Moving from Books to Bytes

In May of 2000, James J. Duderstadt, University of Michigan President Emeritus, testified before a congressional subcommittee about the challenges facing higher education. Minutes into his provocative, wide-ranging discussion, Duderstadt settled on the academic library. A shift was on, he provocatively told lawmakers. "In a sense," he noted, "the library and the book are merging. Today, the academic library is becoming less a collection house and more a center for knowledge navigation."

If there is one clear message to be gleaned from LJ's 2001 Academic Library Book Buying Survey it is that, indeed, a shift is on. Consider this: in 1998, the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin) spent roughly five percent of its annual materials budget on electronic resources and 30 percent on monograph purchases. But just three years later, in 2001, 20 percent of its $10 million annual materials budget went to electronic resources and only 15 percent to monograph purchases. Meanwhile, a junior college library in Michigan spent nearly 50 percent of its $375,000 materials budget on electronic resources in 2001—more than 15 times the three percent devoted to electronic resources in 1998.

Of course, LJ's data also show that libraries are still buying books in considerable numbers, across all disciplines. But as the Internet continues to transform higher education, the library is changing as well. And LJ's 2001 survey provides a fascinating statistical snapshot of a phenomenon much discussed in the library profession and in this magazine: the transformation of the academic library in the digital age.

At first glance, LJ's 2001 survey—which gathered data from a balanced sample of libraries at research institutions, universities, four-year colleges, and junior colleges nationwide—once again reflects the considerable spending power of academic libraries. In 2001, the median materials budget for a university library was roughly $565,000 compared with $174,000 spent by four-year colleges and $68,000 for junior colleges. Universities added 6,831 new monographs on average; four-year colleges added 3,095 new titles, and two-years schools added 1,643.

In contrast, the more than 120 institutions comprising the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) operated with budgets closer to $6 million than $600,000. A typical ARL library in 2001 boasted a median materials budget of $5,914,100 and added 39,666 new monographs to its collection. Collectively, the ARL libraries alone pack a considerable financial punch—spending more than $600 million annually on over five million books.

But while budgets may differ vastly from library to library, LJ's 2001 survey reflected remarkably similar purchasing behaviors among all academic libraries—namely, a palpable shift in the collection and usage of digital resources from traditional print resources. And even though books and other print resources still account for the lion's share of library spending, nearly every respondent said he or she expected spending on digital resources to continue to rise sharply over the next three years (see chart "Materials Shift").

Perhaps the most noteworthy finding of the 2001 survey is the staggering popularity and usage figures of full-text aggregated databases, such as those produced by EBSCO, Proquest, Gale, and LexisNexis. The advent of these services, say librarians, is one of the fundamental reasons for the dramatic digital shift reflected in the survey.

What's driving the push toward aggregated databases? Certainly, budget issues are a factor. Librarians say aggregated-database products are a cost-effective way to provide access to information. They also say they are able to make worthwhile deals with publishers of aggregated databases. Of all libraries responding to the survey, roughly nine out of ten purchased their aggregated databases with the help of state consortia.

"Our budget doesn't increase as much as inflation," explains Lorraine Furtick, serials librarian at Western Connecticut State University, whose library purchases aggregated databases through the Connecticut consortium iCONN. "But when we buy electronic, we buy as a group, and the vendors break the price down for us."

The emergence of distance education was also cited as a key factor in the increased acquisitions of aggregated databases and e-journals. As more courses move online, library resources must also be online. This shift was particularly noticeable among community colleges, which can now expand their offerings without building new facilities. Community colleges responding to the survey report on average that as much as 35–40 percent of their materials budgets will be devoted to databases and other digital resources by 2004, more than doubling 1998 allocations. By comparison, four-year schools report about a 20 percent expected allocation in 2004 for digital resources.

"We're in the middle of a big push on campus to make 50 percent of all our courses electronic or hybrid," says Elenka Raschkow, director, Lansing Community College Lib., MI. "So we'll accommodate that through databases, e-books, and bookmarked web sites."

But perhaps most interesting, say librarians, is that today's student simply demands access to aggregated databases and e-journals. "If we don't give students [electronic access], they might just head off to another school that will," says Steven Rogers, director of the library at the University of Tennessee, Martin, a four-year university serving roughly 6000 students. "It's competitive. And the administration listens to that."

Though library budgets have generally increased, the price of materials has also continued to rise. In fact, price increases for monographs and serials consistently outpace increases in library materials budgets.

"Our library has a static budget," explains Rogers, "but serials prices are increasing by almost ten percent every year. What would you do?"

Rogers says that his library slashed more than 300 journals in the past year, saving $54,000—about 16 percent of the total materials budget. And such cuts reflect a new collection strategy among respondents: libraries are slashing direct subscriptions of titles accessible in their aggregated databases. And, when possible, libraries are cutting print subscriptions in favor of electronic. "Cutting print in favor of electronic has not been our philosophy," says Rogers, noting that faculty members in general are "extremely supportive" of print journals. "But given the budget situation, we simply had to choose."

In all, 86 percent of librarians surveyed by LJ said that last year they cut serials subscriptions. And 42 percent said they would cut further in the coming years. "For the titles that are full-text in our databases, we no longer receive the paper," notes Western Connecticut's Furtick. Instead, she notes, her library will use the savings from print serials cancellations to increase access to aggregated databases.

Not surprisingly, the shift to digital formats has also had a profound effect on what subject areas libraries are purchasing. In 1998, 93 percent of librarians reported reference works among their top ten book purchases, first among all subjects. But in 2001, reference purchases plummeted to seventh, with only 70 percent of librarians listing these works among their top ten items. Computer science also tumbled, from second in 1998, listed by 91 percent of librarians as a top purchase, to 11th in 2001, with only 42 percent of librarians listing these titles as top picks.

"That's because of digital resources," explains Bonnie MacEwan, assistant dean of collections at the Pennsylvania State University Libraries. MacEwan says the online availability of publications like the Grove encyclopedias mean libraries simply don't need to purchase as many copies.

Of course, some things never change. Social sciences topped the 2001 survey, listed by 85 percent of librarians as a top ten purchase, roughly the same percentage as in 1998. Literature also held steady among librarians in 2001, listed by 82 percent of librarians as a top ten purchase along with history and science. But curiously, purchases of science books are in a rather noticeable decline. Only 73 percent of librarians listed science as a top ten purchase compared with 89 percent in 1998. Also, only six in ten librarians rated science as a top circulator.

Why the declining figures? The shift to digital, of course. Librarians report that science publishers have been among the most aggressive digital pioneers and that digital formats simply work well for science publications, which are often heavily illustrated and benefit most from value-added features such as citation linking.

Still, when asked which titles they'd like to see more of, 28 percent of librarians cited a need for more science monographs, tops among all subjects, and up from 13 percent in 1998. Circulation dips, use skyrockets

Another result of the shift to digital formats is that the vast majority of libraries reported circulation figures decreasing slightly or holding from 1998 levels. But, of course, there's a story behind that story. While circulation has dipped, libraries in fact are busier and more relevant to students and faculty than ever.

Only 28 percent of all libraries surveyed in 2001 reported an increase in circulation from the previous fiscal year, compared with 1998, when 53 percent reported increased circulation. Of all libraries surveyed in 2001, 20 percent reported that their circulation held steady, while 52 percent reported a decrease.

But librarians are unfazed. "I'd put it this way," says Tennessee's Rogers. "Our circulation and our foot traffic have held steady or decreased slightly, but digital use has increased greatly." Rogers says that after the library added its latest databases, in 1999–2000, hits increased 77 percent. Every librarian LJ spoke to reported similar increases.

"We are seeing a slight decline in actual physical visitors," says Lansing's Raschkow, "but a dramatic increase in access to our electronic databases. In 1998, our print circulation was 31,000. Now it's 26,000. On the other hand, users accessed electronic materials 64,000 times in 1998. In 2000, that rate went up to 182,000, a threefold increase."

In fact, say librarians, given the exploding remote use of library resources, it's astonishing that circulation has managed to hold its own. In fact, the library in general is more active than ever. "A lot of administrators assume we are not as busy," says Tennessee's Rogers. "Many think that once students or faculty members gain electronic access they are self-sufficient. Bad assumption. Our reference librarians are still getting questions at the point of contact, but electronic queries have gone up enormously. Our reference librarians are busier than ever."

While e-books have been slow to catch on among leisure readers, they've received a somewhat warmer response in the academic community. But not much warmer. LJ's respondents reported that only about one percent of their materials budget went toward the purchase of e-books—a figure they expected to rise slightly to three percent by 2004. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Why haven't e-books seen the same enthusiastic response as other electronic resources? There are simply too many questions left unanswered, say librarians. "The economic model is odd, to put it kindly," observes Penn State's MacEwan. "And I don't think we really know how people are going to use e-books yet. So we're just sort of circling each other right now."

Some libraries, however, have been more adventurous than others with e-books. Dennis Dillon, assistant director for collections and information resources, UT-Austin, reports that unlike the vast majority of libraries, his institution has invested heavily in e-books with vendor netLibrary. Dillon estimated that five percent of his materials budget went into e-books in 2001 and plans to raise that figure to ten percent by 2004.

Dillon is happy with the results. "Students and faculty want more e-books all the time," he notes, with use increasing greatly across all disciplines. "We had some preconceived notions of what e-books would be used most when we first started," says Dillon, "like computer science, reference, popular health—quick look-up titles. And that held true for a year. Then we thought maybe we were causing that pattern because of our purchases. And we didn't have everything in the OPAC. So we opened up our purchases, and put everything in the OPAC, and use patterns altered dramatically. Every subject is seeing good, solid use."

Dillon says he can understand librarians' hesitation to pursue e-books. But the success he has witnessed with them thus far has convinced him that e-books are worth the effort. "You just have to jump in, like we all did with e-journals."

The numbers from 1998 to 2001 show a dramatic shift toward digital resources, but librarians are quick to point out that print is still alive and well. With so many questions about the digital revolution still lingering, no one quite knows what the future will bring. How will the publishing industry adapt to new economic models? How will the many legal battles arising from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act affect fair use in the digital realm? Software and hardware issues abound. And no one has yet been able really to quantify and standardize electronic usage stats—what does a hit mean? A visit?

While cutting print subscriptions is an increasingly popular way of stretching budget dollars, librarians remain uneasy over the practice. Electronic archiving issues remain thorny. Some publishers, in an attempt to protect traditional revenue streams, have begun to take protective measures, such as embargoing content in aggregated databases—diminishing their usefulness and creating a difficult situation for librarians to manage.

"We are worried," admits UTM's Rogers. "If the copyright agreements for these databases break down we're going to have to fill in gaps in our collection with microfilm. That is not an appealing situation."