Post on 29-Dec-2015
AN ANALYSIS OF DIRECT RECIPROCAL BORROWING AMONG CREPUQ LIBRARIES
Joanna Duy, Associate Librar ian, Concordia University Librar ies
Vincent Larivière, Professeur Adjoint, ÉBSI, Université de Montréal
Spectrum of Resource Sharing:
INTRODUCTION
Interlibrary Loan • ILL system• ILL staff
Consortial Shared catalogue • circulation system• circulation staff
Direct Reciprocal Borrowing
Higher cost Lower cost
How much resource sharing activity is there within CREPUQ (ILL and direct reciprocal borrowing)? What is the rat io of ILL to direct reciprocal borrowing?
Is the amount of direct reciprocal borrowing activity related to the size of the l ibrary’s col lect ion, student size, or physical distance from other l ibrar ies?
What can social network analysis tel l us about direct reciprocal borrowing within CREPUQ?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Direct Reciprocal Borrowing Total Circulat ion FTE students Collect ion s ize (physical)
CREPUQ ILL –COLOMBO Stat is t iques Annuel les (2007-10)
Distances between inst i tut ions – Google Maps
Analysis : Excel, SPSS, UCInet and NetDraw
METHODS
CREPUQs Statistiques générales des bibliothèques universitaires québecoises (2005-10); Tables 24, 20, 4, 14
RESULTS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-100
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Total Circulation and Reciprocal Borrowing (2005-10) for CREPUQ
Circulation TotalRecip Borrowing Total
Year
Tota
l Circ
ulat
ion
(CR
EPU
Q*)
Tota
l Rec
ip. B
orro
win
g (C
REP
UQ
*)*Some institutions are missing data for certain years
Montréal institutions account for 91% of the traffic in reciprocal borrowing, 67% of the traffic for total circulation
RESOURCE SHARING BREAKDOWN
ILL 14%
Recip. Borrowing 86%
Montréal CREPUQ Libraries' Resource Sharing Ac-tivity 2007-10
(Borrowing + Lending)
ILL 64%
Recip. Bor-rowing36%
Non-Montréal CREPUQ Libraries' Resource Sharing Activity 2007-10
(Borrowing + Lending)
TELUQ and INRS were not included in either category due to their multi-campus/online nature
Significant cost savingsExample: Concordia users borrowed on average (05-10) 15,361 items from other CREPUQ libraries through direct reciprocal borrowing
Signif icant posit ive correlat ions were observed between total i tems borrowed and loaned through direct reciprocal borrowing and:
Number of FTE students
Library’s collection size (physical materials)
CORRELATIONS
The total amount of borrowing and lending done between CREPUQ insti tut ions between 2005-10 was averaged and plotted in relat ion to the distance in ki lometers between the two inst i tut ions
EFFECT OF DISTANCE
Institution 1 Institution 2 Distance (KM)Borrowing +
LendingConcordia McGill 1,4 17455,6Concordia UdeM 4,3 7688,2Concordia HEC 4,5 476,8Concordia Poly 4,3 971,8Concordia Sherb 151 722,8Concordia Laval 247 322,6Concordia UQAC 458 2,6Concordia UQAM 2,5 4633,3Concordia UQAR 542 0,4Concordia UQAT 628 36,3Concordia UQO 202 67,5Concordia UQTR 139 9,0Concordia ENAP 254 38,3Concordia ETS 1,7 579,8Concordia INRS 254 45,5Concordia Bishop's 155 69,0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
2000400060008000
100001200014000160001800020000
R² = 0.367360580469586
R² = NaNR² = NaN
Concordia
Distance (km)Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
2000400060008000
100001200014000160001800020000
R² = 0.468534381976216
R² = NaNR² = NaNUniversité de Montréal
Distance (km)
Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
2000400060008000
100001200014000160001800020000
R² = 0.392174607243128
R² = NaNR² = NaN
McGill
Distance (km)
Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
R² = 0.321101677641215
R² = NaNR² = NaNR² = NaN
UQAM
Distance (km)Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
Montréal Universities
Non-Montréal Universities
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
R² = 0.0117577842459536
R² = NaNR² = NaNLaval
Distance (km)Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
100 200 300 400 500 600 7000
20406080
100120140160180
R² = 0.0710932222898439
R² = NaNR² = NaNR² = NaN
UQ Chicoutimi
Distance (km)
Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14000
50100150200250300350400450
R² = 0.187616935755925
R² = NaNR² = NaNR² = NaN
UQ Rimouski
Distance (km)Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
R² = 0.175897230689834
R² = NaNR² = NaNR² = NaN
UQ Outaouais
Distance (km)Tota
l Len
d +
Borro
w (A
vg. 0
5-10
)
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS (SNA)
Networks are “a general yet powerful means of representing patterns of connections or interactions between the parts of a system” 1
“ the opportunit ies for social network analysis research in l ibrary specif ic contexts remain outstanding” 2
1. Newman, M.E.J. (2010). Networks: an introduction. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 2. Schultz-Jones, Barbara. (2009). Examining information behavior through social networks. Journal of Documentation 65, 592-631.
UQO
UQAT
ENAP
UQTR
UQAR
UQAC
Bishop’s
Sherbrooke
Concordia McGill
ETS
Polytechnique HEC
TELUQ
Laval
UdeM UQAM
Network Diagram: CREPUQ Direct Reciprocal Borrowing 2005-2010
INRS
CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE
Different resource sharing patterns between Montr éal and non-Montréal l ibrar ies; effect of distance, col lect ion size, FTE
Resource sharing of physical mater ials may play an important role as questions of storage space escalate (e.g. consort ia-wide storage of physical materials?)
Studying resource sharing patterns wil l al low us to better understand and plan for the use of these services