• In progress
  • Statistics: Manuscript Resource Type - item counts

    See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups
    Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

    Status

    In progress

    Description

    In seeking to standardize how we report common statistics (to the extent possible); and build centralized statistics reports, generated at the Network Zone

    How should the UC Libraries handle counts for two groups of items

    1. items previously represented by “Manuscript Units” in UCOP statistics, and

    2. items currently with “Manuscript” as the value for "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type"

    in submissions for UCL/UCOP annuals stats (also used for risk management) as well as other, third-party reporting bodies like ARL, ACRL, etc.?

    Decision summary

    1. Exclude Special Collections materials that duplicate separately-maintained statistics about Manuscript Units from Alma Analytics based annual statistic reports. 2. Re-label “Manuscript” resource type to reduce confusion.

    Owning group

    AASAP Team sils-aasa-l@listserv.ucop.edu

    Approver

     

    Consulted

    AASAP Team members consulted locally, including their local special collections colleagues

    Heads of Special Collections (HOSC)

    Informed

    Leadership Group

    Decision-making process

    Team members gathered information from campus experts individually and as a group via HOSC.

    Some campuses reviewed data from Alma, e.g., list of titles by location with Resource Type = Manuscript.

    Priority

     

    Target decision date

    Apr 21, 2023

    Date decided

    [type // to add Date]

    Recommendations

    1. Exclude “Manuscript Unit” Special Collections & Archives materials from Analytics-based annual statistic reports. Instead, Special Collections on each campus will report their own counts of materials for risk-management and other purposes. Special Collections experts on each campus are responsible for defining how to exclude records that would duplicate their non-Alma counts.

    2. Re-label “Manuscript” resource-type items using clearer terms, to distinguish them from Special Collections materials. Examples include “Manuscripts, non-SCA” or “Non-MU Unpublished Manuscript” or “Non-MU Unpublished (formerly Manuscript - Physical).” More descriptive language for relevant MARC codes is at: loc.gov > MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data and oclc.org > Bibliographic Formats and Standards

    Impact

    Stakeholder group

    Impact

    Stakeholder group

    Impact

    UC Libraries

    Determinations around what and how we report are for the most part managed/owned by the UC Libraries (i.e., shared ownership).

    CDL

    CDL analysts, who are responsible for building report queries at the Network Zone according to templates agreed upon by the UC Libraries, must exclude items based a variety of parameters – likely resource type and location (specific to campus special collections), and any another group of query parameters identified by campus partners.

    Special Collections on every campus

    SC on every campus will have to keep and report their own statistics to third parties.

    UCOP

    Likely, this specifically pertains to our Risk Management Office, who reports holdings information to our insurer, for compliance purposes.

    Reasoning

    At this time, archival or manuscript collections are not effectively represented by counts of Alma item records with bibliographic resource type “Manuscript.” Therefore, Special Collections and Archives materials should continue to be submitted based on data that is stored outside of Alma, such as spreadsheets or other local data repositories.

    Background

    In comparing data from previous submissions to the proposed method of counting by category, there are two concerns that arise for “manuscript” category items.

    1. “Manuscript” as value for Resource Type means something different from “Manuscript” in the Special Collections context.

      1. “Manuscript Units” are categories of Special Collections and Archives materials. For UCOP statistics in the past, they have included three subcategories:

        1. Personal manuscripts

        2. UC archival manuscripts

        3. Other archival materials

      2. In contrast, the “Manuscript” value is derived from values in the MARC Leader and 008. (See Alma User Interface - General Information > Searching in Alma). Correctly catalogued items with this Resource Type include unpublished dissertations and other materials that frequently do not correspond to the kinds of materials that are counted as “Manuscript Units” by Special Collections and Archives experts.

    2. “Manuscript Unit” materials do not have corresponding item records in Alma. Subcategories from previous UCOP submissions, like “Personal manuscript units”, generally do not have item-level records in Alma that can be neatly counted by filtering by location, MARC field, or other values in existing physical item records. In addition, most MUs have no corresponding record in Alma at all.

    Illustration to show limited overlap between Manuscript Units and Alma records.
    Illustration only. Not to scale; not real data.

     

    Example: Irvine

    Of 4,060 Manuscript Units reported, most do not have corresponding Alma records. Based on a query that looks for finding aid URLs, there are only ~700 Alma item records that correspond to reported MUs. Example:

    Irvine’s overall counts:

    • Manuscript Units reported to UCOP in 2021-2022: ~4,000

    • Item count for Resource Type “Manuscript”: >12,500.

    • Item count for Resource Type “Manuscript” in Special Collections and Archives locations: ~1,300.

     

    2021-2022 UCOP Table 3 Other Library Materials

     

    UCB

    UCD

    UCI

    UCLA

    UCM

    UCR

    UCSB

    UCSC

    UCSD

    UCSF

    Total

    Personal manuscripts

    58,802

    19,172

    2,193

    89,229

    91

    17,526

    42,303

    5,354

    9,679

    4,742

    249,091

    UC archival manuscripts

    9,079

    6,437

    1,599

    40,997

    555

    8,818

    3,131

    1,045

    2,667

    2,102

    76,430

    Other archival materials

    27,484

    16,227

    268

    90,193

    0

    1,570

    18,354

    2,643

    1,353

    615

    158,707

    Total

    95,365

    41,836

    4,060

    220,419

    646

    27,914

    63,788

    9,042

    13,699

    7,459

    484,228

    UCOP statistic table showing Manuscript Unit counts.

    Overall concerns identified by Special Collections & Archives experts

    There are two additional ways that a count of items based on bibliographic resource type with current Alma data fail to provide useful information about Special Collections materials.

    1. Overall measurement issues. Counts of item records in Special Collections locations across the system are wholly inadequate.

      • Item records do not exist at all for some materials This is true at Bancroft Library and other Special Collections units in the UC Libraries.

      • Online Archive of California records are not accurately represented in Alma. At UC Irvine, for example, Alma does not have item records that correspond to representations there.

      • Item records do not correspond to meaningful, standard archival measurements that are in use nationally and internationally. ARL, for example, asks for Manuscript Units.

      • Item records for containers are flawed measurements, because they can represent vastly different quantities and types of materials - from a single piece of paper to a large container with thousands of documents.

      • Inaccurately coded records are an issue. For example, Berkeley Bancroft Technical Services notes that many Alma items for Special Collection manuscripts are currently coded as type “book.”

      • Resource type at the bibliographic level does not provide meaningful information. Manuscripts and archival materials are sometimes coded as “collections,” and sometimes as “manuscripts.” Still images can be both “pictures” and “other,” due to coding as projected vs. non-projected graphics. On many campuses, counts of items with resource type “Manuscript” mostly show individually-catalogued theses and dissertations.

    2. Risk management issues. Counts of items cannot provide an accurate or useful picture of the value of materials for insurance purposes.

      • For UCOP stats, HOSC has provided MU measurements because the insurance unit values table describes manuscripts as "Personal Manuscripts," "UC Archival Manuscripts," and "Other Manuscripts" -- all this translates, to HOSC since at least the last decade+, as archival/manuscript collections, not individual manuscripts. https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Unit_value_2021.pdf.

      • For some materials, there is an existing distinction between UC archival collections and personal papers or other collected manuscripts that is recorded at the item level—not at the bibliographic level. Valuations have in the past been tied to this information, so any changes to tracking it should be in coordination with UCOP Risk Management.

    Questions to consider

    In the future, is it possible to create and efficiently maintain Alma records that provide more useful data about SCA materials?

    Action Log

    Action/Point Person

    Expected Completion Date

    Notes

    Status

    Action/Point Person

    Expected Completion Date

    Notes

    Status

    Gather feedback from local campus Special Collections colleagues

    Apr 7, 2023

    Team members gathered feedback via poll, meetings, and email. Responses to the “Useful Data Elements Poll” question “Would it be acceptable for the sake of the UCOP stats to count manuscripts…” are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KeesYLZE4X-1dbHh8Fg2KGmSB7kBdvVJ5C81-8ZhKHY/edit#gid=0

    Complete

    Gather feedback from Heads of Special Collections as a group

    Apr 20, 2023

    Ellen and Danielle attended a monthly HOSC Zoom meeting, then shared their feedback with the Team via Zoom meeting on 24 April 2023.

    Complete

    The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
    Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu