Effect of Use Policy on Extra-Special Collections: Research Proposal By Robbin Zirkle Introduction Despite the advent of digital technology

and efforts to make parts of collections the world over available in electronic format, there are many artifacts that are most meaningful in their physical form. Materials such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bayeux Tapestry may be available online, but the experience of viewing those pieces is incomparable. Thus, its no surprise that many similar (if not prestigious) holdings are important physical as well as intellectual artifacts. Naturally, then, providing access to those materials is of paramount importance to libraries, regardless of whether or not they support digitization efforts. If access is a significant issue, then, a question emerges: do libraries enable access? While most students and members of the public know that the libraries with which they are affiliated have collections of interesting materials, they do not know that they are empowered to use those materials. It would seem that this reality, like many, could be fixed by the addition of a use policy to libraries collection policies. Is it really that simple, though? That is what this study aims to determine. It is my belief that implementation of public use policies for special collections at special libraries will result in increased use of the materials in those special collections. This will be observed through controlled application of a policy in a library which has granted access to its data as well as its holdings and policies.

Literature Review The proposed research study is predicated upon a number of logical conclusions that highlight its relevance. First, small, special-interest libraries in particular generally possess unique collections that are misunderstood or underutilized by the public. Next, despite the onset of digitization technology, accessibility is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the norms for use of special collections may be prohibitive to the general public. Finally, there is an established framework for the development of use policies that may enable access to as well as awareness of special collections. It is a review of these conclusions that support Esther RothKatzs assertion that the relationship between the presence of use policies and access of materials is, in fact, direct. Whereas academic, public, and school libraries have popular depictions in the media and culture as a whole, such is not the case with special libraries. Dedicated to narrow interests, these libraries seem themselves to be special, thus appearing inaccessible. That said, many of these libraries are open to the public thanks to either governmental funding (such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency Library Network) or nonprofit status (such as the American Philatelic Research Library). Furthermore, the public is entitled to accessing these collections, which is mutually beneficial, providing enrichment for the individual and marketing for the library in question (Roth-Katz, 2012). Use of such librariesand in many cases, knowledge of those libraries existencecan be intimidating, however. Accessibility to the public can be hazy, with libraries outlining public and member hours. Furthermore, access does not necessarily ensure utilization. Initial patronage is generally goal-driven, and repeat usage is encouraged by the

demystification that follows familiarity with a collection and the policies surrounding its use (Jumonville, 2007). Demystification, as it were, is a significant opportunity to increase usage and to eliminate intimidation for users. While the process of accessing information in special collections, particularly those that are not digitized, can be unfamiliar, there are norms and, fittingly, processes for doing so (Roth-Katz, 2012). Providing instructions for use can be deceptively simple as well doing so can help to increase use of finding aids and other library services, but it can also allow potential patrons to save face if using special collections is unfamiliar to them (Harris & Weller, 2012) .

What exactly belongs in these game-saving policies, then? There are a variety of models that are supported throughout the literature, but successful policies tend to have a few key things in common. Use policies include information delineating guidelines for access and handling of material, as well as the extent to which those materials may be used (copying, loaning, et cetera) and a clear articulation of the goal of the collection (Foot, 1999). Use policies may also provide a path to learning how to use decreasingly familiar technologies such as microfilms and transparencies to aid in accessing artifacts (Cabral, 1997). Some policies might also be organized thematically, functioning as pathfinders for specific parts of special collections, and providing an easy way to filter research needs (Harris & Weller, 2012). These use policies, often addendums to larger collection development or preservation policies, vary in layout and length, but their foci are consistency, preservation, and clarity. While an immediate goal of use policies is to provide access, a latent goal is to explain the rationale for those same policies (Cabral, 1997).

The final question that remains, however, is of how well these policies work. The RothKatz study indicated that only seven percent of libraries surveyed had web pages with use and visiting policies. That said, however, a study facilitated by Melanie Griffin and Barbara Lewis demonstrated the creating a collection guide and making it available online can be tremendously successful. In that particular case study, the institution saw a two hundred percent increase in access to its photo collections and a twenty-one percent increase in collection exposure for collections that were highlighted. The literature suggests that these policies can, in fact, have a dramatic impact on use of collections, and a similar review demonstrates that information professionals have a responsibility to maximize the usability of their special collections. Methodology & Analysis This study will analyze the use of special collections at the American Philatelic Research Library in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. The APRL is a special library that supports the American Philatelic Society, however, it is a public library, and the APS is a nonprofit organization. While the APRL is just one special library of many throughout the country, it will serve as a case study for special libraries throughout the United States and its recommendations will have weight for those institutions as well. I hypothesize that implementation of public use policies for special collections at special libraries will result in increased use of the materials in those special collections. Within this study, the outcome variable is increased use of materials in special collections with the APRL as the case in point. The causal variable in this study is the implementation of a public use policy for the APRLs special collections. For the purpose of my research, collections of unique or rare

artifacts in their physical form will be referred to as special collections. Furthermore, a use policy will be created in coordination with both the APRL and APS Directors, and will bear resemblance to those cited by Mirjam Foot (outlined in the previous section). The methodology that will be used in this study falls into what Earl Babbie labels as Unobtrusive Research in The Practice of Social Research. Thanks to existing relationships with library staff at the APRL, official usage statistics are available for special collections in particular, as they exist almost exclusively in a non-digitized format. Usage statistics will be compiled for a three-month period pre-use policy in the year prior to the year of implementation (JulySeptember of 2012) and for a temporally equal period following implementation in June 2013 (July-September of 2013). The use policy will be available via the World Wide Web as well as in print within the APRL itself. This study borders on becoming a longitudinal comparative study. Due to the time constraints of completing a Masters paper, more extensive statistics following implementation may not be collected. That said this study still falls into what Babbie labels as comparative, and as such, the analytic techniques fall into that realm: The comparativeresearcher must find patterns the voluminous details describing the subject matter of study (Babbie, 2013). The data that will be collected and analyzed in this study is ratio data and interval data. The interval that is used is number of accessions, but this may be defined as ratio data because there is, in fact, a true zero (zero accessions). A comparison of raw statistics over time is ideal for this scenario, as it is reasonably well-controlled, although does not have the ability to cover a great span of time.

The design of this experiment intends to eliminate as many extraneous variables as is possible, and to control all variables except for the causal variable. Doing so aims at precision and tries to ensure that the ultimate outcome is, in fact, reliable. As such, the same time period has been selected in two consecutive years. This is in an effort to control for organizational and access issues by ensuring that the context into which the test falls is as controlled as is possible. It is worth noting that the use policy will not be advertised. It will be posted on the website and within the APRL itself, but will not be advertised during the study timeframe. This is to ensure control for access to the policy itself, as the subject of the study is not the effectiveness of advertisement of a use policy. Limitations The limitations of this study are varied, and some have been mentioned previously. The obvious issue is the timeframe that is available for study following implementation of a use policy. Ideally, this would be a longitudinal study to provide the most benefit for the APRL. A similar limitation is that of differed potential patrons. While two consecutive years may not necessarily possess disparate potential patrons, increased time provides the opportunity for increased access to materials thanks to the disintegration of the Digital Divide, as well as increased visibility of the library itself. In an ideal world, this study would examine two populations concurrently over a period of several years. In that circumstance, some users would randomly be provided access to a use policy. Furthermore, the individuals utilizing special collections would, ideally, be labeled, for surreptitious observation of access.

Expected Results & Significance This study will likely produce positive results as related to the outcome variable. I anticipate that following the implementation and publication of a use policy, the APRLs special collections will experience increased traffic. I come to this conclusion because I believe that, due to the irreverent nature of individuals interested in philately and philatelic literature, many potential patrons do not believe that they can access these materials. Furthermore, many of the APRLs patrons are hobbyists who are excited about the subject of the APRLs collection, so the thrill of accessing materials that they are newly aware of will be evidenced by increased traffic. In regard to the significance of this work, it is clear that the beneficiaries will directly be patrons who have newfound access to enrichment and intrigue. That said, additional beneficiaries include the librarians managing the collection and the administrators who demand to examine Return on Investment. The study has significance for special libraries generally, however. While the APRL caters to a specialized population, so do all special libraries by definition. These institutions provide boutique services, and providing access to new materials and providing a map for how to access those same materials has a positive impact upon those institutions patrons, librarians, and administrators. The other result of this study will be an appendix with the newly created use policy that will provide an example for other libraries to reflect upon. It is possible that they may cater to their populations by refining various facets of their own use policies and comparing the trends in increased or decreased utilization of special collections.

Qualifications I am especially well-qualified to study the collection and use of the American Philatelic Research Library in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania thanks to a longstanding relationship with the library and its director. During my undergraduate career, I was both a volunteer and intern for the APRL, and the Library Director, Tara Murray, served both as my mentor and as a reference for graduate admissions. As such, development of this use policy is helpful to them, and is my own way of showing gratitude for the organizations contributions to my education and professional experience. In addition to my own experience with the APRL, I am fortunate to count Rebecca Vargha as my advisor for my Masters Paper. Rebecca is a veritable powerhouse within the Special Libraries Association, particularly as its former President. Furthermore, she has extensive experience running special libraries and managing their collections, making her a well-qualified expert in the realm of assessment as well as policy development. Summary The proposed study will examine the effect of implementing a use policy upon the utilization of special collections that are held by special libraries. The case in point is the American Philatelic Research Library in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. The study is predicated upon the hypothesis that implementation of public use policies for special collections at special libraries will result in increased use of the materials in those special collections. In this case, the causal variable is the implementation of a public use policy, while the outcome variable is increased utilization.

The study will compare data from a three-month period in both 2012 and 2013. To the best of my abilities, all extraneous data will be controlled aside from the implementation of a use policy. A comparative and unobtrusive analysis of official internal statistics will provide a comparative overview of use over time. Project Schedule Submission of research proposal Planned: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Worst-Case: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 Submit use policy for final approval Use policy live on stamps.org and in library Complete literature review Finish compiling all raw data Full draft to advisor Wednesday, June 12, 2013 Monday, July 1, 2013 Friday, August 16, 2013 Friday, September 13, 2013 Planned: Friday, October 4, 2013 Worst-Case: Friday, October 11, 2013 Masters paper turned in to SILS Planned: Monday, November 4, 2013 Worst-Case: Monday, November 11, 2013

10

References Babbie, E. R. (2013). The practice of social research (13th ed.) Cabral, M. L. (1997). Preservation education for users and/or non-preservation staff. European Research Libraries Cooperation, 7(3-4), 545-556. Foot, M. (1999). Elements of a preservation policy. Liber Quarterly : The Journal of European Research Libraries, 9(3), 327-328. Foot, M. (1999). Towards a preservation policy for European research libraries. Liber Quarterly : The Journal of European Research Libraries, 9(3), 323-326. Griffin, M. & Lewis, B. (2011). Transforming special collections through innovative uses for LibGuides doi:10.1108/01604951111104989 Harris, V. A., & Weller, A. C. (2012). Use of special collections as an opportunity for outreach in the academic library.(special issue: Special collections in academic libraries: Spring 2012). Journal of Library Administration, 52(3-4), 294. Jumonville, F. M. (2007). I wonder who's using us now: Hurricant [i.e. hurricane] Katrinas influence on use of special collections at the university of New Orleans library. Southeastern Librarian, 55(3), 8-17. Roth-Katz, E. (2012). Access and availability: A study of use policies on art museum library websites. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 31(1), 123-140.