Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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-
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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;
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Library Trends, 24(2), 169-181.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
literature of interlibrary loan, document delivery
and resource sharing, 1995-2000. Journal of
Access Services, 1(1), 49-104.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
literature of interlibrary loan, document delivery
and resource sharing, 1995-2000. Journal of
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Document Supply, 17(2), 35-41.
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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
Document Supply, 38(2), 93-101.
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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.
Retrieved May 15, 2016 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0264047021043
2357
35. Potter, W.G. (1997). Recent trends in
statewide academic library consortia.
Library Trends, 45(3), 416-434.
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.
Retrieved May 14, 2016 from
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.
Airo International Research Journal May, 2014
Volume III, ISSN: 2320-3714
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