Thanks to the librarians who responded so helpfully to my recent inquiry
about compact shelving! I was asked to summarize the results for the list.
Because the nature of some of the responses would make summarization a
difficult task, I've quoted below all 12 responses, with names and
institutions omitted. Number 2 also includes a response to a followup query
from
me. For those interested, it's worth wading through.


-----Original Message-----------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Beth [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Compact shelving

I'd be very interested in hearing from academic librarians who have
publicly-accessible collections in movable shelving. What are the pros and
cons? We have faculty here who are convinced that movable shelving will
destroy research. Are they right?

Thanks in advance for your insights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)
One big problem is that only one aisle (out of 10 or so) can be used at one
time - thus competition among several people who want to get into the same
section at the same time.  Will this destroy research?  I doubt it.  Another
problem is that whatever system is used for moving the stacks it will
inevitably have problems.  If they are manual, some people won't be able to
push open 2 ranges; if there is a hand-crank, it will break off; if the
ranges are lockable, someone will inadvertently lock it and/or the key will
be lost; if it's electronic, it will break down once in a while.  Sorry to
be so gloomy!  If you have reinforced floors and need more space, compact
shelving is the way to go.  Also be aware that if your library can't be kept
at low humidity, the lack of air circulation in compact shelving will cause
mold to grow.  Best wishes.

2)
Of course they're not right, just afraid of change!  I heard the exact same
thing from our Chief Curator (also an academic) 15 years ago.  We put in
mobile shelving anyway and guess what, research here is thriving.  No one
pays the least attention to which section of the stacks they're browsing in,
whether it's the mobile section or the fixed one.

2a - followup questions)
1. What percentage (roughly) of your collection is in movable shelving?
Ca. 40%

2. What part of the collection (e.g. journals, all NA's, etc.) is in movable
shelving, and how did you decide which part to put in movable shelving?
(1) all serials, bound/unbound, including auction, sales and dealer
catalogues; (2) overflow from fixed ranges; (3) all rare books and archives.

Further to #2:  rather than attempting to distinguish between high and low
use materials and setting up yet another separate sequence of shelf numbers
(we already have several based on size/format), we decided to continue the
main sequence from the fixed ranges.  It hops the aisle and continues right
on, so our readers have no choice but to use both.  We introduced compact
shelving about a decade ago while moving into a new library space. There was
nervous muttering from in advance from our readers, who thought they'd have
to compete to access a compact aisle, and opposition from my (academic)
manager, who feared losing the creative inspiration of browsing the
shelves.  We included enough aisle space in the compact layout to permit
several access points at once, and today the difference in shelf ranges is a
non-issue.
Further to #3: rb's and special collections are housed in a vault containing
only compact shelving, and accessible only to my staff.

3)
I have no hard and fast data (actually, no data at all) to confirm or deny
your faculty's suspicion.  We have moveable shelving for our monograph
collection and I don't notice people not using the stacks because they
move.  (In fact, at least initially, it's quite a draw for the undergrads.)
Even with the potential of having to move any moment, the students surround
themselves with books and "camp out" on the floor between the shelves.  It
may depend on what your faculty mean by 'research', but I wouldn't say that
the moveable shelving stifles browsing.

The obvious pro is more books in less space.  Cons include cost and
potential difficulty of use (or even fear by claustrophobic patrons).  I
always make a point of showing faculty and students how to use the system
when I give an orientation or a tour, just to reduce that fear factor.
Another con is that sometimes one will have to move out of the way to let
another patron in to the neighboring shelf, but that happens very rarely.
It's good to plan tables nearby, so that the patrons can bring their books
out from the shelving area for longer consulting.

4)
Before we moved into a bigger space, we had our bound periodicals on compact
shelving in the public area. Compact shelving will NOT destroy research, but
it will introduce some restrictions and slow down the process of retrieving
items and shelving them. Patrons will have to wait their turn to get into
the stacks because, if the ranges are on a track, only one aisle will be
accessible at a time -- and patrons can no longer sit down in the aisle to
read their books or periodicals. Compact shelving is, therefore, not great
for browsing -- The patron needs to know what they are looking for and, once
found, must remove it to a table. We were relieved to get everything back on
regular shelving with wide aisles and lots of room for both patrons and
staff to circulate freely through the collection. I think, however, you
could live with compact shelving for awhile. It would not be the end of
research at your university.

5)
We have used public compact shelving for 80% of our collection for nearly 9
years ... I was told when I arrived (a new library facility), "you WILL have
it", I was not given a choice. So I went into this being skeptical (aren't
art collections browsed too much for this to work?) and anxious about
faculty reaction. Well, in the past 9 years I have only had 2 complaints,
both from our Vis Arts faculty. One faculty member almost "crushed" a
student (we use a manual mechanism, so no real harm can be done) and one
from the then chair who wrote, "remove the compact shelving". I have had
scores of compliments (what a great idea, it's so easy to use, you can have
so much more onsite, etc.)

Bottom line is we are able to have all our collections on site (none of it
is stored in our annex). Most users are considerate of others. We don't
often have queues. All our shelving/shelfreading is done in the evenings and
weekends (not usually a problem).

However, if I had a choice, I would put other collections in compact before
art materials. We may do this in the future, since I also administer the
music library and we have thought music scores and runs of serials might be
better for the compact that monos.

The question I would pose to your faculty: would they prefer everything on
site (compact is the solution) or are they willing to have things off site
and have them paged?

I can tell you that compact shelving does not destroy research or learning.

6)
Compact shelving just makes browsing the stacks more inconvenient, but it
doesn't destroy research.  I would think that Studio Art faculty should be
more upset than anyone doing research.

[We] first got compact shelving in one room that was ground floor about a
decade ago.  As it turned out, this room housed books with the call numbers
ND-Z, where a lot of people browse!  People adjusted.  Then, we got another
room a few years ago that was empty where we installed compact shelving.  We
house the journal collection in this room, as there is less browsing with
these materials.  Users have appreciated the growth space on each shelf.

7)
We have had compact shelving for the storage of architecture journals since
our library's opening in 1986.  There have been no negative effects on
research that I can tell! The only problem occurs when a faculty member
brings a whole class in to do periodical research because you can only fit
2-4 people in the shelving unit at one time. However, the students take
turns and have never to my knowledge complained.  I would use more compact
shelving if I could just fit it in the library.

8)
I had a giggle over the "death to research" quotation in your ARLIS-L
message, because that was exactly what some among our faculty told us when
we planned our new library.  I find that an amazing concept, as though the
small effort to move the shelves, or ask another user to move out of an
aisle temporarily would gouge a great hole in the deep well of scholarly
resources available through physical browsing.

Giggling aside, I have to say that now that we have a fair amount of compact
shelving, I don't hear this comment any more.  Faculty members who felt that
scholarship would be diminished due to the compact shelving seem to be
finding their way to their materials without being hampered, and getting on
with their work.  If in fact they do feel hampered, they are not saying so
to me.  Perhaps they feel it would be useless, since the compact shelving is
a fait accompli, but on the other hand, sometimes a fait accompli is a
wonderful occasion for continued grumbling.  However, I hear nothing from
these faculty colleagues on the subject.

This could also be due to the fact that we haven't covered the entire
library with compact shelving.  If we ever have to introduce more of it, I
suspect the complaints will grow in volume, and indeed, then I might share
in the skepticism, because having to wait for a book or a browsing situation
all over the library could be disruptive to work.  As long as compact
shelving remains only a part of the total shelving picture, I imagine that
the grumbles will be minor and will subside as use of compact shelving
becomes just a part of one's everyday library life.  The saving of space is
a great bonus for a small amount of inconvenience to the user.

9)
We use compact shelving (public-access) for our gov docs collection here,
and I have to say that we've been fairly pleased with it. Granted, the docs
collection is not the most heavily used area of the library, but I haven't
heard any complaints from our users.  My only complaint is that we
occasionally get some freshman who want to "play" with the shelving's
hand-crank mechanism.
I'm very curious as to why some of your faculty are certain that compact
shelving will "destroy research."  Are they concerned that it will
discourage browsing?  I'd be curious to know if these people have actually
ever used this sort of shelving, or if they're simply basing their argument
on assumptions or hearsay.  The shelving we have is easy to use; it only
adds a few seconds to the task of walking down an aisle to find an item.

10)
Although a museum library, we serve [a] graduate art history program ... and
other local colleges.  We have compact shelving for our entire stack
collection and the curators hated it at first and thought that their
"browsing" had been cut off to the detriment of their research. I haven't
heard any complaints for at least 10 years so they must have acclimated. The
faculty didn't seem to mind as much but maybe that is because beggars can't
be choosers.  If the alternative to compact shelving is selective offsite
storage, imagine what that will do to their research.  It seems to me that
it is more important to guarantee that the largest amount of books are
available in correct order than to quibble about whether or not one has to
wait to access an aisle.

11)
We selected Space Saver electronic compact shelving.  Our shelving is
configured as follows:

1. Bound Periodicals:  all compact
2. Oversize:  Currently standard shelving - however, "tracks" are installed
to convert to compact at any time.
3. Regular stacks:  all compact shelving

Our shelving capacity for these areas is approx. 90,000 volumes - we really
had to select compact because of the design of the facility and the limited
floor plan for stack area. It does sound as if your situation is very
similar! We still have a considerable amount of our collection in remote
storage.
We have had no problems what so ever with the use of compact shelving.
Students and faculty had to adjust to new habits, but despite our high use
of the collection, in-house browsing has not been compromised.  In fact,
from a management stand point - the stacks are easier to maintain.  There
have had to be adjustments to our shelving schedule, but over all we are
very pleased with the configuration. Since we retained browsing in oversize
areas, this provides some open stacks.  Our stacks are on our 6th floor, all
other resources - reference, video, current periodicals etc.. are on our
entrance floor the 5th floor.

The system we selected allows us to "Program" moveable sections so that we
can re-configure openings if we care to.

12)
I know you wanted to hear from academic librarians, but I thought you might
like to also hear from a museum library. We ... have had our entire
collection (except for what is in our curatorial branch libraries) in
Spacesaver compact shelving since the major renovation was done about 12
years ago.  It is an electronic installation and has not prevented anyone
(as far as I know) from accessing the collection.  The stacks are open to
all staff and docents and after an initial orientation they have all seemed
to adjust perfectly well.  They are all very familiar with the space
problems that we had before the installation (and that we have again, now)
and I think they understand that there was no alternative given the space
available.  Perhaps there were some complaints at the time of installation,
but I have never heard any in the four years I have worked there.

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dana Beth                          [log in to unmask]
Art & Architecture Librarian        phone: 1-314-935-5218
Washington University, St Louis       fax: 1-314-935-4362

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
Administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
        to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
       http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]