification. Figure 3 presents these trends in visual form, looking specifically at the change in staffing by Carnegie classification between 1998 and 2008.</p> <p>While FTEs per institution overall across all libraries was down by 8 percent over the period 1998-2008, all libraries increased their use of other professional staff by 44 percent. This was driven heavily by the use of other professional staff among doctoral research institutions. On a ratio basis, for every one staff FTE added as librarian staff to doctoral research institutions, 13 other professional FTEs were added. The increase in FTE/institution was from 10.1 to 16.2 among doctoral institutions; this compares to 0.3,0.2,0.2, and 0.1 among masters', baccalaureate, associate, and all other institutions, respectively, over the same time period. Doctoral institutions also drive total spending on staff as over half (53%) of all staff-related spending by all institutions in 2008 was by doctoral institutions.</p> <p>In terms of institutional type (public, private/nonprofit, private/for-profit), staffing among public and private/ nonprofit has followed overall trends noted above generally. In the case of private/for-profit institutions, the use of all staff has increased considerably (again, most likely following the general increase of these institutions), but most rapidly (165% and 164% respectively) for other professional and all other paid staff.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-8">Shifts in Library Utilization, 1998-2008</hd> <p>The following section provides an analysis of shifts in library utilization between 1998 and 2008. This is based on the creation of a metric that attempts to account for increases in enrollment and/or increases in the number of library hours. Otherwise, what might seem like increases in utilization (at an aggregate level) may in fact be simply due to increases in enrollment and/or hours.</p> <p>This is achieved by calculating a ratio that is the product of the Gate Count (number of persons who physically enter library facilities in a typical week), Hours Open, and Enrollment. Not included in this analysis are those libraries in which their entire collection is electronic.[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>] Our measure therefore is Gate Count / Hours / Enrollment; this is then scaled by 1,000 to arrive at essentially a gate count per hour per 1,000 enrollments. Table 7 provides these estimates and results of significance testing by our selected Carnegie classes, institution type, and size class.</p> <p>As can be seen in table 7, there has been decline in nearly all tracked metrics of library utilizations when normalized for student enrollment and available hours of the library. For example, the gate count of visitors in a typical week on an overall unadjusted basis has gone from 16.2 million in 1998 to 20.3 million in 2008; but when normalized by hours open and enrollment results in declines in all categories except baccalaureate, and small and medium-sized universities, and instead of a nearly 25 percent increase in gate count in the aggregate, there is a nearly 50 percent decline when normalized for hours open and student enrollment. Utilization of the general collection, the reserve collection, and reference transactions have declined in all classes of libraries regardless of type, size, and Carnegie category.</p> <p>These trends may reflect the changing trends of the functional use of libraries from central depositories of circulating collections to shared meeting spaces. As the space allocated to paper-based resources continues to contract, this space is being repurposed toward meeting space, collaboration, and, in some cases, the use of the library for academic support services. As the metrics in this study indicate, however, the utilization of the library even as new "collaboration space" is in decline in most institutions. Figure 4 provides a visual indication of these trends -- again, buoyed in large part by larger institutions and in particular those classified by doctoral research. Despite a nearly 7-fold increase in collection expenditures for large, doctoral, and public institutions, their utilization of the library has declined by 15%-20%. Small to medium-sized baccalaureate and master's institutions, while making significant increased investments in their collections, have also seen a slight increase in library utilization over the period.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-9">Shifts in Cost per Unit, 1998-2008</hd> <p>Table 8 takes available data and calculates per unit costs for 1) books, 2) e-books, 3) audiovisual materials, and 4) all serials (both print and e-serial acquisitions) for the periods indicated. Physical materials (books and audiovisuals) remain largely the same over the period, while e-books and e-serials (with increased overall expenditures as indicated earlier) have shown dramatic decreases, of 72.7 percent for e-books and 87.1 percent for serials in per-unit costs. It appears that libraries are generating significant value in their e-materials investments, while their investments in physical collections have not been similarly improving, remaining flat, or increasing.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-10">Conclusions</hd> <p>The study confirms a number of findings from previous studies and discussions regarding academic library trends, while also demonstrating some countervailing evidence regarding previously held notions about academic libraries.</p> <p>Academic librarians and administrators as a group may indeed feel constrained by budget; but, over the study period, academic libraries have grown in real dollars by nearly 12 percent above inflation; their professional staffs have grown by nearly 15 percent, and funding for these staffs have increased by over 22 percent. In addition, their collections have been expanded by over 23 percent in current dollar funding, and serial and e-book collections have delivered dramatic value as indicated by reductions in per-unit costs. In fact, few other educational institutions can point to such progress.</p> <p>What also seems clear is that academic libraries cannot be treated as a homogenous group of institutions and that the drivers of the growth in this community come from the large, doctoral, private institutions; these libraries are far outpacing the growth of the group as a whole, particularly the investments that small, masters and baccalaureate, and public institutions can sustain.</p> <p>Staffing is indeed diversifying, as suggested by earlier studies. Nonlibrarian professionals are the fastest-growing group of staff, with an increase of over 60 percent of other professionals added to doctoral institutions and 50 percent in private institutions during the period. Librarians as a group have remained constant, with no significant increases across all academic libraries, while other paid staff and library assistants have been reduced, presumably to fund in part the expansion of other professional staff.</p> <p>With a very few exceptions, the use of the library physical (nonelectronic) assets are on a precipitous decline, when normalized for student enrollment and hours open. Visitors to the library measured by gate counts are down significantly in most categories of analysis, with private universities down by 50 percent; reference transactions have significantly declined in all categories of analysis and in doctoral universities are down 75 percent, and large institutions are down 64 percent in the period analyzed. Circulation of both general and reserve collections are also down in all categories of analysis, with a 68 percent and 62 percent decline in general collection circulations at public and private institutions respectively, and a 71 percent decline in reserve circulations at private nonprofit institutions and an 83 percent decline at for-profit institutions. (The use of electronic materials was not part of this study, as such data is not yet available in the survey data used.)</p> <p>It does seem clear that libraries are operating in two distinct environments where they make major investments in electronic services and new staff skills to support those services, while also trying to operate the physical library and its print collections. It is hard to imagine that this bifurcation of resources and programs is sustainable over a long period of time. It may well be that managing both the print collections with the requisite staff, while also investing in the electronic future and the skills needed to drive these new initiatives, is what is beginning to strain library resources.</p> <p>Finally, it is clear from the data available that libraries are generating strong returns in their investments in electronic resources -- in particular, e-books and e-serials, which are part of the digital libraries now available in the marketplace. Libraries and their institutions have benefitted from these electronic materials acquisitions as measured by reductions in per-unit costs. Though total acquisition costs of e-books and e-serials have increased by 261 percent and 507 percent respectively, as noted earlier a 79 percent decrease in e-book per-unit costs and an 87 percent decrease in per-unit serial subscriptions have been realized across all libraries in the period 1998-2008.</p> <hd id="AN0079814633-11">TABLE 1 Change in Expenditures and Units Obtained, 1998-2008 / $Thousands</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-12"> Legend for Chart: A - Expenditure Items B - Expenditures and Units 1998 $000S C - Expenditures and Units 1998 Units D - Expenditures and Units 2004 $000S E - Expenditures and Units 2004 Units F - Expenditures and Units 2008 $000S G - Expenditures and Units 2008 Units H - Percent Change 1998-2004 $000S I - Percent Change 1998-2004 Units J - Percent Change 2004-2008 $000S K - Percent Change 2004-2008 Units L - Percent Change 1998-2008 $000S M - Percent Change 1998-2008 Units A B C D E F G H I J K L M Staffing Librarians / Other Prof $1,524,000 29,973 $1,768,219 32,212 $1,865,188 34,450 16.0% 7.5% 5.5% 6.9% 22.4% 14.9% All Other Paid Staff $1,134,350 37,092 $1,171,539 36,689 $1,115,196 34,723 3.3% -1.1% -4.8% -5.4% -1.7% -6.4% Student Assistants $280,965 28,372 $260,241 25,038 $237,735 24,115 -7.4% -11.8% -8.6% -3.7% -15.4% -15.0% Subtotal $2,939,315 96,557 $3,199,999 93,939 $3,218,119 93,288 8.9% -2.7% 0.6% -0.7% 9.5% -3.4% Collections Books $754,764 972,782 $741,149 1,105,284 $787,448 1,262,987 -1.8% 13.6% 6.2% 14.3% 4.3% 29.8% Paper/Microform $677,312 877,126 $626,276 980,635 $610,072 1,050,433 -7.5% 11.8% -2.6% 7.1% -9.9% 19.8% Electronic Books $37,033 3,467 $74,774 32,769 $133,564 102,476 101.9% 845.2% 78.6% 212.7% 260.7% 2855.8% Audio Visual $40,419 92,190 $40,099 91,880 $43,812 110,078 -0.8% -0.3% 9.3% 19.8% 8.4% 19.4% Serial Subscription $1,284,335 7,537 $1,551,068 12,757 $1,700,100 25,327 20.8% 69.3% 9.6% 98.5% 32.4% 236.0% Paper/Microform $1,119,141 N/A $1,005,090 N/A $697,866 N/A -10.2% N/A -30.6% N/A -37.6% N/A Electronic Serials $165,195 $545,979 $1,002,234 230.5% 83.6% 506.7% Document Delivery $25,453 16,889 $28,269 18,705 $30,484 21,774 11.1% 10.8% 7.8% 16.4% 19.8% 28.9% Preservation $56,553 N/A $48,955 N/A $41,522 N/A -13.4% N/A -15.2% N/A -26.6% N/A Other Info Resources $44,912 3,364 $85,056 1,908 $97,991 3,569 89.4% -43.3% 15.2% 87.1% 118.2% 6.1% Subtotal $2,166,018 1,000,572 $2,454,496 1,138,654 $2,657,545 1,313,656 13.3% 13.8% 8.3% 15.4% 22.7% 31.3% Operations Computer Equipment $216,577 N/A $162,951 N/A $158,394 N/A -24.8% N A -2.8% N/A -26.9% N/A Bibliographic Utilities $118,075 N/A $115,279 N/A $113,222 N/A -2.4% N/A -1.8% N/A -4.1% N/A All Other Op Expenses $471,048 N/A $463,372 N/A $466,020 N/A -1.6% N/A 0.6% N/A -1.1% N/A Subtotal $805,700 N/A $741,603 N/A $737,636 N/A -8.0% N/A -0.5% N/A -8.4% N/A Unreported Expenditures $139,359 N/A $145,867 N/A $157,749 N/A 4.7% N/A 8.1% N/A 13.2% N/A Totals $6,050,392 N/A $6,541,965 N/A $6,771,048 N/A 8.1% N/A 3.5% N/A 11.9% N/A Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated in bold; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-13">TABLE 2 Change in Expenditures, 1998-2008 (by Institution Type) / $Thousands</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-14"> Legend for Chart: A - ITEM B - 1998 C - 2008 D - 1998 E - 2008 F - 1998 G - 2008 A B C D E F G Public Private Non-Profit Private For-Profit Sample Size (Institutions) 1578 1571 1618 1515 457 742 Staffing Librarians / Other Prof $939,494 $1,123,028 $577,137 $722,135 $7,370 $20,024 All Other Paid Staff $754,428 $733,993 $377,680 $374,000 $2,243 $7,204 Student Assistants $176,031 $139,599 $102,478 $93,667 $2,456 $4,469 Subtotal $1,869,953 $1,996,620 $1,057,294 $1,189,802 $12,068 $31,697 Collections Books $422,122 $425,813 $323,803 $347,181 $8,840 $14,454 Paper/Microform $378,692 $326,624 $291,377 $273,047 $7,243 $10,401 Electronic Books $17,450 $74,126 $18,854 $56,986 $729 $2,452 Audio Visual $25,980 $25,062 $13,571 $17,149 $868 $1,601 Serial Subscription $781,490 $1,013,699 $497,141 $669,574 $5,704 $16,827 Paper/Microform $686,868 $387,416 $428,755 $305,096 $3,518 $5,353 Electronic Serials $94,622 $626,283 $68,387 $364,478 $2,186 $11,474 Document Delivery $16,176 $18,718 $9,183 $10,768 $94 $997 Preservation $32,453 $23,238 $23,972 $18,207 $128 $76 Other Info Resources $21,457 $50,434 $22,929 $46,975 $525 $582 Subtotal $1,273,698 $1,531,903 $877,028 $1,092,705 $15,291 $32,937 Operations Computer Equipment $130,916 $99,934 $81,188 $56,129 $4,472 $2,330 Bibliographic Utilities $61,878 $64,756 $55,531 $47,422 $667 $1,044 All Other Op Expenses $261,640 $254,855 $206,041 $209,396 $3,367 $1,769 Subtotal $454,434 $419,545 $342,760 $312,948 $8,506 $5,143 Unreported Expenditures $59,736 $68,534 $60,874 $56,680 $18,750 $32,535 Totals $3,657,820 $4,016,601 $2,337,956 $2,652,136 $54,615 $102,311 Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated in bold; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars.</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-15">TABLE 3 Change in Expenditures, 1998-2008 (By Selected Carnegie Class) / $Thousands</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-16"> Legend for Chart: A - ITEM B - 1998 C - 2008 D - 1998 E - 2008 F - 1998 G - 2008 H - 1998 I - 2008 J - 1998 K - 2008 A B C D E F G H I J K Doctoral Masters Baccalaureate Associate All Other Sample Size (Institutions) 234 256 521 580 603 543 1217 1349 1078 1100 Staffing Librarians / Other Prof $724,170 $958,153 $325,780 $368,011 $144,676 $156,765 $213,235 $257,637 $116,139 $124,622 Ail Other Paid Staff $613,253 $626,656 $214,343 $206,376 $79,319 $75,997 $157,456 $152,670 $69,980 $53,498 Student Assistants $153,202 $129,591 $58,717 $50,315 $33,903 $26,934 $19,143 $17,970 $16,000 $12,924 Subtotal $1,490,624 $1,714,400 $598,839 $624,702 $257,899 $259,696 $389,834 $428,277 $202,118 $191,044 Collections Books $379,493 $470,697 $145,208 $125,351 $90,006 $69,762 $87,303 $77,431 $52,755 $44,207 Paper/Microform $348,705 $363,924 $130,370 $99,695 $81,084 $56,018 $71,217 $58,244 $45,936 $32,191 Electronic Books $19,324 $90,512 $5,995 $16,476 $3,594 $8,272 $5,109 $9,598 $3,012 $8,706 Audio Visual $11,464 $16,261 $8,843 $9,179 $5,328 $5,473 $10,976 $9,589 $3,807 $3,310 Serial Subscription $758,652 $1,085,890 $251,276 $300,797 $107,828 $132,405 $58,638 $58,217 $107,941 $122,790 Paper/Microform $679,785 $400,555 $212,917 $145,536 $91,345 $67,553 $42,699 $28,324 $92,395 $55,897 Electronic Serials $78,868 $685,335 $38,359 $155,261 $16,483 $64,852 $15,939 $29,893 $15,546 $66,893 Document Delivery $15,336 $18,932 $4,636 $5,212 $2,289 $3,161 $840 $890 $2,352 $2,289 Preservation $37,578 $29,473 $9,182 $5,399 $5,124 $3,791 $1,065 $780 $3,603 $2,078 Other Info Resources $37,239 $70,199 $2,215 $11,243 $1,060 $4,500 $1,923 $3,269 $2,475 $8,780 Subtotal $1,228,299 $1,675,192 $412,516 $448,003 $206,307 $213,618 $149,769 $140,587 $169,126 $180,145 Operations Computer Equipment $109,742 $95,533 $40,943 $27,773 $18,154 $10,715 $25,433 $13,481 $22,305 $10,891 Bibliographic Utilities $50,120 $52,157 $26,956 $26,743 $17,748 $14,216 $13,014 $12,252 $10,238 $7,854 All Other Op Expenses $317,099 $336,204 $63,173 $61,556 $30,689 $29,462 $30,296 $21,454 $29,790 $17,344 Subtotal $476,961 $483,894 $131,072 $116,073 $66,591 $54,392 $68,742 $47,188 $62,333 $36,088 Unreported Expenditures $579 $13,637 $4,582 $9,376 $17,102 $15,306 $59,195 $61,856 $57,901 $57,574 Totals $3,196,463 $3,887,123 $1,147,010 $1,198,154 $547,899 $543,013 $667,541 $677,908 $491,478 $464,851 Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated in bold; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars.</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-17">TABLE 4 Relation of Size Class to Type and Carnegie Class</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-18"> Legend for Chart: A - Size Class (Enrolled) B - Institution Type Public C - Institution Type Private Non-Profit D - Institution Type Private For-Profit E - Selected Carnegie Classification Doctoral F - Selected Carnegie Classification Masters G - Selected Carnegie Classification Baccalaureate A B C D E F G .. 1,000 * * * 1,000-2,999 * * 3,000-9,999 * * 10,000 + * * Note: * indicates primary category (> 50%) by size class; two categories indicated means neither achieved 50%.</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-19">TABLE 5 Change in Expenditures, 1998-2008 (by Size Class) / $Thousands</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-20"> Legend for Chart: A - ITEM B - 1998 C - 2008 D - 1998 E - 2008 F - 1998 G - 2008 H - 1998 I - 2008 A B C D E F G H I Less than 1,000 1,000-2,999 3,000 - 9,999 10,000+ Sample Size (Institutions) 1377 1363 1053 990 832 943 391 532 Staffing Librarians / Other Prof $77,701 $68,317 $222,659 $215,484 $400,780 $434,075 $822,859 $1,147,313 All Other Paid Staff $35,523 $24,795 $131,190 $100,805 $271,268 $232,626 $696,369 $756,970 Student Assistants $12,778 $9,463 $41,297 $31,861 $56,019 $47,575 $170,870 $148,835 Subtotal $126,002 $102,575 $395,146 $348,151 $728,068 $714,276 $1,690,098 $2,053,117 Collections Books $47,018 $34,346 $124,000 $87,335 $181,192 $150,586 $402,555 $515,181 Paper/Microform $40,869 $25,848 $109,650 $69,226 $157,200 $115,633 $369,593 $399,366 Electronic Books $2,787 $5,971 $5,325 $10,612 $10,807 $23,108 $18,113 $93,873 Audio Visual $3,361 $2,527 $9,024 $7,497 $13,185 $11,846 $14,849 $21,942 Serial Subscription $61,960 $58,198 $178,018 $184,959 $281,352 $331,091 $763,005 $1,125,852 Paper/Microform $51,498 $32,070 $151,043 $90,650 $237,352 $151,105 $679,247 $424,041 Electronic Serials $10,462 $26,128 $26,975 $94,309 $44,000 $179,986 $83,758 $701,812 Document Delivery $1,576 $895 $3,836 $3,759 $4,797 $5,660 $15,244 $20,169 Preservation $2,494 $1,390 $6,858 $4,374 $10,665 $6,915 $36,535 $28,843 Other Info Resources $1,997 $4,177 $2,003 $9,141 $6,559 $16,213 $34,354 $68,460 Subtotal $115,045 $99,007 $314,714 $289,568 $484,565 $510,465 $1,251,694 $1,758,505 Operations Computer Equipment $17,291 $6,988 $33,069 $17,374 $44,804 $30,037 $121,413 $103,995 Bibliographic Utilities $9,189 $6,457 $23,728 $18,709 $33,093 $29,193 $52,065 $58,862 All Other Op Expenses $18,545 $10,647 $47,941 $33,872 $82,400 $79,719 $322,162 $341,783 Subtotal $45,025 $24,091 $104,738 $69,955 $160,298 $138,949 $495,639 $504,640 Unreported Expenditures $69,924 $68,567 $46,219 $43,841 $19,974 $29,547 $3,242 $15,795 Totals $355,996 $294,240 $860,818 $751,515 $1,392,905 $1,393,236 $3,440,672 $4,332,057 Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated in bold; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars.</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-21">TABLE 6 Change in Staffing, 1998-2008 (by Selected Carnegie Class)</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-22"> Legend for Chart: A - ITEM B - 1998 C - 2008 D - 1998 E - 2008 F - 1998 G - 2008 H - 1998 I - 2008 J - 1998 K - 2008 L - 1998 M - 2008 A B C D E F G H I J K L M Doctoral Masters Baccalaureate Associate All Other Total Sample Size (Institutions) 234 256 521 580 603 543 1217 1349 1078 1100 3653 3828 Change in Staffing (FTE per Institution) Librarians 44.74 45.19 10.08 9.76 4.55 5.02 3.09 3.28 2.35 2.35 6.78 7.04 Other Professional Staff 10.13 16.18 1.60 1.91 0.84 1.00 0.61 0.77 0.47 0.59 1.36 1.96 All Other Paid Staff 81.86 70.92 13.80 11.44 4.90 5.00 4.25 3.86 2.43 1.83 10.15 9.07 Student Assistants 50.14 40.14 12.17 9.56 7.29 5.90 2.81 2.29 2.30 1.82 7.77 6.30 Total FTE Staff 187.34 172.43 38.01 32.67 18.06 16.91 11.13 10.20 7.87 6.60 26.43 24.37 Change in Staffing (Expenditures per Institution) / $Thousand Librarians/Other Prof $3,108 $3,757 $636 $658 $286 $344 $293 $338 $259 $341 $628 $778 All Other Paid Staff $2,621 $2,487 $429 $381 $162 $174 $157 $148 $82 $67 $368 $365 Student Assistants $660 $518 $120 $97 $65 $62 $31 $24 $28 $19 $116 $90 Total FTE Staff $6,398 $6,974 $1,154 $1,211 $444 $591 $427 $411 $387 $263 $1,062 $1,214 Change in Staffing (Expenditures per FTE per Institution) Librarians/Other Prof $55,538 $58,448 $52,206 $52,599 $45,605 $47,483 $54,739 $53,778 $48,090 $49,819 $51,223 $52,209 All Other Paid Staff $31,124 $33,080 $29,479 $30,214 $27,149 $27,480 $32,138 $30,783 $28,914 $29,871 $30,000 $30,229 Student Assistants $12,744 $12,540 $10,012 $10,228 $8,887 $9,198 $7,611 $7,976 $9,203 $9,786 $9,348 $9,721 Total FTE Staff $32,776 $36,724 $29,304 $32,326 $22,358 $28,950 $27,698 $32,192 $23,320 $28,277 $26,510 $31,271 Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated in bold; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars.</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-23">TABLE 7 Change in Utilization, 1998-2008</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-24"> Legend for Chart: A - ITEM B - Sample Size 1998 C - Sample Size 2008 D - Mean Gate Count / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 1998 E - Mean Gate Count / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 2008 F - Mean Gate Count / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) Sig Test G - Mean General Circulation / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 1998 H - Mean General Circulation / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 2008 I - Mean General Circulation / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) Sig Test J - Mean Reserve Circulation / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 1998 K - Mean Reserve Circulation / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 2008 L - Mean Reserve Circulation / Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) Sig Test M - Mean Ref Transactions/ Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 1998 N - Mean Ref Transactions/ Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) 2008 O - Mean Ref Transactions/ Hour Open (per 1,000 Enrollment) Sig Test A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Carnegie Class Doctoral 234 256 15.05 14.03 NEG 209.97 122.44 NEG 50.41 40.04 NEG 2.32 0.58 NEG Masters 521 580 15.23 14.89 NEG 115.85 75.20 NEG 24.03 23.76 NEG 1.38 0.68 NEG Baccalaureate 603 543 24.25 27.27 POS 200.08 157.02 NEG 54.95 50.30 NEG 2.16 1.31 NEG Associate 1217 1349 15.63 14.93 NEG 101.42 55.08 NEG 31.08 14.41 NEG 2.91 1.79 NEG All Other 1078 1100 102.85 33.73 NEG 1,253.92 285.94 NEG 326.23 64.65 NEG 12.20 4.45 NEG Type Public 1578 1571 18.06 13.71 NEG 194.69 63.79 NEG 37.91 19.77 NEG 2.21 0.99 NEG Private/Non-Profit 1618 1515 68.88 33.21 NEG 668.16 259.59 NEG 188.30 55.90 NEG 7.83 2.95 NEG Private/For-Profit 457 742 28.49 16.47 NEG 519.35 58.97 NEG 105.50 17.85 NEG 5.88 3.38 NEG Size Class (Enrollment) .. 1,000 1377 1363 88.16 33.71 NEG 1,029.75 253.94 NEG 272.85 58.55 NEG 11.29 4.68 NEG 1,000-2,999 1053 990 18.57 20.72 POS 147.87 115.43 NEG 42.23 35.87 NEG 1.96 1.22 NEG 3,000 - 9,999 832 943 12.61 12.86 POS 93.62 58.58 NEG 25.63 20.02 NEG 1.27 0.70 NEG 10,000 + 391 532 11.51 10.54 NEG 131.40 70.70 NEG 30.43 26.41 NEG 1.62 0.58 NEG Total 3653 3828 41.65 21.96 NEG 440.97 141.76 NEG 111.67 35.80 NEG 5.13 2.22 NEG Note: Significant changes at the alpha=.05 level indicated under SIG TEST; Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars.</ct> <hd id="AN0079814633-25">TABLE 8 Change in Per Unit Expenditures, 1998-2008</hd> <ct id="AN0079814633-26"> Legend for Chart: A - Item B - 1998 Thousands $000S C - 1998 Thousands Units Added (FY) D - 1998 $ / Unit E - 2004 Thousands $000S F - 2004 Thousands Units Added (FY) G - 2004 $ / Unit H - 2008 Thousands $000S I - 2008 Thousands Units Added (FY) J - 2008 $ / Unit A B C D E F G H I J Books $677,312 24,500 $27.65 $626,276 24,573 $25.49 $610,072 23,956 $25.47 Electronic Books $37,033 1,138 $32.55 $74,774 14,239 $5.25 $133,564 20,012 $6.67 Audio Visual $40,419 3,179 $12.72 $40,099 3,965 $10.11 $43,812 3,399 $12.89 Serial Subscription $1,284,335 337 $3,811.76 $1,551,068 1,363 $1,137.65 $1,700,100 3,463 $490.97 Note: Dollar values expressed in 2008 constant dollars.</ct> <p>FIGURE 1 Changes in Spending by Expense Category, 1998-2008</p> <p>FIGURE 2 Libraries Trends by Level of Staffing and Collections Expenditures</p> <p>FIGURE 3 Libraries by Change in Total/Other Prof Staff (Carnegie)</p> <p>FIGURE 4 Change in Utilization by Change in Electronic Serial $ (1998-2008)</p> <ref id="AN0079814633-27"> <title>Notes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1.</bibl> <bibtext>Carnegie classification system is developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and widely used in the study of higher education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2.</bibl> <bibtext>K.L. Hahn, Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing. Association of Research Libraries, Mar. 2008, available online at <ulink href="http://www.arl.org/bm-doc/research-library-publishing-services.pdf">www.arl.org/bm-doc/research-library-publishing-services.pdf</ulink> [accessed 29 August 2011]. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3.</bibl> <bibtext>"Academic Library Woes," American Library Association News, May 2009, available online at <ulink href="http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/may2009/academiclibrarywoes051309.cfm">www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/may2009/academiclibrarywoes051309.cfm</ulink> [accessed 29 August 2011]; L. Blumenstein, "Around Academic Libraries, New Cuts and Charges: Washington U. Closes Two Libraries; Others Cut, Save Subscriptions," Library Journal, Sept. 17,2009, available online at <ulink href="http://www.libratyjoumal.com/lj/communityfunding/855778-268/story">www.libratyjoumal.com/lj/communityfunding/855778-268/story</ulink>. csp [accessed 29 August 2011]; M. Kelley, "University of Washington iSchool, University Libraries Face Budget Pressures," Library Journal, Mar. 7, 2011, available online from <ulink href="http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/communityacademiclibraries/889587-419/university%5Fof%5Fwashington%5Fischool%5Funiversity">www.libraryjournal.com/lj/communityacademiclibraries/889587-419/university%5Fof%5Fwashington%5Fischool%5Funiversity</ulink>. html.csp [accessed 29 August 2011]. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4.</bibl> <bibtext>M.G. Brooks, "Organizational Leadership in Academic Libraries: Identifying Culture Types and Leadership Roles" (doctoral dissertation, Marshall University, 2007), available online at <ulink href="http://www.marshall.edu/etd/doctors/brooks-monica-2007-phd.pdf">www.marshall.edu/etd/doctors/brooks-monica-2007-phd.pdf</ulink> [accessed 29 August 2011]. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5.</bibl> <bibtext>ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, "2010 Top Ten Trends in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Current Literature," College and Research Libraries News 71, no. 6 (2010): 286-92, available online at <ulink href="http://crln.acrl.Org/content/71/6/286.full">http://crln.acrl.Org/content/71/6/286.full</ulink> [accessed 29 August 2011]. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6.</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7.</bibl> <bibtext>Donna Dosrochers, et al., Trends in College Spending 1998-2008: A Report of the Delta Cost Project (Lumina Foundation, 2010), Indianapolis, IN. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8.</bibl> <bibtext>Institute of Museum and Library Services, "Technology: Status of Technology and Digitization in the Nation's Museums and Libraries" (2001), available online at <ulink href="http://www.imls.gov/resources/TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf">www.imls.gov/resources/TechDig05/Technology%2BDigitization.pdf</ulink> [accessed 29 August 2011]. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9.</bibl> <bibtext>K. Coyle, "Libraries and Standards," Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 4 (2005): 373-76. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref10" type="bt">10.</bibl> <bibtext>ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, "2010 Top Ten Trends in Academic Libraries." </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref11" type="bt">11.</bibl> <bibtext>Christopher Stewart, "Half Full or Half Empty? Staffing Trends in Academic Libraries at U.S. Research Universities, 2000-2008," Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 5 (2010): 394-100. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref12" type="bt">12.</bibl> <bibtext>Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), Value, Outcomes and Return of Investment of Academic Libraries (Chicago: ACRL, 2010). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref13" type="bt">13.</bibl> <bibtext>S. Foo, A.S. Chaudhry, S.M. Majid, and E. Logan, Proceedings. World Library Summit, Keynote address: Academic Library Seminar, National Library Board, Singapore, April 22-26, 2002, available online at <ulink href="http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/assfoo/publications/2002/02wls%5Ffmt.pdf">http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/assfoo/publications/2002/02wls%5Ffmt.pdf</ulink> [accessed 29 August 2011]. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref14" type="bt">14.</bibl> <bibtext>For more information regarding imputation methodology, see <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010348.pdf">http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010348.pdf</ulink> (page 22 under Editing and Imputation). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref15" type="bt">15.</bibl> <bibtext>Confidence interval calculations are generally based on an approximation of the t distribution. The distribution around our evaluated statistic provides the upper and lower bounds as described above. The t distribution is generally used in most statistical applications when calculating confidence intervals and approaches a normal distribution as sample size increases. The t-test (upon which the distribution is based) is used for comparisons between only two groups. As noted, throughout this report, the comparisons are based on significant differences across different groups (in many cases more than two) for individual items (such as expenditures on books, staff, or utilization metrics). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref16" type="bt">16.</bibl> <bibtext>Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref17" type="bt">17.</bibl> <bibtext>This question was not asked in 1998; in 2008,10 institutions responded that their collection was entirely electronic. Primary among the 10 is University of Phoenix, the well-known online institution; the largest in terms of enrollment is Walden University, based in Minnesota. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By John J. Regazzi</p> <p></p> <p>John J. Regazzi is Professor in the Palmer School of Library & Information Science and Department of Computer Science and Management Engineering at Long Island University; e-mail: john.regazzi@liu.edu.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1064874
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization, 1998-2008
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Regazzi%2C+John+J%2E%22">Regazzi, John J.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+%26+Research+Libraries%22"><i>College & Research Libraries</i></searchLink>. Sep 2012 73(5):449-468.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Association of College and Research Libraries. 50 East Huron Street, Chicago, IL 60611. e-mail: acrl@ala.org; Web site: http://crl.acrl.org
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Libraries%22">Academic Libraries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Library+Personnel%22">Library Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expenditures%22">Expenditures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Users+%28Information%29%22">Users (Information)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change%22">Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.5860/crl-260
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0010-0870
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study provides an analysis of U.S. academic library spending, staffing and utilization trends from data collected during the period between 1998 and 2008. Data used in this study are part of the NCES biennial survey of approximately 3,700 degree-granting postsecondary institutions. Confirming previous studies, there has been an order of magnitude change in the expenditure of e-books and e-serials; but, contrary to the view of being fiscally restrained, libraries have received investments and increases of approximately 12 percent above inflation over the period with significant increases in nearly every area of library operation. Library staffing is being diversified, while use of physical library assets are in decline for every metric in the study--gate count, reference service, general and reserve circulation. Academic libraries cannot be treated as a homogenous group of institutions, and the study analyzes shifts by type, size, and Carnegie class of institution, illustrating significant difference among these classes of academic libraries, particularly among large doctoral institutions and other academic libraries, with large public and doctoral private institutions driving growth, while small and medium-sized academic libraries have fallen behind in both collections and staff investments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1064874
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1064874
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.5860/crl-260
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 449
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academic Libraries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Library Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expenditures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Users (Information)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Constrained? An Analysis of U.S. Academic Library Shifts in Spending, Staffing, and Utilization, 1998-2008
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Regazzi, John J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0010-0870
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: College & Research Libraries
              Type: main
ResultId 1