whittaker.indd


 

 
 

 
        

 

  
    

    
      

      

     
   

      
      

 

    

     
      

 
    

 
     

     

    
      

       
     
     

      
      

    
       

Using Circulation Systems for 
Special Collections: Tracking Usage, 
Promoting the Collection, and 
Addressing the Backlogs 

Beth M. Whittaker 

Innovation and change are perennially hot topics in libraries: traditional 
library services are being rethought in response to emerging needs. At 
The Ohio State University (OSU) Libraries, a cross-departmental team 
responded to a new emphasis on assessment and outreach by using the 
circulation module of our integrated library system (ILS) to measure the 
use of special collections and archives materials.This endeavor enabled 
us to streamline workflow and document our successes, increasing 
knowledge across the libraries about circulation functions and practices. 
This project’s findings may apply at other institutions to assist librarians 
in planning and implementing such a project. 

t is worth underscoring a few 
facts about special collections 
management. These valuable, 
rare, or unique materials usu-

ally are consulted by patrons in a secure 
reading room. Any desired copying 
or photography is handled by staff, to 
maintain the integrity of the materials and 
to ensure proper preservation measures 
and compliance with copyright or use 
restrictions. Despite perceived barriers 
to their use, education and outreach have 
become a greater focus for special col-
lections in recent years, in keeping with 
the educational mission of larger parent 
institutions.1 The cultural heritage com-
munity has been increasingly concerned 
about the undocumented backlogs that 

plague many special collections, and bod-
ies such as the Association of Research 
Libraries’ Special Collections Task Force 
have consistently a empted to address 
this issue, particularly through the “Ex-
posing Hidden Collections” initiatives.2 
New resources are being directed to 
special collections to connect readers with 
currently inaccessible materials. 

Traditionally, special collections operate 
parallel systems for many common library 
tasks. Registration of patrons is o en very 
thorough, providing an additional security 
screening and documenting users’research 
interest in the specific material consulted. 
Retrieval of materials is also handled dif-
ferently, echoing pre-automation practices 
with paper call slips. In many institutions, 

Beth M. Whi aker is Head, Special Collections Cataloging, at The Ohio State University Libraries; e-mail: 
whi aker.50@osu.edu. The author wishes to thank Nancy Helmick, Library Catalog System Manager at 
the Ohio State University Libraries, and Nena Couch, curator of the Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee 
Theatre Research Institute for the vision and cooperation that made this project possible. 

28 

mailto:whi�aker.50@osu.edu


         
        

      
      

         
   

    
     

       

        
     

 

      

    
      

     

   

      

     

      
     

 
    

     

     

     

    
      
    

      
      

     

      
        
       

      
     

       
    
      

       
      

     
      

       
       

    
   

     
      

    

     
       

      

       
         

Using Circulation Systems for Special Collections 29 

these call slips are then used to mark shelf 
location until the item is returned to its 
home. Although these paper records of 
circulation could be analyzed for data, 
time is short and this is rarely possible in 
the real world. 

Special collections materials generally 
do not circulate outside a carefully con-
trolled environment. Thus, many of the 
typical library circulation practices are 
o en seen as superfluous in managing 
special collections and archives. Specific 
handling needs of these collections, such 
as frequent use by users not affiliated with 
the holding institution, and the need to 
retain records of users in the event of the , 
often justify the belief that integrated 
library systems are insufficient to handle 
records of the collections’ use. Since rare 
books, archives, and other materials are 
o en held by collections that are part 
of a larger library system, this means in 
practice that an institution o en has two 
systems: a sophisticated and expensive 
ILS for general collections and an idio-
syncratic, yet effective, local system for 
special collections. 

However, the increasingly sophisti-
cated needs of the “general collection”— 
including the need to manage electronic 
resources and the growth of collections in 
non-Roman languages—have driven ILS 
vendors to develop more flexible func-
tionality. Special collections libraries can 
take advantage of this growth to eliminate 
redundant record keeping and reduce er-
rors. Positive results include greater staff 
efficiency, increased availability of user 
statistics, and an overall greater under-
standing of collection use pa erns. 

This article focuses on the implementa-
tion of the circulation module of our ILS 
for special collections at The Ohio State 
University to assist librarians in defining 
the appropriate scope of such an imple-
mentation at their own institution. Details 
will vary by institution, of course, but by 
breaking out of the existing mindset that 
special collections “do not circulate,” cre-
ative professionals will see opportunities 
to make similar changes. 

Throughout this article, the word 
“circulation” refers to using the ILS to 
electronically track usage of materials 
within a secure reading room, a definition 
of circulation specific to the special collec-
tions environment. Although additional 
circulation of special collections materi-
als is possible, perhaps even desirable, 
such as through interlibrary loan to other 
secure environments or for inclusion at 
exhibits, such decisions are independent 
of this project.3 

Literature Review 
The topic of circulating special collections 
materials is not very o en addressed in the 
literature, which is to be expected given 
the peculiar nature of most collections’ 
procedures. Articles on circulation analysis 
focus mostly on using circulation data to 
make decisions about collection develop-
ment, such as purchasing additional copies 
of very popular items. Circulation data for 
special collections materials may also lead 
to collection development decisions, such 
as acquiring resources in an area previ-
ously thought less important to users. This, 
however, is not the primary motivation for 
implementing such a system. 

Recent special collections literature 
has focused on a few issues brought to 
light by the current project, specifically 
the security of materials and records, and 
the need to increase outreach beyond the 
traditional users of special collections 
materials (i.e.,“scholars”). However, the 
author was unable to locate any study of 
how implementing a circulation system 
could assist with these goals, suggesting 
the prevalence of a two-system mindset. 

Possible Obstacles 
There are several possible objections to 
this type of project that could be advanced 
by both special collections professionals 
and colleagues from other parts of the 
library system. 

Maintenance of Circulation Records 
The first obstacle, and perhaps that with 
the most merit, is the need for security of 



 

       
      

      
     

     
      

      
    

    
     

      
     
       
       

       
     

       
      

     
    

     
    

   
 

      

      
    

     

     
    

   

       
     

     

   
     

      

     

     

     

     
  
 

    

       

     
      

      
     

    

      
     

      
       

      
      

     
     

      
      

        
     

      
     

      

30 College & Research Libraries January 2008 

records. In the event of the  or vandal-
ism, special collections and archives rely 
on perpetual records of who consulted 
which materials, to track down wrongdo-
ers. The primary professional organization 
for special collections professionals in the 
United States, ACRL’s Rare Books and 
Manuscripts Section, recommends that 
registration information (including name, 
address, institutional affiliation (if any) 
and photo identification) be collected for 
each researcher who uses special collec-
tions materials and that these records be 
kept permanently. 4 Of course, this conflicts 
directly with a larger library ethos that val-
ues privacy and confidentiality, advocating 
purging records so that they cannot be mis-
used. For example, the American Library 
Association’s Questions and Answers on 
Privacy and Confidentiality states: 

In protecting the privacy rights and 
the confidentiality rights of library 
users, librarians should limit the de-
gree to which personally identifiable 
information is monitored, collected, 
disclosed, and distributed.5 

As one special collections administra-
tor has stated about this apparent conflict, 
“Most integrated library systems are not 
designed to facilitate the separate man-
agement of special collections circulation 
records, if indeed they are designed to 
manage special collections materials at 
all.”6 

The much smaller market share of 
special collections means that most ILSs 
are not designed to manage special col-
lections in the way they accommodate 
resource sharing among large library 
systems or patron-initiated checkout, 
but the OSU experience proves that they 
can be adapted to do so. If objections are 
raised about the need to maintain a paper 
trail, an institution could always main-
tain separate files, using the traditional 
multipart call slip or a database, and use 
circulation data in the aggregate for sta-
tistical purposes. This approach seems to 
be quite common.7 

Need to Mark Collections 
To facilitate inventory control and rapid 
checkout, books, manuscripts, and 
other materials should be marked with 
barcodes or other tags that can be easily 
recognized by the system. Even if the 
larger “parent” collection of a library has 
undergone a large marking project, spe-
cial collections might have been excluded. 
Professionals are still discussing the pa-
rameters for marking rare books. Many 
options exist to a ach identifiers, ranging 
from those that are not permanent (such 
as paper flags or polyester filmstrips 
with the information) to those of a more 
high-tech nature, such as RFID (radio-
frequency identification) tags affixed to 
materials.8 Marking a large collection can 
be very time-consuming, particularly if 
done in one batch. At OSU, the majority 
of the books and serial volumes in the 
special collections were labeled with call 
numbers and barcodes on acid-free flags 
many years ago, and the remainder are 
being labeled during preparation for a 
collections move or on an ad-hoc basis 
as they circulate. This approach certainly 
makes the task more manageable, and the 
result is more accurate volume counts 
and other information in the system. We 
highly recommend such an approach to 
inventorying, regardless of whether a 
circulation system will be used. 

Lack of Flexibility of ILSs 
Special collections librarians may have an 
unrealistically negative view of the flexibil-
ity of their organization’s ILS, particularly 
if they do not have hands-on experience 
with its setup or management. Special 
collections staff may not have contributed 
to initial decisions about ILS implementa-
tion, with predictable results. Nonetheless, 
many setup decisions (such as creation 
of distinct “locations” or circulation loan 
rules) can be revisited to adapt the system 
to a more holistic environment. 

Many systems are very flexible, allow-
ing specific rules for special cases; the 
need to accommodate various types of 
material into catalogs, such as born digital 



    

    
        

    

    
     

       
       
     

      

     

    

      

      
       
       

     
        

     
 

     

    

      

   

     
    

     
   

    
      

      
     

     
    

     

    

      
 

      

      

    

     

Using Circulation Systems for Special Collections 31 

resources, reserves, and foreign language 
materials, has driven the development of 
systems to become more accommodating 
to the needs of special collections as well.9 
We found at OSU that other nonstandard 
materials, such as reserves or electronic 
materials, o en presented “unique” needs 
that could be accommodated reasonably 
within the existing parameters of the cir-
culation module. By fostering cooperation 
among those responsible for various types 
of materials, the needs of special collec-
tions can be met more easily. 

Perception of Effort 
To the objection that such a project would 
take too much work, we can only say 
that such an implementation does take 
time and effort. However, years of effort 
have gone into keeping paper statistics. It 
may appear easier to maintain the status 
quo than to revisit everyday procedures 
central to the collection’s operation; but 
no system, no matter how long-lived, 
operates without a considerable amount 
of support. 

Despite perceptions that using an 
automated circulation system would not 
work in a special collections and archives 
environment, a team of staff working on 
the project at OSU (including a systems 
manager, the head of special collections 
cataloging, and the curators responsible 
for each collection) have developed a sys-
tem that not only overcomes these objec-
tions but returns significant results. 

Institutional Context 
To illustrate the scope of this implementa-
tion, it is important to understand that the 
OSU system has holdings of over four mil-
lion bibliographic records and over seven 
million item records and is part of a state-
wide consortium of more than 85 institu-
tions using a shared catalog containing 
45.3 million records. Special collections at 
OSU consist of ten individual collections, 
each with distinct subject foci, located in 
several physical spaces. Although an on-
going renovation project will consolidate 
four collections into a shared space, each 

collection retains an identity and exists 
as a separate location in our ILS, Innova-
tive Interfaces Inc.’s Millennium. Existing 
policy ensured that all recently acquired 
books and serials are reflected in the 
catalog, so new materials are added with 
bibliographic and item records, although 
many materials (particularly unpublished 
items) remain uncataloged. 

Although staff have a empted over the 
years to standardize some administrative 
record keeping, even going so far as to 
create a common patron registration form, 
many differences in servicing materials 
persisted across the collections. Paper 
forms were used for both patron regis-
tration and material requests. Locations 
had different policies about who needed 
to register and how to handle materials 
“on hold” for users who would return 
later. Most important, all these paper 
forms were rarely, if ever, analyzed, due 
to the overwhelming nature of the task 
that was, understandably, a low priority. 
However, given the increased emphasis 
on outreach and serving broader user 
populations, curators were o en asked 
to document use without having such 
information easily at hand. For example, 
the university’s Academic Plan contains 
Strategies that include “Create a Diverse 
University Community” and “Help Build 
Ohio’s Future,” both of which suggest a 
need to reach beyond the traditional users 
of special collections.10 

The team realized it would be essential 
to the project’s success to start on a small 
scale, ensuring that any work done would 
be scalable to the much larger special col-
lections environment. With both cataloged 
and uncataloged materials in the picture, 
and the need to accommodate both local 
(OSU) and visiting users, we decided to 
implement the project in phases. 

Implementation 
Phase One consisted of “circulating” cata-
loged materials at the Jerome Lawrence 
and Robert E. Lee Theatre Research Insti-
tute (TRI) to users affiliated with the uni-
versity. These users already have patron 

http:collections.10


 

     

     
    
    

    

      
    

     
      

    
     

     

    
    

    
    

      
    

    
     

      

 

     

 

 

 

32 College & Research Libraries January 2008 

records in the system. Fully cataloged 
materials (those with both bibliographic 
and item records) only needed small 
changes to their status, accomplished 
through batch updates, along with 
changes to the circulation parameters, to 
allow “checkout.” Student assistants were 
then trained to use the circulation system 
instead of paper forms for these materials, 
with special documentation created to 
explain only those circulation functions 
for which there was a need. 

A er approximately one year of test-
ing, with very encouraging results, we 
began Phase Two. This consisted of creat-
ing “on-the-fly” records for uncataloged 
material. Again, the ILS already had this 
functionality, but we made minor adjust-
ments for special collections records. 
We also created a “cataloging queue” 
location, so that once materials were 
returned, they were funneled for prior-
ity cataloging. At the same time, senior 
staff members were authorized to create 

new patron records for nonaffiliated 
users. Both the on-the-fly bibliographic 
and item records and the patron records 
were created with templates devised by 
the project team, reducing the chance for 
data entry errors. 

Several ILS system details required 
manipulation, of course. Materials needed 
to circulate without staff manually over-
riding their status each time, but local 
and consortial patrons, accustomed to 
having materials delivered, needed to 
be prevented from placing requests on 
these items. Luckily, such an item status 
already existed for in-library-use music 
materials. 

Patron types are locally defined at OSU 
with a high degree of granularity; we can 
identify faculty, graduate students, etc. A 
new patron type for “special collections 
restricted” was created to track nonaf-
filiated users. We are exploring ways to 
define this category further that includes 
community members and visiting schol-

FIGURE 1 
Selecting Template for “On-the-fly” Item Record Creation, 

Millennium Circulation 

© Innovative Interfaces, Inc. 



     

    

     
     

      

      

       

    
     
    

      
    

   

   
   

   

  
   

    
     

   

    
    

    
   

   
   

    

    
     

      
      

      
     
      

    

 

   

   

   

 

Using Circulation Systems for Special Collections 33 

ars. We are also implementing a special 
patron record to track interlibrary loan 
usage via photocopies. 

Obviously, training was, and continues 
to be, an issue. We found that student as-
sistants, previously assigned to the desk 
based more on their schedule than their 
experience, needed specific training and 
authorization for these tasks. Front -desk 
duties were assigned to fewer students 
than was previously the case. Learning 
the circulation interface took time for se-
nior staff who had been more accustomed 
to the catalog’s public interface. Ongoing 
training will be required as new staff 
arrive and as the inevitable changes are 
made to the ILS. 

Results 
Within the first few months of Phase One, 
the results were impressive. Circulation 
data showed a very high level of collec-
tion use by undergraduates and honors 
undergraduates, which was a pleasant 
surprise. This trend underscored the OSU 
curators’ assertions that special collections 
support the curriculum and the mission 
of the university, in addition to being 

the same type of simplified documenta-
tion we used in our project. 

The “promotional” aspect of this 
project should not be overlooked. Many 
materials that were not reflected in either 
OCLC or our local or consortial catalogs 
are now cataloged in these systems. As 
bibliographic records are repurposed and 
exposed through efforts like Open World-
Cat, special collections materials at OSU 
will receive additional exposure. 

Future Plans 
The success of this limited implementa-
tion has encouraged the team to expand 
the project, with plans calling for all 
collections to be involved within a few 
years. The addition of another collection 
has revealed the need to address new 
issues, such as recalling material from 
remote storage and tracking use of subject 
clipping files, all of which can easily be 
accommodated through our system and 
which will continue to figure largely in 
special collections and archives admin-
istration. 

Obviously, ongoing review of records 
and statistics will be needed to catch the 

used by external researchers. As 
the months progressed, other 
trends were visible, and will be 
useful for planning purposes, 
particularly as the collections 
consolidate many operations in 
the renovated space. 

Cataloging of nonbook mate-
rials has increased due to their 
circulation and subsequent 
placement in the cataloging 
queue. Manuscript collections, 
in particular, are being cata-
loged as they are used, with 
item records being created 
that more accurately reflect the 
extent of the collection. Addi-
tionally, the process for creat-
ing “on-the-fly” records led to 
adoption of a simplified process 
for cataloging free electronic 
books, created by collection 
managers themselves and using 

FIGURE 2
	
Percentage of Users by Patron Type, 


January 2006–April 2007
	

14.90% 

37.40% 

21.80% 

5.00% 

13.20% 

4.00% 

3.60% 

OSU undergraduates OSU Honors undergraduates 

OSU graduate students OSU staff 

OSU faculty Locally restricted patrons 

Other affiliations 



 

      
    

     

     
     

     

      
      

      
     

   

  
  
   

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  

   
   

   
   

     
       

      
      

     
     

    

       
     

     
    

     
     

 

34 College & Research Libraries January 2008 

FIGURE 3
	
Percentage of Circulated Material by 

Format, January 2006–April 2007
	

21.50% 

6.60% 

0.20% 

3.30% 

inevitable mistakes that creep in due to 
human error, but this is much easier to 
do than in the previous paper system. 
Standardization of registration and cir-
culation practices will allow for a more 
accurate reporting of usage statistics as 
well as collection size. 

Recommendations for Other 
Institutions 
Based on our experiences, we would 
like to share some recommendations for 
those interested in exploring the use of 
their ILS’s circulation system for special 
collections and archives. 

Tailor the implementation to the needs 
of your organization. There might be 
simpler ways to accomplish your goals 
than we needed at OSU. Determine what 
kinds of information should be collected, 
and figure out how to get it, rather than 
creating more complications than neces-
sary. For example, we explored the option 
of using the “track in-house use” function 
for this project, a feature that is designed 
to count use of serials found sca ered 
throughout the stacks but not actually 
checked out. This practice might be suf-
ficient for some collections. 

Cooperation and collaboration are 
essential. In addition to the expertise of 

68.50% 

Monographs Serials Microforms Audiovisuals Manuscripts/Other 

ticular institution. 

systems staff, con-
sult with circula-
tion experts even if 
it means educating 
them about special 
collections. We were 
surprised to learn 
that many things 
we thought would 
be exceptional were 
already possible in 
limited ways with 
our circulation mod-
ule. In addition, sys-
tem vendors may 
provide a broader 
view of the possibili-
ties of the so ware 
than those “in the 
trenches” of a par-

Flexibility is a must, both in the man-
agement of the collection and the imple-
mentation of the system. Since student 
assistants or staff will be critical to the 
success of this kind of project, it is cru-
cial to provide them with support and to 
listen to their feedback. Using the current 
generation of systems is much easier than 
those of years past. 

Small steps are o en very effective. If 
resistance is encountered based on one 
or two perceived limitations, it might 
be possible to address these perceptions 
without abandoning the entire project. 
Finally, continue to use whatever system 
is currently in place for as long as is nec-
essary. Eventually, the superiority of the 
automated system will become obvious. 

Conclusion 
While using an integrated library system 
is hardly revolutionary in the age of social 
networks, user tagging, and other cu ing-
edge library applications, the rethinking 
of processes involved in this project has 
in many ways transformed “circulation” 
of special collections and archives. The 
emphasis on outreach and assessment 
that drives a culture of accountability 
has reached libraries, and, in respond-



       
        

         
      

        
      

       
       

     

      
     

        
       

        
       

      

               

          

              
 

 
 

       
 

 

 

 
 

  

 

Using Circulation Systems for Special Collections 35 

ing to this need, OSU has realized many 
benefits. 

In addition to simplifying the daily 
work of materials management, this proj-
ect continues to provide a great deal of 
useful information about the users of our 
materials that will be essential in the future 
for projects such as seeking grants and 
making internal funding requests. At the 

same time, the involvement of library staff 
across the organization has led to a type 
of cross-training that has given all of us a 
higher level of appreciation for the differ-
ent aspects of library service in which we 
specialize. Most important, we are “doing 
right” by the library materials and patrons 
we serve every day by making our collec-
tions more accessible to the world. 

Notes 

1. Daniel Traister, “Is There a Future for Special Collections? And Should There Be? A Polemi-
cal Essay,” RBM 1, no. 1 (2000): 54–76. 

2. Association of Research Libraries Exposing Hidden Collections initiatives. Available online 
at www.arl.org/rtl/speccoll/hidden/l. [Accessed 24 February 2007]. 

3. Association of College and Research Libraries, Guidelines for the Interlibrary Loan of Rare and 
Unique Materials, available online at www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/rareguidelines.htm and 
Guidelines for Borrowing and Lending Special Collections Materials for Exhibition, available online at 
www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/borrowguide.htm. [Accessed 23 February 2007]. 

4. Association of College and Research Libraries, Guidelines for the Security of Rare Books, 
Manuscripts, and Other Special Collections, section VI. Researchers. Available online at www.ala. 
org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/securityrarebooks.htm. [Accessed 30 November 2007]. 

5. American Library Association. Available online at www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=inte 
rpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=141474. [Accessed 
24 February 2007]. 

6. Christian Dupont, “Online/automated circulation / patron record retention.” Available 
online to list subscribers at h p://lists.ala.org/wws/arc/rbsm/2006-08/msg0000.html. [Accessed 6 
August 2006]. 

7. Christian Dupont, “Online/automated circulation / patron record retention—summary of 
responses to date.” Available online to list subscribers at h p://lists.ala.org/wws/arc/rbsm/2006-
08/msg00004.html. [Accessed 14 August 2006]. 

8. E. C. Schroeder, “RFID in Special Collection Libraries.” Available online to list subscribers 
at h p://lists.ala.org/wws/arc/rbsm/2006-10/msg0000.html. [Accessed 2 October 2006]. 

9. Beth M. Russell, “Description and Access in Rare Books Cataloging: A Historical Survey,” 
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 35 no. 3/4 2003: 518. 

10. The Ohio State University Academic Plan. Available online at www.osu.edu/academic-
plan/strat.php. [Accessed 24 February 2007]. 

www.osu.edu/academic
www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=inte
www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/borrowguide.htm
www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/rareguidelines.htm
www.arl.org/rtl/speccoll/hidden/l