skip page navigationOregon State University
OSU Home.|Calendar.|Find Someone.|Maps.|Site Index.

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » February 24, 2000

Library Committee

February 24, 2000

Members Present:  Beach, Armer, Horne, Rubert, Landis, Allen
Absent:  Yu, Butcher, Hackel, Judd, Twohy

Review of Minutes - one change was noted to the Minutes of January 27, otherwise, the Minutes were approved as written. Library Support for New Academic Programs - Review of Category I curriculum proposals. Bonnie Allen gave an overview of what was currently being reviewed by the Library, as well as some history of past responses from the Library that she had gleaned from the files. Currently, she said the M.S./Ph.D. in Bioengineering is in review process in the Library today. The reason this was on the agenda was to ask what the Library has been saying in the past for Category I's when we have noted our collection doesn't support it, and we have asked for additional funds. We have already talked about the fact that there is no mechanism for funding to be transferred to the library. In the case of the Masters in Applied Ethics, we have a collection that supports a bachelor's degree, and we have replied that we would need additional funding to move our collection from a bachelor's level to a master's level. In looking at our replies over the last few years since 1997, it's a little spotty. I have noted that the library typically responds - "well, we are missing this and that, we only have this, but we can rely on interlibrary loan." All we have is a service that will fill the gap - but we do not specify the dollar amount for additional funding. Then we've had another period of time where we routinely asked for more money. During 1996-97, the head of collections said, unless you have funding that can come to the library, we will not review your Category I proposals. We have that in our history as well. So, the way the Library has responded to Category I's has been on and off over the years. Allen also stated that there was no indication that any funds ever changed hands for these Category I's. Allen indicated we reviewed the BS degree for biological engineering in 1995, to give you an example of how we would have responded. Because we have undergraduate level courses in other related areas of the sciences, specifically biotechnology, and we have over 200 titles and 12 periodicals and holdings under biochemical engineering, genetics and biochemistry - they thought that would be sufficient to support a BS in biological engineering. It also goes on to say that we will use interlibrary loan and rely on OHSU and no additional funds were requested. We now are in the process of reviewing the MS and PhD in bioengineering, and based on what I'm reading from the College of Engineering, they again are looking at Good Samaritan Hospital for space and resources, and there really is no mention of library resources in their proposal. That's where it is at this moment. Allen added that for accreditation, interlibrary loan is not a substitute for holding materials or having access like electronic resources -- wherever the instruction takes place. Basically, we don't have adequate resources to support a master's program. Gary Beach indicated another proposal would be coming shortly for a PhD in Materials Science. Landis stated he thought this committee's focus this year would be primarily on this Category I issue. However, next month's meeting is devoted to the collection assessment. But again in April, he wanted to return to Category I proposals. That should give Beach plenty of time to finish his review and write a draft proposal for the committee to review.

The question was asked of Bonnie Allen as to how a review of holdings was done for these Category I proposals. She replied that it's much the way the library does a collection assessment. We look at our card catalogue, we compare our holdings against bibliographies, and we look at other resources of electronic access we have that provide full text access. A certain amount of quantity that compares to what is being published in that field. If we have just a very small percent of publications, then it would look like we didn't have a wide range of materials. We can look at how the subject is broken down in our classification schemes and see how much material we have in each classification. ISI does publish an impact study that has a listing of journals and how often they are cited and what is cited- we can use these impact studies to see how much a particular periodical is actively used within a discipline. We have studies of those sorts that give us some idea. Looking at other schools and their holdings that have established programs in the same area helps somewhat. Each discipline has its own core reference material that has a periodical listing and we can compare our holdings against what is commonly referred to, etc. Allen stated that it's harder to determine in interdisciplinary programs, which is often the case in looking at this list, because you would have some material or a portion of it. The problem would be whether it's in a Masters level or BS or Ph.D. level. We end up looking in all of the disciplines to see what extent of holdings address the curriculum and come up with some conclusions based on that. It's usually a pretty complex process and time consuming. Rubert stated he thought it might be pertinent for the committee to prepare a directive to the Faculty Senate to help the library establish a policy and have something behind it. Larry Landis replied that he knew that Henry Sayre is looking for something to come out of this committee to do that. Especially because what we do is going to have an effect on the accreditation process as well. Serials Cancellation Process Update - Allen There was to be a letter sent out to the Deans, but since our E-mail went down on Tuesday, it hasn't gone out. This will be going out across campus announcing our $300,000 cut in periodicals for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. Allen indicated she visited the U of Oregon who is also doing a cut this year of the same amount and same time schedule. We are talking about a collaborative approach to our serials cancellations, where each school agrees to hold onto a title and then the other school cancels. That looks promising as a way of sharing resources and reducing duplication. For Elsevier titles, which are primarily sciences, between the two schools alone we spend $500,000 on the same titles. That is a target for us, so we would be choosing titles from that list as a way of sharing. Also, another part of this collaboration would be providing services that support it which would mean loaning bound journals and current issues so that faculty and students at each school would have the same kind of access. We are also looking at electronic journals that are full text to take the place of these cuts. We're negotiating with Elsevier now for another database that would give a comprehensive access to all of the titles. What remains to be seen is the cost. It looks promising and looks like a way of reducing the impact of the cuts and working more closely with a school that is nearby. What will be important is that as we proceed with this, because of the accreditation issues, that we do have a formal agreement for the lending and sharing of these materials. As long as we have that, accreditation matters for interlibrary loan or use of ORBIS and the courier service will be okay. Portland State also has a significant portion of Elsevier titles and some titles are held in common by all three schools, but at the moment we're just talking with the U of O. PSU is not planning a cut this year. Landis asked if there was any further progress on the consortial agreement with Big12+. Allen replied they are planning to visit us later this spring. The list of targeted titles to be cut should go out about the end of March with at least a four-week response and review time from the campus community. Allen indicated the Library needed to finalize the list by the end of spring term and the cancellations would take effect in January of 2001. Study Room Data Ports - Landis The issue here is whether the Library should charge for activating study room data ports, and how much. Landis distributed some e-mail material regarding this issue, as well as a policy established about a year ago for study rooms. He asked for input from members who were in academic departments, and a lengthy discussion followed on the pros and cons of this issue. A suggestion was made that we could write a TRF proposal to pay for these activation fees, as requested by students when they sign up for a study carrel. It was decided that Bonnie Allen would gather some more data on this, in preparation for writing a TRF proposal. New member orientation packets were distributed to members, to see if they feel the material would be useful for new members. New committee members will be given these packets next fall. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, March 30 at 3:30 PM in the Library's Drinkward Conference Room. This entire meeting will be devoted to the collection assessment for science and humanities.
Minutes recorded by Marcia Griffin