Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Measuring diversity in collection development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Measuring diversity in collection development


Published on

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Does this work how I broke the goals down and included talking points under each?
  • I think we need one more bullet point here, but not sure what
  • Maybe this could be moved ahead 2 slides before we start talking about the meat of our presentation. We may want to rephrase the CDC recommendation?
  • Transcript

    • 1. Measuring Diversity in Collection Development: Strategies for the New Millennium
      Courtney L. Young
      Matthew P. Ciszek
      Penn State University Libraries
    • 2. Diversity Objectives: Penn State
      • Reasonable representation from different minority groups
      • 3. Representation from different countries and cultures
      • 4. Reasonable balance of gender
      • 5. Diversity in curriculum content
      • 6. Climate supportive of different minority groups and cultures
      "What Do We Mean By Diversity,“ John Brighton, former Provost, Penn State, 1993.
    • 7. Diversity Defined: University Libraries
      “The University Libraries provide The Pennsylvania State University communities with equitable access to all of its information resources and services.
      This access is guaranteed without regard to race, ethnicity, language, age, religion or spiritual beliefs, health, gender, sexual orientation, physical capabilities, or geographic origin.”
    • 8. Diversity in Collection Development
      “Support of the University’s diversity plan by integrating concepts of diversity within collections in all disciplines and strengthening subject expertise in diversity studies.
      Design services and resources to accommodate the various learning styles and skill levels of the diverse university community.”
      A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State: University Libraries Strategic Plan 2004 – 2009
    • 9. Diversity Codes
      • Implemented in 1994
      • 10. Two-letter code assigned to firm orders
      • 11. Multiple codes could be used to reflect multiple dimensions of diversity
      • 12. Reports generated annually to indicate how much each fund spent on diversity coded materials
    • Diversity Codes continued…
      Corresponded with minority and underrepresented groups as defined in diversity statement
      AA – African-American
      AG – Ageism
      AR – Arab-American
      AS – Asian-American
      AD – Disabled/Physically Challenged
      CP – General Multicultural
      GL – GLBT
      HA – Hispanic-American
      JS – Jewish Studies
      NA – Native American
      WS – Women’s Studies
    • 13. Diversity Codes continued…
      • Provided systematic method to measure diversity
      • 14. Easy to use
      • 15. Minimal overhead
      • Inappropriate code assignment
      • 16. Depended on selectors to use during ordering
      • 17. Only used for firm orders – not used for approval plan, gifts, electronic resources, etc.
      • 18. Easy to confuse with other coding used for program or international dimension
    • Diversity in Collections Task Force
      • Created August 17, 2007 by Associate Deans for University Park and Campus Libraries
      • 19. Charged to “determine how the Libraries can most effectively measure the diversity of its many collections”
      • 20. Better assessment of diversity in collections sought as part of push for improved assessment of diversity overall in Libraries
      • 21. Report due February 1, 2008; recommendations reviewed by Collection Development Council
    • Representation on the Task Force
      Five University Libraries Faculty Members
      • Selectors of diversity related materials
      • 22. Current and past members of Diversity Committee
      • 23. New faculty member -- fresh perspective
      • 24. Selectors from different campus locations
      • 25. Included a mix of diverse faculty, including those from underrepresented groups
    • Goals of the Task Force
      Conduct a literature review
      • Reviewed collection assessment approaches from a general and diversity perspective
      • 26. Literature specific to collection assessment for diversity was scarce
      • 27. Much of the literature is from the mid-1990s and focused on single diversity collections
    • Goals of the Task Force
      Review quantitative and qualitative tools available internally/externally
      • Reviewed internal tools – Sirsi Director’s Station and Workflows Reports
      • 28. Examined the suitability of using OCLC Collection Analysis
    • Goals of the Task Force
      Consider previous approaches
      • Existing diversity codes were examined
      • 29. Negatives of using codes or a similar system outweighed the positives
      • 30. Does not provide for passive assessment
      • 31. Difficult to enforce equitably across a large system
    • Goals of the Task Force
      Make recommendations
      • Represented a mix of qualitative, quantitative, and training methods
      • 32. Decided against a truly quantitative measure similar to diversity codes
      • 33. Suggested diversity representation in collection development decisions
    • Task Force Recommendations
      Periodic assessment of the collection
      • Patron centered assessment
      • 34. Comparative assessment to bibliographies and core subject lists
      • 35. Quantitative assessments using:
      • 36. Reporting tools of library automation system
      • 37. Cataloging and acquisitions reports
      • 38. Automated data warehouse systems
    • Task Force Recommendations
      Use OCLC Collection Analysis as an assessment tool
      • No categorization for diversity
      • 39. Assessment based on “basket” of LC Call Number ranges
      • 40. Compare collection strengths and weaknesses to:
      • 41. All World Cat Libraries
      • 42. All CIC (Academic Big Ten) Libraries
      • 43. A single CIC (Academic Big Ten) Library
    • Task Force Recommendations
      Retain the Diversity Fund
      • Penn State has a separate fund used to purchase diversity materials across system
      • 44. Fund is assigned a separate selector and budget
      • 45. Fund maintains a “core” collection of diversity materials in the system
    • Task Force Recommendations
      Selector-Driven Recommendations
      • Annual stewardship letters drafted by selectors that outline what diversity selections were made
      • 46. Creating a collection development statement specific to diversity
      • 47. Creating subject guides that highlight diversity collections and electronic resources throughout system
    • Task Force Recommendations
      Training Recommendations
      • Diversity Collection Development Retreat
      • 48. Develop an E-series of workshops focused on diversity
      • 49. Adding diversity elements to the Collection Development Companion
    • Questions?
      Courtney L. Young
      Reference Librarian and
      Associate Professor of Women’s Studies
      Penn State Beaver
      Matthew P. Ciszek
      Head Librarian
      Penn State Shenango