Five-Month Print and Electronic Patron-Driven Acquisitions Trial at a Large University Shows Circulation Advantages
AbstractA Review of:
Tynan, M. & McCarney, E. (2014). “Click here to order this book”: A case study of print and electronic patron-driven acquisition in University College Dublin. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20(2), 233-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2014.906352
Objective – To evaluate the effectiveness of the first patron-driven acquisitions program in the Republic of Ireland and determine the effects of this acquisitions strategy on circulation, budget, and collection development.
Design – Case study.
Setting – A large university on two campuses in the Republic of Ireland with a total of over 25,000 students.
Subjects – Patron-driven acquisitions including 1,128 electronic monographs and 1,044 print monographs.
Methods – The authors evaluated titles purchased during a five-month patron-driven acquisitions trial conducted in 2013. Patron-selected titles were compared to traditionally acquired (faculty and librarian-selected) titles acquired during the same time period based on subject area and circulation data. Results from the trial were also compared to a literature review of patron-driven acquisitions trials conducted at other institutions. Information on selectors was examined for patron-driven print acquisitions.
Main Results – The most frequently acquired subject areas included business, politics, English, drama and film, medicine, psychology, history, and law. These frequently acquired subject areas were consistent across print and electronic patron-driven acquisitions, traditionally acquired titles at the institution, and data from the patron-driven acquisitions trials of other institutions. Patron-selected titles in art history and architecture subjects showed a significant print preference over electronic. Patron-selected electronic titles were used 8.45 times compared to 3.27 uses for traditionally selected electronic titles. Patron-selected print titles circulated 1.32 times compared to 1.04 circulations for faculty-selected titles and 0.63 circulations for librarian-selected titles. For patron-driven print acquisitions, 63% of selectors were students and 37% were faculty and staff.
Conclusion – The trial was considered successful in circulation and subject area diversity. Subject breakdown for patron-selected titles was consistent with expectations and mirrored traditional acquisitions strategies and expected demand. Patron-selected titles showed a circulation advantage over traditionally selected titles, though this advantage was more significant for electronic titles. The library intends to continue with patron-driven acquisitions. Considerations for future trials, including higher quality and more selective discovery records for print titles, more informative marketing, and better timing, could improve results.
How to Cite
The Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International applies to all works published by Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Authors will retain copyright of the work.