College of William and Mary
Collection Assessment
Earl Gregg Swem Library
Cathy Reed, Director of Collections and Content Services
Margaret Clendenen, Collection Assessment Assistant
May 2012
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ………………………………….
2
II. General Collections ………………………
3
III. Trends ………………………………………….
7
IV. Overlap Analysis ………………………….
7
V. Authority/Core Lists – Books ………..
8
VI. Interlibrary Loan Requests ………….
9
VII. Serials …………………………………………
10
VIII. Databases ………………………………….
12
IX. Summary ……………………………………
12
Appendices A – M are available at
L:\AllDepartments\Collections Assessment\Final Report
1
Swem Library Collection Analysis – Summer 2011 Snapshot
I. Introduction
As part of the College’s strategic planning, under Grand Challenge 1 “Be a Leader Among Liberal Arts
Universities”, Swem Library was charged with conducting a collection assessment to determine
collection strengths and weaknesses. This assessment is intended to ascertain Swem’s ability to support
Goal 2 of Grand Challenge 1, “Provide more robust support for teaching research, scholarship, and
creative activities”.
Various evaluative tools were used:




OCLC’s Collection Analysis tool – compares our collections against all the holdings in WorldCat
and against selected peer institutions
Choice’s Outstanding Academic Titles and Books for College Libraries -compares our collections
against these standards of quality
Journal Citation Reports (JCR) – critically evaluates leading scholarly and professional journals to
measure research influence and impact
Online catalogs and websites of peer institutions - verifies ownership of specific journals,
monographs and databases
Specific evaluations conducted:




General collections - from WorldCat information
Interlibrary Loan requests - analyzed by call number, language and % owned by peers
Serials – analyzed by JCR data and % of titles owned by peers for our recently cancelled titles in
FY 08-09 and FY 09-10
Databases – analyzed and compared the most commonly held databases of our peers to Swem’s
current database holdings.
It should be noted that Hargis Library at VIMS, the Wolf Law Library, and Richard Bland College have
unique OCLC collection symbols and their data is not included in this analysis.
Peers
In consultation with the Interim Dean of Libraries and the Provost’s webpage the following thirteen
institutions were selected as our peers:

2
Boston College, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Georgetown University,
Miami of Ohio, Princeton University, Tufts University, University of NC- Chapel Hill, University of
Notre Dame, University of Virginia, Vanderbilt University, and Wake Forest University
II. General Collections
Methodology and Analysis using the OCLC Collection Analysis tool
We emailed the Head of Collections or Acquisitions at each of our peer institutions to ask for their
permission to use their institution as part of our collections assessment. All of our peers granted us
permission to use their data. We used the peer data for three parts of the assessment: LC classification
comparison, foreign language materials, and overlap analysis.
LC Classification Subject Analysis
For the LC classification comparison, we grouped together LC classifications into broad subject headings
and calculated that subject’s percentage of the library’s entire collection. This is indicative of collection
balance and strength in the individual library. The number of total materials (in all formats) and
distribution of these materials by subject heading varies greatly. For instance, a peer can have many
more books than Swem in a subject but it could be a lower percentage of their total collection.
W&M Exceeds Peer Avg.
W&M Fall Below Peer Avg.
A - General Works
BC,BD,BH, BJ - Philosophy
BF - Psychology
BL-BM, BP-BT, BV, BX - Religion
C - Aux. Sciences of History
D-DR - European History
E - History of the Americas
DT - African History
F 1-975 – Hist. of the Americas, Local Hist. F1001-3799 - Brit, Dutch, Fr, Latin & Sp. Amer.
GE - Environmental Sciences
K-KZ - Law
GR-GT - Anthropology
M-MT - Music
HB-HC Economics **
N-NX - Fine Arts
HD-HJ - Business **
P-PT - Language and Literature **
J-JX - Political Science
PJ - Oriental language **
L-LT - Education
PQ - Fr, Ital, Spanish, Portuguese **
PR - English Literature **
PT - German **
PS - American Literature **
Q - General Science
QA – Mathematics/Comp. Sci
T-TX - Technology
QC - Physics
U-UH - Military Science
QE - Geology
Z-ZA - Bibliography, Library Science
QH-QR - Biology
R-RZ - Medicine
S-SK - Agriculture
W&M Meets Peer Avg.
DS - Asian History
DU - Oceanic History
DX - Romanies/Gypsies
G-GB - Geography
GC - Oceanography
GV - Recreation & Leisure
H - Gen. Social Science
HA - Statistics
HM-HX - Sociology
QB - Astronomy
QD - Chemistry
V-VM - Naval Science
** W&M far exceeds the peer average or severely falls below the peer average
See Appendix A for complete data
IPEDS data
To put this data into perspective, it is necessary to take into consideration the data from the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for degree programs. We compiled a document of schools
offering similar programs as those offered by William & Mary. (Appendix B) For all of W&M’s programs
(doctoral, master’s and bachelor’s) we checked the programs offered by our peers. We then cleaned
3
our datasets so that we only compared similar data. For example, since W&M has a doctoral program in
Anthropology, we compared Anthropology data to other schools offering Anthropology Ph.D. programs.
On the other hand, since W&M only offers a bachelor’s degree in Sociology, we compared our Sociology
data to other schools offering only a bachelor’s degree in Sociology.
In many of our stronger subject areas outlined above, W&M offers Ph.D. or MA/MS programs. Strong
collections should be expected. In the case of strong subject content where we only offer
undergraduate programs, the influence of strong endowments is evident (i.e. Economics, British and
American literature).
Where Swem falls below our peers, in some instances, there is an explanation:
 In the case of Philosophy, 11 of our peers offer advanced degrees, 9 of which are Ph.Ds. Of
peers offering only undergraduate degrees, Dartmouth College (1.8%) and Wake Forest (2.7%),
are comparable to W&M’s 1.9%.
 Religion – 6 peers offer a Ph.D., 1 offers a Master’s. 2 offer a Bachelor’s; Dartmouth College
(3.9%), and Tufts University (3.4%) are both below W&M’s 4.5%
 Law – 8 peers offer a J.D. degree. Range is 1.3% (UNC-CH) to 1.8% (Georgetown). Mean=1.5%
W&M’s 1.2% is lower but the Wolf Law Library data is not included and Swem is not responsible
for fully supporting this degree.
 General Science, Technology, Military Science, Bibliography/Library Science are not degree
programs and therefore are adequately represented.
BUT there are areas of concern as well:
At W&M, each History doctoral student develops a minor field in a non-US geographic area such
as African, British, or Latin American or a non-U.S. comparative theme. With W&M’s strong
history degree programs the expectation is that our collections would meet or exceed those of
our peers.
 European History – W&M- 5.2% - Only Miami of Ohio (4.0%) and Tufts (4.6%) are lower.
Highest –Princeton (7.8%) and Georgetown (7.4%) Median=5.9%
 Latin & Spanish History – W&M -0.5% – Vanderbilt (.9%) and Georgetown (.9%) were highest;
Notre Dame (.3%) and Tufts (.4%) were lowest. Median=0.5%
 African History – W&M-0.5% - Highest- Georgetown (1.1%) and Princeton (.8%). Lowest is Notre
Dame (.4%) Median=0.6%



4
Music – W&M (3.4%) is slightly below the median (3.5%) for all libraries but is #5 out of 6
libraries (next to the bottom) of those offering only an undergraduate degree. This range is:
Boston College (2.1%) to a high at UNC-CH (5.1%).
Fine Arts/Art/Art Studies – W&M (3.3%) is below the median (3.9%) for all libraries but is #4 out
of 5 libraries (next to the bottom) of those offering only an undergraduate degree. This range is:
Georgetown (2.9%) to a high at Brown (4.3%)
Foreign Language and Literature – 3 general Library of Congress subject classification areas
were selected for review, Oriental, Romance, and Germanic. Materials are in all languages
dealing with this LC subject classification. Deficiencies for materials IN a foreign language are
addressed in more detail in the following section.
Oriental: Overall W&M is next to the bottom at 0.2%, slightly below the median (0.3%)
The range is: Miami of Ohio (0.1%) to a high at Georgetown (1.7%). No IPEDS degree
data is available.
Romance: Overall W&M is the lowest at 2.2%. Highest is Dartmouth at 6.7% Median =
4.0%. For those offering an undergraduate degree: the high is Dartmouth at 6.7% and
the low is Duke at 3.3%.
Germanic: Overall W&M is the lowest at 0.8%. Highest is Vanderbilt at 2.5% The
median=1.9%. For those offering an undergraduate degree: the high is Dartmouth
(2.0%) and the low is Miami of Ohio (1.0%)
Recommendation –
Increase funding for the above areas of concern. The recent creation of the relatively new majors in
Africana Studies and Asian & Middle Eastern Studies may require additional support and liaisons and
faculty should be consulted.
Foreign Language Materials
For the foreign language materials, we looked at ten different foreign languages, corresponding to the
ten foreign languages currently taught at William and Mary. We calculated the percentage of total
materials IN these languages, in ALL call numbers, for William and Mary and each of our peer
institutions. See Appendix C for full data on all languages and W&M programs.
Language
Arabic
Chinese
French
German
Hebrew
Italian
Japanese
Latin
Russian
Spanish
Percentage of WM’s
Collection
0.1%
0.1%
2.7%
1.6%
0.01%
0.8%
0.1%
0.5%
0.5%
1.1%
Average Percentage of
Peers’ Collection
0.7%
0.9%
4.8%
5.6%
0.2%
2.0%
0.3%
0.7%
2.0%
3.9%
Of our foreign language materials, French is the highest (2.7%) followed by German (1.6%) and Spanish
(1.1%)
Peer comparison:
French – Overall: W&M is 2.7%. Only Miami of Ohio has a lower % (1.8%). Princeton was the highest at
7.5%. Median=5.1%
Offering Undergraduate degree only: W&M is the lowest (2.7%) and the highest is Dartmouth
5.8%) Median=4.9%
German – Overall: W&M has the lowest % (1.6%). Next lowest is Miami of Ohio (1.8%). Princeton is the
highest at 9.6%. Median=5.7%
Offering Undergraduate degree only: W&M is the lowest (1.6%) and the highest is Dartmouth
(5.2%). Mean = 4.3%
5
Spanish – Overall: W&M has the lowest % (1.1%). Next lowest is Miami of Ohio (1.3%), then Tufts and
Wake Forest (1.6% each). UNC-Chapel Hill and Notre Dame are the highest at 6.4%.
Median=4.2%
Offering Undergraduate degree only: W&M is the lowest (1.1%) and the highest is Dartmouth
(5.8%). Mean= 2.9%
Taking this information and narrowing even further to specific call numbers, Swem is below our peers in
the subject area of foreign language and literature. For example, this means that for students studying
French literature, we are dramatically deficient in items IN the studied language for that subject area.
Peer comparison in the native language:
 PJ - Oriental Languages and Literatures - 21.5% of our titles in this call number are in the
language compared to a median of 52.50% for our peers.
 PQ - French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese literature – 61.3% of our titles in this call number
are in the language compared to a median of 80.4% for our peers.
 PT - German, Afrikaans, Scandinavian, etc. literature- 50.7% of our titles are in the language
compared to a median of 76.20% for our peers.
W&M has the highest percentage of materials in English at 90.7%. Median=73.3%
Recommendation –
Swem needs to increase purchases of materials in the subject area of foreign languages and literatures
as well as materials IN the language. Possibly institute a slip approval plan with a vendor such as Casalini
Libri. Faculty currently review GOBI slips for selection so they are familiar with the process.
With increased acquisitions in various languages, there are possible implications for Swem’s Cataloging
Dept. and/or increased expenses to outsource the cataloging of these materials.
Visual Materials
‘Visual Materials’ is the term used by OCLC to include formats that would be projected, such as DVD,
VHS, Laserdisc, filmstrips, slides, etc. Visual materials released in the years 2005-2010 were compared
for # of titles, % of total collection and reviewed for trends.
W&M is firmly near the top of the peer list for % of total collection at 4%. Only Wake Forest is higher at
7%. Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown, Tufts and UVA are tied with W&M at 4%. Lowest are Princeton
and Miami-Ohio at 1%.
Overall the number of visual materials acquired for each publication year has declined for every peer.
In the case of W&M, the fact that visual materials are 4% of our collection for PY2005, with 610 items,
and 4% for PY2010, with only 373 items, illustrates the general decline in overall acquisitions during that
6 year period.
Dramatic reductions are seen at Miami-Ohio and Tufts. Miami-Ohio went from 635 items for PY2005
(3%) to 19 items for PY2010 (0.1%). Tufts went from 976 items for PY2005 (6%) to 9 items for PY2010
(0.2%) To explain this reduction, one can look to the increased availability of streaming media. A check
of the peers’ database holdings shows they each have either purchased or subscribed to various
streaming media products.
6
W&M has also recently increased our streaming media collection to include upwards of 8700+ titles
which are not in the OCLC WorldCat data.
Recommendation –
Increase funding to continue the project to replace outmoded VHS format with either DVD or streaming
formats. W&M will participate in a more detailed media collection analysis project with other VIVA
libraries that may offer more specific recommendations regarding cooperative collection development
and resource sharing.
See Appendix D for complete data.
III. Trends
E-books vs. print
The trend toward e-books is evident in the WorldCat data and W&M is more than keeping up the pace.
For 2005, 0.4% of our new monographs published that year (59 titles) were electronic. With steady
increases each year, by 2010, that number had grown to 12% (1160 titles). W&M is in the upper
percentile of all peers in this area. The median percentage of e-books for publication year 2010 was 5%
for all libraries. The extremes for publication year 2010 are 81% at Tufts and 0.3% for Wake Forest.
The data also illustrates the trend of declining monographic purchases. Over the publication dates of
2005-2010 W&M’s acquisitions (print and electronic) declined 23.8%. 11 of our peers had higher % of
cuts. It needs to be noted that while our peers’ numbers are down substantially, they all (with the
exception of Tufts) purchase significantly more books than W&M.
Tufts –
UVA Vanderbilt
Duke
-72.5%
-57.2%
- 47%
-45%
Brown
Dartmouth
Princeton
Notre Dame
-43.4%
-43.2%
-42.2%
-38.3%
Georgetown
UNC-CH
Miami (OH)
Boston College
Wake Forest
-31.8
-26.3%
-25.1%
-21.1%
-20.5%
For complete data, see Appendix E.
Visual materials
More vendor offerings for streaming media products will continue to be preferred for their ease of
access, 24/7. While no specific analysis was made for audio formats, streaming audio is also on the rise.
IV. Overlap analysis
The OCLC Collection Analysis tool provides an overlap analysis for our general collections data against
our peers. Statistics are provided to illustrate what items are held in common, or duplicated, and what
percent is unique to each library. Swem does not own a very high percentage of titles that are in the
various peer libraries while the peers tend to own a much higher percentage of Swem’s holdings. This
can be attributed to the difference in collection size.
% of others’ collections owned by Swem
Highest: Wake Forest (36.0%); Tufts (34.8%); Miami-Ohio (32.2%)
Lowest: Princeton (12.8%); UNC-CH (16.7%); UVA (17.6%)
7
% of Swem’s collections owned by peers
Highest: Duke (61.6%); UVA (56.9%); UNC-CH (54.4%)
Lowest: Tufts (24.6%); Wake Forest (32.2%); Georgetown (36.2%)
See Appendix F
V. Authority/Core Lists - Books
Books for College Libraries and Outstanding Academic Titles
The OCLC Collection Analysis tool was used to analyze the quality of William and Mary’s collection
compared to titles recommended by Books for College Libraries and Choice’s Outstanding Academic
Titles. Books for College Libraries includes 49,000+ works published up to 1988. Choice’s Outstanding
Academic Titles includes over 10,000 works reviewed from 1991 through the present; updated annually.
Together they provide a useful, although limited, evaluation over time.
Ten of William and Mary’s graduate programs were selected for analysis. For each subject, we
calculated the percentage of BCL’s and OAT’s holdings currently owned by William and Mary. The
second number is the total number of books in the category. There are many breakdowns for each
category. For example, Anthropology has categories of Anthropology, Anthropology, General;
Ethnology, Social and Cultural Anthropology; Folklore; Manners & Customs, General; Proverbs; and
Social Usages, Etiquette. The general subject category was used for the chart.
To see all the category breakdowns, view Appendix G.
Degree Program
Anthropology
Biology
Computer Science
Education
History
Physics
Psychology
Business
Chemistry
Public Policy
Books for College Libraries
76%/419
63%/878
44%/197
74%/1057
78%/9143
74%/1135
83%/508
74%/3671
56%/324
73%/2393
Outstanding Academic Titles
85%/125
72%/396
59%/107
87%/242
88%/1953
78%/326
94%/193
82%/931
59%/81
88%/645
The OCLC Collection Analysis tool does not allow for comparing these evaluative resources against the
peer holdings.
Recommendation –
Computer Science, Chemistry and Biology are the areas that are lowest and need further evaluation.
Liaisons working with these departments should be involved in determining faculty satisfaction with our
book (and e-book) collections. Are books a primary need? Or do they rely more heavily on the journal
literature? It should be noted that each of these areas fared very well for overall % of collection by the
LC call number. (see page 3)
8
VI. Interlibrary Loan Requests
We looked closely at our Interlibrary Loan (ILL) requests for 2010. ILL requests are the best possible
indication of what our collection lacks while illustrating a demonstrated need. The data for this analysis
includes only titles that Swem does not own and that were filled by lending libraries. (Swem allows ILL
service for items that are checked out. This data has been stripped out.)
Book Requests
Call numbers with the highest percent of ILL requests were P (20%), H (12.6%), B (11.60%) and D
(11.10%). This data supports the findings of the OCLC Collection Analysis tool regarding overall
strengths and weaknesses of Swem’s collection (see page 3).
 The breakdown for some of the language and literature, P, (20%) call numbers: PN at the
highest at 5.8%; PR-PS is second at 3.9%; PA-PD and PF-PM is next at 3.7%; PQ is 2.6%, PT is
0.59%. All Ps, other than PR-PS, fall below peer average too. Many of the foreign language
requests fall into this category.
 H requests (12.6%) cover economics, business and sociology. Sociology is the highest
percentage at 6%. Our collections in this area meet peer average. Our strong liaison
involvement and library instruction in Sociology may possibly be credited for a higher number of
requests in this area. Economics requests were 1.6% which supports the analysis that shows
Swem collections exceeding peer averages.
 A closer look at the B requests (11.6%) shows the majority of the ILL requests were in the BL-BX
(religion) area (8.10%) and this area of our general collection falls below peer average. BF
(psychology), an area that exceeds peer average, only requested 1.8% of all requests.
 The D area (11.1%) of our collection also falls below peer average for European and African
history, while meeting peer average for Asian history. In comparison, our strong E and F call
number areas, History of the Americas, only requested 2.7% and 4.2 % respectively.
 17% of all ILL book requests were in a foreign language, across all call numbers. In total, 786
items were requested that were in 23 foreign languages.
Most requested languages
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Chinese
Latin
Russian
Japanese
# of requests
228
213
128
96
31
19
17
14
% of all language requests
29%
27.1%
16.3%
12.2%
3.9%
2.4%
2.2%
1.8%
See Appendix H for full data, including information on publication years and peer ownership.
Journal Requests
Call numbers with the highest percent of ILL journal requests were R (Medicine - 18.1%), Q (science17.4%), H (social sciences - 16.5%) and L (education - 7.2%). A closer look at the Q and H requests
shows QH-QR (biology) was responsible for 7.9% of all requests and HM-HX (sociology) accounted for
8.8% of all requests.
9
15% (n=260) of all ILL journal requests were from journals with foreign language titles. However, not all
of these articles will be in foreign languages.
Swem has strong overall collections in all of these areas (exceeding or meeting peer averages) but it
should be noted that in the case of the sciences (R & Q) and social sciences (H & L), students and faculty
rely more heavily on the journal literature. Swem has reduced its number of subscriptions over the last
few years and a closer look into the serials collection will come in the next section of this assessment.
See Appendix I for complete data.
Recommendation –
ILL is a vital service supporting the teaching and research needs of the university. While it is not the
goal of Swem to acquire everything that we lack, the data should continue to be evaluated for the
acquisition of key subscriptions, monographs and DVDs. Adequate funding and staffing is essential to
maintain this highly effective and efficient service.
VII. Serials
Serials comprise the largest portion of Swem’s collections budget (69%) and require a continuing
budgetary commitment. Rising costs and inflationary increases have forced Swem to review and cancel
subscriptions in FY 08-09 and FY 09-10.
Cancelled Serials projects
In FY 09-10, due to inflationary pressure and flat budgets, Swem was forced to search for a way to cut
costs. Working in close consultation with the academic departments, Swem cancelled 325 serial
subscriptions from across all subject areas, both in print and electronic formats. These cancelled titles
were compared with peer holdings by checking each of their online catalogs. Do the peers have current
subscriptions to the titles we were forced to cancel because of budgetary concerns?
 77 serial titles (24% of our cancellations) are currently held by 10 or more of our peers. 12 titles
(15.6% of the 77 titles) are currently owned by all of our peers.
 13 of these 77 titles (16.9%) are included in Journal Citation Reports, indicating they are highly
regarded titles with high impact factors.
See Appendix J for specific titles.
Mandated budget cuts forced a cancellation project in FY 08-09. Along with some databases, the 41
titles in the Wiley journal package were cancelled.
 38 of the titles (93%) are currently owned by all of our peers.
See Appendix K for specific titles.
Some of the print and e-journal cancellations we made are available full-text in various databases so
access may not have gone away for all of these titles. However, there remains uncertainty as to
whether the vendor will continue to provide access, as titles are always being dropped and, to a lesser
extent, added.
10
Recommendation –
Continue to monitor ILL requests for journal articles and add subscriptions where appropriate. Provide
funding for article purchase on demand, especially in the sciences, where faculty have requested such a
service. The college needs to allocate funds each year to address inflationary pressure in subscriptions.
Serials Evaluation – Journal Citation Reports data
Journal Citation Reports (JCR) use citation data to measure research influence and impact of journals in
the area of sciences and social sciences. Coverage: over 10,100 journals from over 2,600 publishers in
approximately 238 disciplines from 84 countries. Where JCR rankings contain more than 100 journal
titles in a discipline, we used a cut off of the top 100 ranked journals for our evaluation.
Program
Anthropology
Applied Science
Biology
Computer Science
Education
History
Physics
Psychology
Business
Chemistry
Public Policy
Africana Studies (Ethnic
Studies in JCR)
Sociology
Women’s Studies
W&M - Overall %
78%
76%
80%
83%
76%
72%
74%
82%
82%
70%
66%
40%
Peers - Average %
74%
77%
76%
79%
71%
80%
79%
87%
82%
80%
75%
67%
Rank among Peers
3 (tied)/14
10/14
2 (tied)/14
5/14
6/14
12/14
12/14
13/14
9/14
14/14
12/14
14/14
58%
45%
73%
60%
14/14
13/14
See Appendix L for complete data and journal titles.
Areas of concern: Areas where Swem’s holdings are ranked the lowest and/or next to lowest compared
to peers (Psychology, Chemistry, Ethnic Studies, Sociology and Women’s Studies) should be thoroughly
reviewed. Is the curriculum being supported by our current holdings? Are the omissions in areas that
are not emphasized or taught at W&M? For a university with prestigious PhD History and Physics
programs, being ranked 12th is too low. Further investigation is needed - are the areas of European and
African History lowering Swem’s ownership ranking? This is a previously identified area in need of
resources.
Recommendation –
Work with liaisons and faculty to identify essential journal titles. Examine interlibrary loan journal
requests for JCR titles not owned by W&M to assess need/demand. Provide funding for article purchase
on demand, especially in the sciences, where faculty have requested this service.
11
VIII. Databases
Databases comprise 9.2% of Swem’s collections budget. Combined with serials (69%), this means that
more than ¾ of Swem’s total materials budget is already committed as we begin each new fiscal year.
This negatively influences our ability to consider new subscription products, as we cannot sustain the
continuing costs. The option to purchase access (ownership vs. subscription) requires substantial
outlaying of funds, again, problematic with flat budgets.
Comparing Swem’s database holdings against our peers was particularly problematic. Swem maintains a
tight, concise database list, with databases meeting certain criteria centered on purchase or
subscription. Our peers are much more inclusive, allowing for individual e-books, websites and other
free resources in their lists. Some freely accessible databases remain on the peer list (for possible
inclusion in Swem’s list) but mostly these ‘non-databases’ were stripped from the list before a
comparison of proprietary databases could be conducted.
See Appendix M.
Appendix M lists a total of almost 400 databases (allowing for variations and some repetition in titles
and acronyms) that are not in Swem’s database list and are owned by at least 4 of our peers (pared
down from a list with almost 5600 titles) . As this is a work in progress, many of the Reference titles
listed as held in paper by Swem have already been converted to electronic access.
The goal of this spreadsheet is to inform the Electronic Resources Committee and the liaisons of
potential resources to support our curriculum while indicating peer ownership. At that point, any
suggestion for purchase/subscription would be vetted through established guidelines.
Recommendation –
Have the college allocate funds each year to address inflation in database subscription costs. Continue
to purchase access to collections whenever possible. Continue to actively investigate and trial new
databases that support the W&M curriculum. Continue to review reference materials for replacement
with online versions.
IX. Summary
Swem Library has excellent collections in a variety of formats. This lengthy, detailed examination of
Swem’s collections provides an opportunity to identify areas of strength (of which there are many!) as
well as provide a basis for collection improvement. The addition of peer data provides a benchmark.
When new programs are considered, there needs to be an assessment of Swem’s collections and an
increased allocation of funds from the college to Swem on a continuing basis to support these new
programs. Making sure that the library resources are adequate should be considered a fundamental
part of a program’s start-up costs. For example, Area Studies and Interdisciplinary Programs need more
support.
Our work is cut out for us as we strive to fulfill our mission in Challenge One, Goal 2, to “provide more
robust support” for our faculty and students’ scholarly needs. Liaisons will be invited to closely examine
the data in their areas and plan, with their faculty and the Director of Collections, a strategy to address
our deficiencies. Library Administration can support these efforts financially, to the extent the budget
12
allows. Swem will continue to fully support the teaching and research needs of our faculty and students
while becoming a library with exceptional collections.
13