airo international research journal may, 2014 volume iii ... · ventures in libraries followed by...

Airo International Research Journal May, 2014

Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714

1



2

A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON RESOURCE SHARING: INTERNATIONAL

PERSPECTIVES

Anita Chhatwal

Sri Guru Gobind Singh College, Sector-26, Chandigarh-160019;

Email: [email protected]

Corresponding Author

Anita Chhatwal

Sri Guru Gobind Singh College,

Sector-26, Chandigarh-160019

Phone: 0172 2790311

Fax: 0172 2790312

Email: [email protected]

Declaration of Author: I hereby declare that the content of this research paper has been truly made by me including the title of the research paper/research article, and no serial sequence of any sentence has been copied through internet or any other source except references or some unavoidable essential or technical terms. In case of finding any patent or copy right content of any source or other author in my paper/article, I shall always be responsible for further clarification or any legal issues. For sole right content of different author or different source, which was unintentionally or intentionally used in this research paper shall immediately be removed from this journal and I shall be accountable for any further legal issues, and there will be no responsibility of Journal in any matter. If anyone has some issue related to the content of this research paper’s copied or plagiarism content he/she may contact on my above mentioned email ID.

Abstract

ICT has changed the library and information setting with the introduction of automated,

digital, virtual libraries as well as library networks. Because of the online revolution, it is now quite

easy to share the information on web. The libraries are not an exception to all these developments.

Since the transformation of higher education into new media age, the role of libraries is being

remodeled. Even at the same time, in view of the escalating need to possess mass of information,

there are inadequate available resources to procure the same. In addition to the objective of sharing

the e-content like e-books, e-journals and other multimedia literature, there is an emergent need for

libraries to develop some collaborative arrangement to grant access to the information regardless of

their place of access, to act as a bridge in connecting the libraries especially in remote areas, thus

giving way to polish up the services of the libraries, to deal with the dropping library financial

blueprints and finally to develop the excellence intensity of students. The collaboration is not one

library, but the collaborating libraries linked together. The information specialists are governed by

the necessity to focus upon providing the access rather than possession and bank upon extraneous

resources for providing access to its clients. In the light of same, there is a need for librarians to re-

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



3

examine the concept of collaborative sharing as a accomplishable means to satisfy the pertinent user

information needs.

In the above context, the study in hand is an output of research in collaborative sharing. In this

paper, an attempt has been made to explore the comprehensive review of research carried out in

international and national perspectives. The study covers various facets related to collaborative

sharing, findings and their conceptual meanings. It includes about fifty two researches undertaken

by national and international researchers. The findings of the studies are organized into various

categories i.e., Collaboration, Inter-Library Lending, Document Delivery, Consortia and National

Initiatives.

1. Introduction

In today‟s information age, the present

day libraries and its services have been

mastered by swiftly growing hi-tech

revolution to a great extent. Innovative

expansions have presented the user with

multidimensional voluminous information

explosion. Libraries have realized that no

matter how they are well funded, it is difficult

to acquire all the materials needed by their

clientele. Therefore, some alternative

arrangement is required for the optimum

utilization in an economical way resulting in

introducing the concept like „Resource

Sharing or Collaborative Sharing‟.

The study in hand focuses upon the term

„Collaborative Sharing‟ interchangeably in

place of resource sharing as the study

deliberates upon the collection sharing.

Grosch1 (1995) distinguished the

Library Cooperation movement as wide

ranging access to information, inexpensive

cataloguing, low cost document delivery,

cooperative acquisitions, copyrights,

governance and related projects based on

development of libraries and information

centres.

To gain a practical approach of the term

„Collaboration‟, there is a need to differentiate

the term Collaboration from cooperation and

coordination. They were differentiated in

terms of revelation and associations, structure,

power and responsibility, resources and

awards and people. (Shepherd, Gillham, &

Ridley2,1999) Cooperative efforts are

1 Grosch, A.N. (1995). Library information technology

network. New York: Marcel Dekker 2 Shepherd, M., Gillham, V., & Ridley, M. (1999).

Truth is in the details: Lessons in inter-

university library collaboration. Library

Management, 20(6), 332-37. Retrieved May 14,

2016 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435129910280375



4

unceremonious with limited customary

objectives. They are deficient in formation and

ceremonial scheduling also. Hence,

communication is only as required and

resources and rewards are separate.

Coordination incorporates evaluation of

congruence discrete ambitions, concentration

on the individual task of preordained interval,

act independently of each other, assigned roles

for each organization, understand the need of

information sources and probability of putting

them together for access.

Reitz3 (2004) elaborated that resource

sharing is the outcome of the endorsement, be

it formal or non-formal with a group of

libraries to achieve the common objectives of

sharing their collections, sharing their data,

sharing their facilities, sharing their personnel

etc. This in turn will be beneficial for the

library staff as well as end users. Hence,

initiate the process of trimming down the tariff

on collection development. Reitz4 (2004)

further defines consortium as an

amalgamation of self sustaining libraries or

library organization through ceremonial

concord with the intention to share their

resources. The members may belong to an

explicit region or as per type of the library

(academic, national, public, or special) or as

3 Reitz, J.M. (2004). Dictionary for library and

information science. Westport: Libraries Unlimited 4 ibid

per subject specialism. Library network as

explored by Reitz5 (2004) is where more than

two library and information centres or

establishments are in the process of swapping

the information through common

communication networking channels generally

for achieving the collective objectives.

The resource sharing has been described

by Usman6 (2006) as the arrangements that are

habitually the services initiated by the libraries

of the institutions. Such services are like inter-

library loan service where collaboration

between more than two libraries is triggered

off with the help of written agreement. This is

true specifically with reference to the

geographically and politically separated

library partners.

2. Types of Collaborative Sharing

Collaborative sharing could be divided into

three types:

i. Conventional Library Materials: It

includes other than computerized resources,

such as printed resources, books and

journals. The processing of such library

material is done traditionally, i.e, manual

method of processing and information

networks. Nevertheless, currently, academic

networks are one of the outstanding conduits

5 ibid

6 Usman, I. (2006). New approaches in library

resources sharing in the digital age. Conference

Proceedings of the Nigerian Librarian

Association, Abuja, pp. 45-52.



5

for obtaining information and resource

sharing.

ii. Human Resources: The collective sharing

of human resources has gone beyond the

scope of cataloguing work. The scope has

been enhanced to incorporate personnel for

other operations also. Notably, these are

NOTISACQ for acquisition; AUTOCAT for

cataloguing; LIBREF-L for reference service

and ILL-L for interlibrary loan.

iii. Computerized Resources: Academic

networks, OPACs, IRs, software, etc, are

some of the splendid information resources

based on computers. These are already

being offered by many research libraries and

institutions.

3. Possibilities of Collaborative Sharing

The accessibility of library networks has

extended the method of collaborative sharing

among libraries. The document delivery,

interlibrary loan and supply of copy of the

documents are some of the cooperation

methodology adopted traditionally by the

libraries. Lately, the cooperative acquisitions

and cooperative cataloguing has also been

added to the list. The recently added kinds of

collaborative sharing methods include:

i. Interactive Message: Interactive message

is the easiest way for obtaining electronic

texts programs through the computer

networks located in geographically distant

sites.

ii. Electronic Mail (or E-mail): E-mail is

used for exchange of information

electronically. Recently, e-mail is used for

transmitting electronic version of

information, besides e-messages.

iii. File Transfer: It is used mostly for

sending the information around the world

electronically.

iv. Remote Login: Remote login is used for

database search. It is helpful for desktop

sharing and for installation of distinct

software packages by connecting the host

computer with the networked computer at

off-site. Examples from library include

OPAC, IR systems or other files installed

through remote login.

4. Participants of Collaborative Sharing

Earlier to the occurrence of library

networks, movements of collaborative sharing

were by and large executed by the libraries

and information centres only. But there is a

shift these days as far as the sharing of

resources is concerned as the independent

individuals or institutions are in the position to

share their resources and problem solving

methodologies through the concept of

collaboration. The participation is among the

following group of segments:

a) Library and information centres;



6

b) Computer networks and

c) End users.

For the purpose of a clear

understanding, the various concepts related to

collaborative sharing have been explored in

this paper. The review literature findings have

been organized into following categories:

i. Collaboration

ii. Inter-Library Lending

iii. Document Delivery

iv. Consortia

v. National Initiatives

5. Review

The call for sharing other libraries

collections is as old as libraries themselves.

The notion of collaborative sharing also called

library cooperation can be traced back to 200

BC when Alexandria Library shared its

resources with Pergamum Library. The

concept of library cooperation survived among

Monastery libraries around 13th

century.

According to Kraus7 (1975), in 1740, the

agreements were commenced among the

Universities of Lund, Abo and Greifswald.

The Union Catalogue of the libraries of

Weimar and Jean also emerged as an example

of library cooperation. Similarly, collective

acquisition was adopted for Walfenbuttel and

Gottengen. The creation of Union Catalogues

of the participating member library and copy

7 Kraus, J.W. (1975). Prologue to library cooperation.

Library Trends, 24(2), 169-181.

cataloguing were among the first cooperative

ventures in libraries followed by physical

resource sharing of books and periodicals

through interlibrary loan and joint archiving.

Likewise, in 1868, „Catalogue of Manuscripts

in various parts of India‟ was compiled by

Whitney Stokes. In 1863, Part I of Sanskrit

Manuscripts in private libraries of North-West

provinces covering Varanasi was published.

The first major Union List compiled by Henry

C. Bolton in 1885 was named „A Catalogue of

Scientific and Technical Periodicals‟. In the

last quarter of 19th

century, for about one

hundred years, the collaborative programmes

centered around printed materials. Several

such initiatives survived and flourished while

a few died.

With the advent of the 20th

century, the

traditional barriers to access information

resources started gradually diminishing owing

to the emergence of Internet and ICT which

made it possible for the library community to

retrieve information through cyberspace with

greater speed and economy. The cooperative

cataloguing projects and creation of National

Union Catalogue by Library of Congress was

commendable. Nearly a century after Melvil

Dewey wrote on cooperation, library network

stepped into the electronic era through online

cataloguing system. It was for the first time in

the history that the information was stored in



7

digital formats and retrieved over networks.

Data is stored on computers and networks

connect these computers to user PCs.

Realizing this, the libraries started

collaborative sharing of their resources.

In contrast to the commencement of

consortium in the developed countries like

USA, Canada, UK, developing countries like

India was far behind in the said technology of

sharing resources. Though, some libraries

initiated the efforts to share their resources but

failed.

The abundance of literature on various

needs issues related to resource sharing and

collaborative sharing is available in the world.

With the advent of ICT and Internet in 1990s,

the access to electronic databases through the

system of networking has encouraged the

concept of Collaborative Sharing for libraries

and information centres as well as end users.

Collaborative sharing is a term covering

used interchangeably for library cooperation,

resource sharing, inter-library loan, document

delivery, consortia, and several other library

services. The study in hand focuses upon the

term „collaborative sharing‟ as an alternative

to resource sharing given that the largest part

of the deliberations in this study revolve

around sharing of resources.

5.1 Collaboration

Sinclair8 (1973) was the first to propose

four models of collaborative activity among

libraries that is still considered as a valuable

guide today. The first is the bilateral exchange

model which focuses upon the sharing of

materials between two participating such as

reciprocal borrowing agreements. The second

is the pooling model between two libraries

willing to contribute unsheathe from a

collective pool of resources. The dual-service

model is the third which involves two or more

libraries taking advantage of the facilities of

the participating libraries to generate a quality

yield such as a shared OPAC (Online Public

Access Catalogue). The last type of

collaborative activity is refereed by Sinclair as

the service centre model between the

participating libraries utilizing the services of

a facilitating library to input and process

materials for the individual libraries, rather

than for common output OCLC is n example

of this model.

Sewell9 (1981) observed that during

eighties the concept of cooperation, “how

libraries can achieve their objective better by

working together” (Sewell 198110

, p.9) has

been shifted towards the concept of resource

8 Sinclair, M.P. (1973). Typology of library

cooperatives. Special Libraries, 64(4), 181-186. 9 Sewell, P. (1981). Resource sharing: Cooperation and

co-ordination in library and information

services. London: Deutsch 10

ibid



8

sharing. Resource sharing is affluent term

encompassing the tactical aspects to associate

and connect the end users with the information

they requisitioned. The author states “The new

term appears… to assume a range of physical,

intellectual and conceptual resources on one

hand and a body of people on the other, and

covers the activities involved in organizing the

one into set of optimum relationships to meet

the needs of the other.” (Sewell11

, 1981, p.9)

Sloan12

(1986) explored that the only

operational resource sharing being

successfully implemented since five years is

by Statewide Library Computer System

(LCS), Illinois. The 27 participating libraries

are contributing towards several resource-

sharing activities to OCLC, LCS, interlibrary

loan and Illinois Library and Information

Network Systems.

The significant doctoral study that has

addressed the issue of Resource Sharing is that

of Khan13

(1991). He concluded that

conventional cooperation is nearly found

hypothetical in Pakistan. Informal cooperation

in the framework of reprography is seen in

existence for the purpose of interlibrary loan

11

ibid 12

Sloan, B.G. (1986). Resource sharing among

academic libraries: The LCS experience. Journal

of Academic Librarianship, 12(1), 26-29. 13

Khan, F. (1991). Coordinated planning for university

libraries in Pakistan: Prospects, organization

and implementation. (Doctoral Thesis). Islamia

Univesity Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

services only. Similarly Khalid14

(1997) in his

study found that personal liaisons and ad-hoc

basis cooperative and network systems

prevailed in the developing countries. Khalid

in his study also tendered a multi stage model

for the developing countries to achieve the

objective of cooperation and networking at

local, regional and national levels. The major

obstacle observed by Khalid in the

development of sharing of resources was

dearth of technical knowledge and

standardization in services.

Shreeves15

(1997) opined that digital

aura will b e developed owing to the

cooperation among the participants. This will

enhance their opportunities and challenges,

thus giving way to the access of information

resources to the end users to a large extent.

Line outlines that “cooperation can also

take place on various scales: local, sub-

national, supranational or global. Within each

area, it can be sectoral-by type of library, by

subject area, by type of material or by type of

client.” (Line16

, 1997, p.66). Line also stated

that “the increasing use of electronic media for

14

Khalid, H. (1997). Cooperation and networking in

university libraries: A model for initiation and

implementation in countries with less developed

systems. (Doctoral Thesis). Metropolitan

University, London 15

Shreeves, E. (1997). Is there a future for cooperative

collection development in the digital age?

Library Trends, 45(3), 373-391. 16

Line, M.B. (1997). Cooperation: The triumph of hope

over experience. Interlending and Document

Supply, 25(2), 64-75.



9

text and the direct access by the consumer

that electronic access and storage make

possible will have a profound impact on all

document access and supply.” (Line17

, 1997,

p.66)

An article in American Libraries18

(2000) regarding cooperation states that

“campus users want resources quickly, easily

and without direct charge. Consortia resource

sharing helps libraries to meet the demand

while sharing and controlling costs”.

(American Libraries19

, 2000, p.41)

Cornish20

(2000) however took a

broader perspective in his other study. He

assures that “education, health, social welfare,

economic growth, defense structures, personal

growth and democracy are all underpinned by

good and efficient access to a wide range of

information.” (Cornish21

, 2000, p.7). This

means that participating in the collaborative

sharing programs will definitely provide

access to the broad range of information.

17

ibid 18

Cook, A. (2000). Sharing resources, separate

systems, common cause: How three networks

have fared: Successes in Ohio, three North-

Central States, and California exceed all

expectations. American Libraries, 31(10), 38-42.

Retrieved 12 May 2016 from

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-

67413261/separate-systems-common-cause-

how-three-networks 19

ibid 20

Cornish, G.P. (2000). Empowering society through

the global flow of information. Interlending and

Document Supply, 28(1), 5-7. 21

ibid

Riggs22

(2001) comments that “all too

often participants in cooperative projects have

not overcome limited experience with the

outside world and deal with limited

knowledge of other cultures, thus leading to a

series of problems that can spell disaster for

cooperative activities.” (Riggs23

, 2001, p.501).

He asserted that “the greatest strides in

cooperation will occur in the sharing of

electronic resources.” (Riggs24

, 2001, p.500)

As Badu25

(2001) explained,

“partnerships may be viewed as purposive

strategic relationships between independent

firms who share compatible goals, strive for

mutual benefits and acknowledge a high level

of mutual interdependence. They joined

efforts to achieve goals that each firm, acting

alone, could not easily attain. Each firm can

benefit from the alliance without bearing all

the costs and risks of exploiting new business

opportunities on its own”. (Badu26

, 2001,

p.21) Badu studied the University Libraries in

Ghana and the United Kingdom and their

method and approach of library cooperation

and resource sharing. He found that the

22

Riggs, D.E. (2001). International library cooperation:

We have come a long way and have a long way

to go. College and Research Libraries, 62(6),

500-501. 23

ibid 24

ibid 25

Badu, E.E. (2001). Is strategic alliance a panacea for

low service development in university libraries

in Ghana? Education Libraries Journal, 44(1),

21-28. 26

ibid



10

shoddy communication with the participating

libraries, lack of synchronization and trust,

problems with interdependence were some of

the reasons that hampered the successful

implementation of cooperation among the

libraries (Badu27

, 2001, p.26). He further

stresses that successful partnerships are

identified by dedication, coordination,

interdependence and trust, besides, agreement

to cooperate (Badu28

, 2001, p.26). If the

attitudes and abilities subsist together, then

there is a conception of term “cooperation”

(Badu29

, 2001, p.24)

Sapp, & Brunswick30

(2002) defines

resource sharing as “one of the most

singularly defining philosophies that make

libraries unique from other institutions” (Sapp,

& Brunswick 200231

, p.80).

Evans, & Saponaro32

(2005, p.339)

mentioned that “based on the volume of

material, a newcomer to the field might think

that libraries have been successfully engaged

in such activities for a long time. However,

[the] just opposite is the case… What has

changed in the last few years is a rapid growth

27

ibid 28

ibid 29

ibid 30

Sapp, G., & Brunswick, J.R. (2002). Review of the

literature of interlibrary loan, document delivery

and resource sharing, 1995-2000. Journal of

Access Services, 1(1), 49-104. 31

ibid 32

Evans, G.E., & Saponaro, M.Z. (2005). Developing

library and information centre collections. 5th

ed. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

of consortia that purchase electronic

resources.”

Mudd, & Havens33

(2009) gave a

comprehensive view and organized the

challenges to the library cooperation into four

broad categories viz. geographical, cultural,

organizational and financial. He finally

concluded, “As competition for the attention

of information seekers continues to grow, 21st

century libraries have more challenges—and

more opportunities—to consider broad,

flexible cooperative efforts. When institutions

work together to save money and time, reach

users more efficiently and deliver the unique

resources that libraries, museums and archives

provide, they re-prove the value of the

cooperative model.” (Mudd, & Havens34

2009, p.9)

5.2 Interlibrary Lending

According to Kraus35

(1975), sharing

resources by sharing material between more

than one libraries is perhaps the ancient and

uncomplicated method as a single loan

requires only a borrower, a willing lender and

a means of transmission. In an 1876 article,

Samuel Green proposed the libraries enter into

agreements to make the practice most

33

Mudd, S., & Havens, A. (2009). Library cooperation

in the 21st century: Combining forces to achieve

more. NextSpace, 12, 4-9. 34

ibid 35

Kraus, J.W. (1975). Prologue to library cooperation.




11

commonly accepted. The Library Journal

published 19 articles on interlibrary loan from

1900-1915. ALA Committee on Coordination

of College Libraries introduced the first

interlibrary lending code in 1917. Revised

codes were adopted in 1940, 1952, 1968 and

an interlibrary loan procedure manual was

published in 1970. (Kraus36

, 1975, p.171-172)

Cornish37

(1989) very clearly points

out, “most of us are aware of atleast some of

the many economic and political factors that

promote or facilitate cooperation.

Nevertheless, one general factor that should be

mentioned is that there must be a perceived

requirement for an ILL system or other

cooperative activity.” (Cornish38

, 1989, p.35).

Cornish further emphasized that “fears of loss,

damage, financial commitments and

inconvenience to the library‟s „home‟ clients

all contribute to an unwillingness to become

too involved in interlending.”

Jackson39

(2000) observed that,

“collection development librarians have been

traditionally hesitant to rely on other libraries

to meet their user needs, in part because

36

ibid 37

Cornish, G.P. (1989). Interlending in the Carribean:

Questions, problems and possible solutions.

Interlending and Document Supply, 17(2), 35-

41. 38

ibid 39

Jackson, M.E. (2000). Meeting the challenge of

international lending and document supply:

Learning from the global resources program.

Interlending and Document Supply, 28(2), 79-

85.

interlibrary loan was viewed as too slow,

inefficient and costly. Low fill rates, short

loan periods and restrictive and inflexible

lending policies of some libraries have also

contributed to the view that ILL is not

responsive to user needs.” (Jackson40

, 2000,

p.81).

Sapp, & Brunswick41

(2002) made an

extensive review of literature on interlibrary

loan, document delivery and resource sharing

from 1995-2000. He elaborated “many new

theories, models, procedures and technologies

which have been implemented in libraries and

reported in library literature.”

This exchange of views was conceded

by the emergence of e-document delivery

services and full-text databases. At that

moment the issue of argument was the

comparative costs and benefits of diverse

kinds of electronic access, particularly

evaluation with the expenditure of

acquirement, pool of printed material and

capability of the libraries to “protect their

rights, and the rights of their users in license

negotiations for information products,

librarians will need to monitor and evaluate

standard license terms to ensure that fair use,

personal use copying and other user rights are

40

ibid 41

Sapp, G., & Burnswick, J.R. (2002). Review of the



Access Services, 1(1), 49-104.



12

not contracted away”. (Line, Guerrero,

Jackson, Mark, Sène, & Waaijers42

, 2002)

Nitecki, & Renfro43

(2004, p.132) found

that the direct borrowing model is the major

revolution in resource sharing. The authors

observed, “This model allows faculty and

students to perform a single search in a union

catalog to know immediately what is available

on the shelf, to request items online, and to

have a fairly reliable guarantee that books will

be ready for pick up within a specific number

of days…This model reduces staff

involvement for a reader to obtain a needed

book.”

The focus accordingly was switched

over to the aftermath of new document

delivery facilities rather than traditional

interlibrary loan facilities. Hence, there was a

growing reliance of libraries on the

commercial document suppliers. Butler,

Webster, Watkins, & Markhaml44

(2006)

42

Line, M.B., Guerrero, E-M, Jackson, M.E., Mark, N.,

Sène, H., & Waaijers, L. (2002). Future of

interlibrary loan and document supply: Views

and comments. Interlending and Document

Supply, 30(2), 60-65. Retrieved May 12, 2016

from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02641610210430514 43

Nitecki, D.A., & Renfro, P.E. (2004). Borrow direct:

A case study of patron-initiated interlibrary

borrowing service. Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 30(2), 132-135. 44

Butler, B.A., Webster, J., Watkins, S.G., &

Markham, J.W. (2006). Resource sharing within

an international library network: using

technology and professional cooperation to

bridge the waters. IFLA Journal, 32(3), 189-199.

found that the international Association of

Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and

Information Centres (IAMSLIC) have a long

history of resource sharing. In 2002,

IAMSLIC developed a resource sharing

system that cling to Z39.50 for individual

catalog queries, besides, small libraries can

share library holdings through online Union

List of Marine and Aquatic Serials. Butler

observed that the thriving IAMSLIC plan

served as a model for other libraries looking

forward to share their resources and extending

access to subject-specific materials amongst

the member libraries.

5.3 Document Delivery

The concept of document delivery is

recurrently investigated by the library

professionals and research scholars. The

literature is published in various library

journals, books and other related sources.

Ferguson45

(1996) opined that extensive

advocacy of ILL will lead to reduced necessity

of maintain the collections. He maintained that

the libraries should continue with the practice

of maintaining new collections.

Retrieved April 20, 2016 from DOI:

10.1177/0340035206070165 45

Ferguson, A. (1996). Document delivery in the

electronic age: Collecting and service

implications. Journal of Library Administration,

22(4), 85-98.



13

Hollerich46

(1996) elaborated the

manner in which the commercial document

suppliers get in touch with their targeted

patronage, i.e. end-users and conciliators with

the help of fundamental marketing skills.

Therefore, it was projected that the

commercial suppliers will be successful by

communicating with the end users directly,

thus eluding library inter-loan services.

Boyle, & Davies (1999)47

further

analyze that, “the crucial aspect in the entire

access / holdings debate is that of cost

effectiveness: which particular information

service options, and in what circumstances are

cheaper”. (Boyle, & Davies48

, 1999, p.106)

Prowse49

(2000) points out, “the

growing provision of document supply

services that can deliver straight to end-users

inevitably leads libraries to question whether

they should go down this route for atleast of

their ILL requests”. (Prowse50

, 2000, p.190)

Keeping in view the access versus

ownership debate in relation to the document

46

Hollerich, M.A. (1996). Ordering, delivery and

turnaround: how do document suppliers

maintain their markets? In A. Chang, & M.E.

Jackson, (Eds.). Managing Resource Sharing in

the Information Age. New York: AMS Press 47

Boyle, F., & Davies, M. (1999). Access versus

holdings: Document delivery realities.

Electronic Library, 17(2), 105-113. 48

ibid 49

Prowse, S.W. (2000). Current trends in interlending

and document delivery in the UK. Interlending

and Document Supply, 28(4), 184-191. 50

ibid

delivery, Jaswal51

(2000) states, “librarians all

over the world are having to think rationally in

terms of ownership versus access. Librarians

now, out of necessity are moving away from

the traditional concept of ownership and

becoming more aggressive in providing their

patrons with information not stored locally on

open shelves of their libraries” (Jaswal52

,

2000, p.82). Jaswal further explains “with the

support of new information technologies, ILL

and document delivery are fast becoming the

hub of all activities in a library” (Jaswal53

,

2000, p.83). Similarly, Sapp, & Brunswick54

(2002) suggest about the emergence of access

versus ownership debate as “tended to be

dualized in the literature as if they represented

mutually exclusive service paradigms” (Sapp,

& Brunswick55

, 2002, p.64)

Sayed, & Wheeler56

(2001) stated,

“Expansion of the internet, full-text electronic

journals and materials alongwith increased

access to technology and the internet have all

51

Jaswal, B.A. (2000). Electronic document delivery in

Paksitan: A case study. Journal of Interlibrary

Loan, Document Delivery and Information

Supply, 10(4), 81-96. 52

ibid 53

ibid 54

Sapp, G., & Brunswick, J.R. (2002). Review of the



Access Services, 1(1), 49-104. 55

ibid 56

Sayed, E.N., Murray, S.D., & Wheeler, K.P. (2001).

Magic of prospero. Journal of Interlibrary Loan,

Document Delivery and Information Supply,

12(1), 55-74.



14

contributed to patrons increased expectations

of instant delivery to their desktops of full-text

materials” (Sayed, & Wheeler57

, 2001, p.71).

They also found that, “resource sharing and an

efficient document delivery process continue

to play an important role in meeting library

patron‟s information needs.”

Bowler58

(2003) in his study construed

that whether the document delivery is

functional for end users or the libraries is still

unanswered. He observed that the prospect of

document delivery entirely hangs upon the

state of the art ICT, information gateways,

contemporary licensing agreements and joint

venture with publishers and suppliers.

While contemplating document delivery,

Baker59

(2003) considers technology as one of

the factor that is well thought of in the

contemporary era. He stated, “the technologies

of recent years have not just improved access

to different media and content. They have

changed or are changing the face of publishing

and of the research and teaching / learning

endeavor, as for example, recent discussions

regarding e-prints suggest.” (Baker60

, 2003,

p.107)

57

ibid 58

Bowler, J. (2003). Unmediated document delivery:

The issues and possibilities. Australian Library

Journal, 52(4), 327-329. 59

Baker, D. (2003). Document delivery: A new

paradigm? Interlending and Document Supply,

31(2), 104-110. 60

ibid

Oberlander61

(2007) investigated the

domain of application of upcoming ICT. He

explored the role of ICT for the purpose of

delivery of documents as well as sharing of

resources. He focused upon new training

programmes on collaboration and sharing of

the resources by embracing potential

technologies, web services and new

partnerships. The author proposes that “to

focus resource sharing contributions and

community, we have to develop a highly

functional global library directory and

knowledge base, much like enhancing the

OCLC‟s Policies Directory with something

like Merlot or the Blended Librarian. This

global library directory should support several

essential functions and thereby be used often

enough to sustain and grow as a vibrant online

community resource.” (Oberlander62

, 2007,

p.39)

5.4 Consortia

The development of consortia is the

outcome of the desire for resource sharing.

The real drive for library consortium was seen

after 1980 when more and more libraries

started getting automated and used computers

for bibliographic processing activities and

61

Oberlander, C. (2007). Transforming the document

delivery and resource sharing engine. IFLA

Journal, 33(1), 32-40. 62

ibid



15

database searching (Panchakshari63

, n.d.). The

global prime example of 1970‟s is OCLC

(Online Computer Library Centre) in US

along with Research Library Group and

Washington Library Network. OCLC, being a

library cooperative hand, collaborates with

other libraries and provide cost-effective

access to the end users. Of late, newer

consortia came into existence viz Cape‟s

CALICO, Georgia‟s GALILEO, Missouri‟s

MIRACL, Ohio‟s OHIOLINK is a new

consortia initiative to increase greater

economic control over their marketplaces by

pooling their collective financial resources,

Washington‟s WRLC and SUNNYConnect

etc.

Hirshon64

(1995) presents the OhioLink

experience and identifies the factors that

supplemented the libraries to mutually

cooperate in the form of consortia. The factors

are inflated price of publications, spurious

growth of literature, lack of finances with the

government to fund higher education, etc.

(Hirshon65

, 1995, pp.383-384).

63

Panchakshari, H.B. (n.d.). Consortium of libraries: A

successful way of sharing worldwide. Mumbai:

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.

Retrieved April 25, 2010 from

http://www.tifr.res.in/~libws/consortia1.doc 64

Hirshon, A. (1995). Library strategic alliances and

the digital library in the 1990‟s: The OhioLINK

experience. Journal of Academic Librarianship,

21(5), 383-386. Retrieved April 30, 2016 from

doi:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90065-9 65

ibid

Potter66

(1997) identified the genesis of

five statewide academic library consortia. He

observed that the growth of IT, Internet and

WWW has reinforced the libraries to institute

coalition with other libraries in order to fulfill

the needs of the end users (Potter67

, 1997,

p.416). Potter68

believes that with the

information explosion libraries cannot hope to

house all needed information, and hence, there

is a growth of collaboration. In exploring

collaboration, many hope to increase the

amount of information to which their patrons

have access, with moves away from physical

ownership to access to information in various

distributed forms, such as electronic journals.

(p.416).

Kopp69

(1998) observed the transition

from the term “cooperation” to “consortium”

and diction first emerged in the library

literature during the 1950‟s and 1960‟s. It was

an era which witnessed the conception of the

term academic library consortia in US. He

emphasized upon the support rendered by the

consortia for the expansion of various library

66

Potter, W.G. (1997). Recent trends in statewide

academic library consortia. Library Trends,

45(3), 416-434. 67

ibid 68

ibid 69

Kopp, J.J. (1998). Library consortia and information

technology: The past, the present, the promise.

Information Technology and Libraries, 17(1),

7-12.



16

automation projects in 1960s by sharing their

expertise for the same. (Kopp70

, 1998, p.9).

Okerson71

(2000) found that cooperation

at various levels in diverse libraries is sought-

after owing to the advent of electronic

information publishing and end users

expectations regarding availability and access

to such material. The most important factor is

willingness of the publisher to come to terms

with the consortium instead of individual

organizations. He states that the partner

members need to build trust on each other for

the successful implementation of the

consortium.

In an attempt to encourage the use of the

term “Consortia”, Reinhardt, & Te

Boekhorts72

(2001) explained that the term

was originally stemmed from an Anglo-

American background in Germany. Presently,

it is possessed with a comprehensive meaning

including more “partnership”, “association”

and cooperation of libraries. (Reinhardt, &

Boekhorts73

, 2001, p.67)

70

ibid 71

Okerson, A. (2000). Strength in numbers: Library

consortia in the electronic age. Paper

Delivered at the ITD Conference, Paris.

Retrieved April 24, 2010 from

http://www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/strength-

numbers.html 72

Reinhardt, W., & Te Boekhorts, P. (2001). Library

consortia in Germany. Liber Quarterly: The

Journal of European Research Libraries, 11

(1), 67-79. 73

ibid

Eccles74

(2006) discussed about “how

difficult it is for the special libraries to form

consortia or to join any collaborative effort

simply because of their specialized nature and

different types of information they each

provide”. (Eccles75

, 2006, p.31). Eccles

further highlights the concept and benefits of

consortia to libraries as well as publishers

along with the problems faced by libraries in

joining a particular consortium. He concluded,

“Membership in consortia provides an

umbrella of protection and benefits for

individual libraries. Look around, there must

be a few libraries nearby willing to

collaborate, or maybe the consortia that is

right for you already exists.” (Eccles76

, 2006,

p.37)

5.5 National Initiatives

It has been seen that from last so many

years, due to lack of funds, the purchasing

capacity of majority of the libraries in India

has been hampered. Owing to the fact, the

concept of resource sharing has become

inexorable for libraries and information

centres universally. The call for resource

sharing, in Indian libraries, does not

necessitate any special mention. The current

breakthrough developments in the field of IT,

74

Eccles, K. (2006). Consortia: Build negotiating

strength. Information Outlook, 10(12), 31-37. 75

ibid 76

ibid



17

ICT, artificial intelligence and human/

machine interface has given way to the

concept of effective resource sharing. The

developed countries have already been using

the networked resource sharing since 1930s

where it has been commenced in the

developing countries like India in 1979 with

the establishment of National Information

System for Science and Technology

(NISSAT).

A number of initiatives have been taken,

over the last 15 years, by a variety of agencies,

to set up / coordinate networking activities at

various levels. From past many years, there

have been a handful of endeavors to facilitate

resource sharing in Indian libraries. The

National Union Catalogue of Current Serials

in India (NUCCSI) of INSDOC has been a

good initiative. Many other networks in

various cities of India like ADINET, BONET,

CALIBNET, DELNET, MYLIBNET,

PUNENET and INFLIBNET are some of the

developments in library cooperation.

Unnikrishnan, Ravindran, & Suku77

(1997) in his article points out that in order to

provide document delivery service to its

research scholars, the Mahatma Gandhi

77

Unnikrishnan, S., Ravindran, K., & Suku, J. (1997).

Document delivery service through NUCSSI:

A case study of Mahatma Gandhi University

Library. SRELS Journal of Information

Management, 34(2), 101-109. Retrieved May

14, 2016 from DOI:

10.17821/srels/1997/v34i2/48748

University Library obtained photocopies of

the requisite material from 227 participating

institutions listed under „Document Supply

Centre‟ in NUCSSI, i.e. National Union

Catalogue of Scientific Serials

The authors in their study evaluate the

performance of these institutions with respect

to document supply service and tried to

present the trends prevailing in the country.

The study revealed that most of the research

libraries in the country have not taken

Document Delivery Service (DDS) as a

mission as have done in the libraries in UK

and USA. Additionally, the authors stress the

need for a uniform procedure and recommend

setting up of standards for providing

document delivery service.

Dasgupta78

(2002) in her paper

discussed that cooperation from local level to

the global level is a pre requisite for the

consortium development in the new

millennium. She stresses, “Cooperation is a

pre-requisite for all types of networking for

resource sharing. If the prerequisites are made

available, the university libraries could plan

for resource sharing programmes,

78

Dasgupta, K. (2002). Libraries and librarians in India

on the threshold of the third millennium:

Challenges and risks. In T.V. Ershova, & Y.E.

Hohlov, (Eds.) Libraries in the Information

Society (pp.112-118). Berlin/Munich: K.G. Saur

Verlag. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/039-

120e.htm



18

apprenticeship in libraries for learning new

skills and IT training programmes,

consultancy in retro conversion and in

developing IT infrastructure. All these put

together will be the basis of preparing a

perspective plan and evolve a vision for

university libraries in the country.”

Salgar, & Murthy79

(2003) observed that

the Indian libraries are finding it difficult to

meet the demands of the end users owing to

the escalating prices of the material and lack

of finances for the libraries. They focused

upon efforts generated by the University

Grants Commission of India (UGC). UGC has

initiated the concept of document delivery

service electronically by establishing a

network and document delivery centres such

as computerized university libraries.

Cholin, & Murthy80

(2003) in their

paper emphasized that spurious growth in

literature, price acceleration, budget

limitations, restricted procurement of library

resources has showed the way for resource

sharing through networked libraries.

Electronic resources are also transforming the

academic libraries.

79

Salgar, S.M., & Murthy, T.A.V. (2002). Enhancing

access to information through document delivery

systems-INFLIBNET‟s approach. Interlending

and Document Supply, 31(1), 7-11. 80

Cholin, P., & Murthy, T.A.V. (2003). Sharing

resources in the electronic information

environment: role of INFLIBNET- UGC.

Seminar Papers 48th

ILA Conference held at

NIMHANS, Bangalore. pp.153-163.

Laxman Rao81

(2006) describes the need

for consortia, which, “deal collectively with

the problems of purchasing online products, to

benefit from the best possible volume pricing,

and to secure the best terms of agreement

from online publishers”. (Laxman Rao82

,

2006, p.468)

Malviya, & Anil Kumar83

(2007) traced

the history of library consortia, networking

and consortia management techniques and

future of consortia efforts. He found that the

foremost means of resource sharing in print

era are interlibrary loan, document delivery,

institutional membership and consortia and

lastly concluded that “Given the expensive

nature of the resources necessary to create

digital collections and to build the

infrastructure that allows access to them, the

only way to build such a collection is through

sharing the job. Unless the libraries are ready

to discharge duties in a collaborative

environment, such future tasks will be difficult

to be accomplished. After all one should learn

to crawl before walking and to walk before

running” (Malviya, & Anil Kumar84

, 2007,

p.29). He finished with the observation,

81

Laxman Rao, N. (2006). Knowledge-sharing

activities in India. Library Trends 54 (3), 463-484. 82

ibid 83

Malviya, R.N., & Anil Kumar (2007). Networking

and consortia management techniques.

DESIDOC Bulletin of Information

Technology, 27(3), 24-30. 84

ibid



19

“Keeping in view the old traditions and

applying them in the new environment will

make institutions grow and provide useful

service for the betterment of resource

sharing.”

Walmiki, Ramakrishnegowda, &

Prithviraj85

(2010) observed that, “Library

consortium has taken different evolutionary

manifestations such as library cooperation,

interlibrary loan, document delivery etc.” He

further states that “Indian academic and

research libraries have started to provide

shared web-based resources since the turn of

the 20th

century. Some initiatives include

FORSA library consortium, CSIR

Consortium, HELINET consortium, ICAST

consortium and UGC-Infonet Digital Library

Consortium” (Walmiki, Ramakrishnegowda,

& Prithviraj86

, 2010, p.34) In his questionnaire

based survey the author found that only 39.9%

of the faculty members were aware of and use

UGC-Infonet Digital Library Consortium

resources while 39.99% were aware but do not

use and 24.22% were not at all aware of any

such consortium. Non-users belong to social

85

Walmiki, R.H., Ramakrishnegowda, K.C., &

Prithviraj, K.R. (2010). Awareness and use of

UGC-Infonet digital library consortium by the

faculty members of Karnataka State

Universities. Annals of Library and

Information Studies, 57(1), 33-43. Retrieved

May 16, 2016 from

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/82

83 86

ibid

sciences and humanities whereas science

faculty makes frequent use of the consortium

resources. Only 5.22%of faculty members

know have the expertise how to use the digital

resources.

5.6 Inferences

The literature reviewed corroborates the

reality that a latest political stability

emphasized knowledge for sustainable growth

is in existence. Knowledge has become a vital

component in the educational and economic

evolution of a country. The review further

reveals that the libraries in higher education

system, which are believed to be the

instruments for educational and economic

development of the country, do not have

ample information resources with them.

Consequently, they project alternative ways of

providing benefits to the end users from global

information networks.

The literature also inspected ubiquitous

business models globally and countrywide,

their strengths and weaknesses related to

collaborative sharing. It is apparent from the

literature that the existing state of

collaborative sharing is exceptionally

rhythmic. Internationally, it has been seen that

the libraries are providing access to

information to their end users with the help of

document delivery, borrowing through

consortium, interlibrary loan facility.



20

Various barriers are also being faced by

the libraries all over the world such as lack of

funds, deficient in technical knowledge,

economic recession, inflation, etc. The review

further reveals that the libraries in India are

not only deficient in acquiring resources but

also faces funds constraints and inappropriate

infrastructure to meet the information

demands of the end users. The extensive

literature review does not found any new

model of collaborative sharing, neither found

the emergence of any new financial models

for collaborative sharing. Apparently, there is

no „novel‟ way out.

The present study indeed will go a long

way to serve as a pedestal for prospect

research studies in collaborative sharing and

also help the libraries in designing and

developing the need based sharing information

systems / centres for meeting the information

requirement of the library users.

References

1. Badu, E.E. (2001). Is strategic alliance a

panacea for low service development in

university libraries in Ghana? Education

Libraries Journal. 44(1), 21-28.

2. Baker, D. (2003). Document delivery: A

new paradigm? Interlending and

Document Supply, 31(2), 104-110.

3. Bowler, J. (2003). Unmediated document

delivery: The issues and possibilities.

Australian Library Journal, 52(4), 327-

329.

4. Boyle, F., & Davies, M. (1999). Access

versus holdings: Document delivery

realities. Electronic Library, 17(2), 105-

113.

5. Butler, B.A., Webster, J., Watkins, S.G.,

& Markham, J.W. (2006). Resource

sharing within an international library

network: Using technology and

professional cooperation to bridge the

waters. IFLA Journal, 32(3), 189-199.

Retrieved April 20, 2016 from DOI:

10.1177/0340035206070165

6. Cholin, P., & Murthy, T.A.V. (2003).

Sharing resources in the electronic

information environment: role of

INFLIBNET- UGC. Seminar Papers 48th

ILA Conference held at NIMHANS,

Bangalore. 153-163.

7. Cook, A. (2000). Sharing resources,

separate systems, common cause: How

three networks have fared: Successes in

Ohio, three North-Central States, and

California exceed all expectations.

American Libraries, 31(10), 38-42.

Retrieved 12 May 2016 from

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-

67413261/separate-systems-common-

cause-how-three-networks

8. Cornish, G.P. (1989). Interlending in the

Carribean: Questions, problems and

possible solutions. Interlending and


9. Cornish, G.P. (2000). Empowering

society through the global flow of

information. Interlending and Document

Supply, 28(1), 5-7.

10. Dasgupta, K. (2002). Libraries and

librarians in India on the threshold of the

third millennium: Challenges and risks. In

T.V. Ershova, & Y.E. Hohlov, (Eds.)

Libraries in the Information Society

(pp.112-118). Berlin/Munich: K.G. Saur

Verlag. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/03

9-120e.htm

11. Eccles, K. (2006). Consortia: Build

negotiating strength. Information Outlook,

10(12), 31-37.



21

12. Evans, G.E., & Saponaro, M.Z. (2005).

Developing library and information

centre collections. 5th

ed. Englewood:

Libraries Unlimited

13. Ferguson, A. (1996). Document delivery

in the electronic age: Collecting and

service implications. Journal of Library

Administration, 22(4), 85-98.

14. Grosch, A.N. (1995). Library information

technology network. New York: Marcel

Dekker

15. Hirshon, A. (1995). Library strategic

alliances and the digital library in the

1990‟s: The OhioLINK experience.

Journal of Academic Librarianship,

21(5), 383-386. Retrieved April 30, 2016

from doi:10.1016/0099-1333(95)90065-9

16. Hollerich, M.A. (1996). Ordering,

delivery and turnaround: How do

document suppliers maintain their

markets? In A. Chang, & M.E.Jackson,

(Eds.) Managing Resource Sharing in the

Information Age. New York: AMS Press

17. Jackson, M.E. (2000). Meeting the

challenge of international lending and

document supply: Learning from the

global resources program. Interlending

and Document Supply, 28(2), 79-85.

18. Jaswal, B.A. (2000). Electronic document

delivery in Paksitan: A case study.

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document

Delivery and Information Supply, 10(4),

81-96.

19. Kaul, S. (2010). DELNET: the functional

resource sharing library network: A

success story from India. Interlending and


Retrieved May 12, 2016 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0264161101104

7169

20. Khalid, H. (1997). Cooperation and

networking in university libraries: A

model for initiation and implementation

in countries with less developed systems.

(Doctoral Thesis). Metropolitan

University, London

21. Khan, F. (1991). Coordinated planning

for university libraries in Pakistan:

Prospects, organization and

implementation. (Doctoral Thesis).

Islamia Univesity Bahawalpur, Pakistan.

22. Kopp, J.J. (1998). Library consortia and

information technology: The past, the

present, the promise. Information

Technology and Libraries, 17(1), 7-12.

23. Kraus, J.W. (1975). Prologue to library

cooperation. Library Trends, 24(2), 169-

181.

24. Laxman Rao, N. (2006). Knowledge-

sharing activities in India. Library Trends,

54(3), 463-484.

25. Line, M.B (1997). Cooperation: The

triumph of hope over experience.

Interlending and Document Supply, 25(2),

64-75.

26. Line, M.B., Guerrero, E-M, Jackson,

M.E., Mark, N., Sène, H., & Waaijers, L.

(2002). Future of interlibrary loan and

document supply: Views and comments.

Interlending and Document Supply, 30(2),

60-65. Retrieved May 12, 2016 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0264161021043

0514

27. Malviya, R.N., & Anil Kumar (2007).

Networking and consortia management

techniques. DESIDOC Bulletin of

Information Technology, 27(3), 24-30.

28. Manjunatha, K., & Shivalingaiah, D.

(2003). Resource sharing in academic

libraries. Annals of Library and

Information Studies, 50(1), 27-30.

29. Mudd, S., & Havens, A. (2009). Library

cooperation in the 21st century:

Combining forces to achieve more.

NextSpace, 12, 4-9.

30. Nitecki, D.A., & Renfro, P.E. (2004).

Borrow direct: A case study of patron-

initiated interlibrary borrowing service.

Journal of Academic Librarianship,

30(2), 132-135.

31. Oberlander, C. (2007). Transforming the

document delivery and resource sharing

engine. IFLA Journal, 33(1), 32-40.



22

32. Okerson, A. (2000). Strength in numbers:

Library consortia in the electronic age.

Paper Delivered at the ITD Conference,

Paris. Retrieved April 24, 2010 from

http://www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/stre

ngth-numbers.html

33. Panchakshari, H.B (n.d.). Consortium of

libraries: a successful way of sharing

worldwide. Mumbai: Tata Institute of

Fundamental Research. Retrieved April

25, 2010 from

http://www.tifr.res.in/~libws/consortia1.d

oc

34. Pandian, M.P., Jambhekar, A., &

Karisiddappa, C.R. (2002) IIM digital

library system: Consortia‐based approach.

Electronic Library, 20(3), 211-214.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0264047021043

2357

35. Potter, W.G. (1997). Recent trends in

statewide academic library consortia.


36. Prowse, S.W. (2000). Current trends in

interlending and document delivery in the

UK. Interlending and Document Supply,

28(4), 184-191.

37. Reinhardt, W., & Te Boekhorts, P.

(2001). Library consortia in Germany.

Liber Quarterly: The Journal of

European Research Libraries, 11(1), 67-

79.

38. Reitz, J.M. (2004). Dictionary for library

and information science. Westport:

Libraries Unlimited

39. Riggs, D.E. (2001). International library

cooperation: We have come a long way

and have a long way to go. College and

Research Libraries, 62(6), 500-501.

40. Rona, W. (1999). Very model of a

modern library consortium. Library

Consortium Management: An

International Journal, 1(1), 5-18.

41. Salgar, S.M., & Murthy, T.A.V. (2002).

Enhancing access to information through

document delivery systems-

INFLIBNET‟s approach. Interlending

and Document Supply, 31(1), 7-11.

42. Sapp, G., & Brunswick, J.R. (2002).

Review of the literature of interlibrary

loan, document delivery and resource

sharing, 1995-2000. Journal of Access

Services, 1(1), 49-104.

43. Sayed, E.N., Murray, S.D., & Wheeler,

K.P. (2001). Magic of prospero. Journal

of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery

and Information Supply, 12(1), 55-74.

44. Sewell, P. (1981). Resource sharing:

cooperation and co-ordination in library

and information services. London:

Deutsch

45. Shepherd, M., Gillham, V., & Ridley, M.

(1999). Truth is in the details: Lessons in

inter-university library collaboration.

Library Management, 20(6), 332-37.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0143512991028

0375

46. Shreeves, E. (1997). Is there a future for

cooperative collection development in the

digital age? Library Trends, 45(3), 373-

391.

47. Sinclair, M.P. (1973). Typology of library

cooperatives. Special Libraries, 64(4),

181-186.

48. Sloan, B.G. (1986). Resource sharing

among academic libraries: The LCS

experience. Journal of Academic

Librarianship, 12(1), 26-29.

49. Unnikrishnan, S., Ravindran, K., & Suku,

J. (1997). Document delivery service

through NUCSSI: A case study of

Mahatma Gandhi University Library.

SRELS Journal of Information

Management, 34(2), 101-109. Retrieved

May 14, 2016 from DOI:

10.17821/srels/1997/v34i2/48748

50. Usman, I. (2006). New approaches in

library resources sharing in the digital

age. Conference Proceedings of the

Nigerian Librarian Association. Abuja,

Nigeria. pp. 45-52.



23

51. Vasanthi, M.C. (2001). Changing

environment of academic libraries: end-

user education and planning strategies for

libraries in India. Library Philosophy and

Practice, 4(1), 1-4. Retrieved May 16,

2016 from

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mboli

n/vasa-enduser.html

52. Walmiki, R.H., Ramakrishnegowda, K.C.,

& Prithviraj, K.R. (2010). Awareness and

use of UGC-Infonet digital library

consortium by the faculty members of

Karnataka State Universities. Annals of

Library and Information Studies, 57(1),

33-43. Retrieved May 16, 2016 from

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/12345678

9/8283

airo international research journal may, 2014 volume iii ... · ventures in libraries followed by...

Documents