Collections Management & Planning Pilot Project: Literature Review (draft)
Collections Literature Review (February 2012)Ameen, K. (2006). From acquisitions to collection management: mere semantics or an expanded framework for libraries? Collection building, 24(2), 56. doi: 10.1108/01604950610658865.This literature review presents an overview of the scholarly research on collection development and therelationship between theory and practice. Ameen demonstrates the affect production and formatdevelopment has on library collections, and finds the use of collections terminology has expanded withsuch developments. The author concludes that collection management now incorporates a number ofactivities and responsibilities, including: managing the systematic maintenance of the collection,resource allocation, technical processing, preservation, storage, weeding, and tracking collection use.Basart, A. (1980). Criteria for weeding books in a university music library. Notes, 36(4), 819-836. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/notes/.Basart outlines the need to establish clear and straightforward weeding criteria to free limited libraryspace. Through a review of weeding-related studies, the author identifies qualitative and quantitativeinformation that should be incorporated into librarians’ decision-making processes, namely: objectivedata from the book (including date of publication, date of acquisition, physical condition, number ofcopies), usage data and the affects of program specialties/concentrations on circulation statistics, andrelevance/importance of an item to the library’s collection objectives and user needs. Basart notes thatpublication date and language were not always deciding factors.Borin, J., & Yi, H. (2011). Assessing an academic library collection through capacity and usage indicators: testing a multi-dimensional model. Collection building, 30(3), 120-125. doi: 10.1108/01604951111146956.Borin and Yi stress that there are different levels to library collections (e.g. locally owned and housed,obtained through ILL, electronic resources, etc.), and that while collection analysis should include alllevels, they are not necessarily weighted equally. The authors offer a multi-dimensional model forassessment that focuses on collection capacity and usage. Usage is divided into two tiers: one thatmeasures how users access the collection, and a second that looks at indications of usermotivations/purpose. Both tiers contain several methods of measurement. Borin and Yi also emphasizethe value of measuring capacity by expenditures and not by volume.Coral, L. (1994). Evaluating the conspectus approach: problems and alternatives. In J. Gottlieb (Ed.), Collection assessment in music libraries (pp. 74-81), Canton, Mass: Music Library Association.Coral outlines the conspectus approach and argues that the Conspectus method is too non-specific (i.e.ML sub-group is too broad to ascertain collection strengths) and too subjective (i.e. 0-5 ranking can bewidely interpreted) when applied to Music Collections.Corsetto, A., Kinner, L., & Duhon, L. (2008). Assessment in a tight time frame: using readily available data to evaluate your collection. Collection management, 33(1-2), 29-50. doi: 10.1080/01462670802157908.
This article presents a case study of a University of Toledo Library collection move, the assessmentpolicies applied, and some of the pressures faced when working within a strict timeline. Corsetto, Kinnerand Duhon underline the importance of identifying and making use of data already collected by thelibrary to evaluate reference and circulating collections. The authors’ note that while communicationwith library patrons was not a priority at first, this changed two years into the project and teachingfaculty became involved in varying degrees.Daub, P. (1994). The RLG music conspectus: its history and applications. In J. Gottlieb (Ed.), Collection assessment in music libraries (pp. 7-37), Canton, Mass: Music Library Association.Daub provides an overview of the Music Conspectus, and describes the waning interest in its applicationafter the RLG’s Music Program Committee dissolved in 1989. The author presents the results of a self-conducted survey of music librarians and notes that although some librarians found the conspectushelpful for writing collection development policies and identifying collection weaknesses, morelibrarians cited that it was not a useful collections tool. Daub maintains that the conspectus model canbe used as a starting point for evaluating collections, and recommends redefining LC classes whenapplying conspectus levels.deVries, S., Kelly, R., & Storm, P.M. (2010). Moving beyond citation analysis: how surveys and interviews enhance, enrich, and expand your research findings. College & research libraries, 71(5), 456-466. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/.The authors recount a collections management project conducted at the Bruce T. Halley Library atEastern Michigan University to ascertain: if the library owns the materials being cited by its faculty; andwhich library services are used by faculty. deVries, Kelly and Storm identify qualitative and quantitativemethods of assessment, including citation analysis, a questionnaire, and follow-up interviews withfaculty.Dubicki, E. (2008). Weeding: facing the fears. Collection building, 27(4), 132-135. doi: 10.1108/01604950810913689.The article presents a case study of a weeding project motivated by renovations at the MonmouthUniversity Library. Dubicki states that communication was a priority, and describes how the Libraryaddressed a letter to all deans, department chairs and library liaisons, outlining the project, theirmotivations, and soliciting support. Meetings were also held with all library staff, explaining the processand ensuring everyone was informed. Interestingly, a collection consultant was hired to review theLibrary’s weeding criteria and work with participating librarians. Dubicki notes that the consultantincreased confidence amongst the librarians. A clear project plan was established, criteria set, andweekly procedures and goals specified to ensure timely progress.Goodyear, R.K., Brewer, D.J., Gallagher, K.S., Tracey, T.J., Claiborn, C.D., Lichtenberg, J.W., & Wampold, B.E. (2009). The intellectual foundations of education: core journals and their impacts on scholarship and practice. Educational researcher, 38(9), 700-706. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09354778.Goodyear, Brewer, Gallagher, Tracey, Claiborn, Lichtenberg and Wampold attempt to identify corejournal titles in Education by surveying experts through a questionnaire and pinpointing the“demonstrated impact” of titles. The authors note that while there is a core collection for Education, it is
one where diversity is valued over unity; the survey revealed a lengthy list of journals, and only onetitled was recommended by more than half of the panelists.Herzog, S. (2004). Collection development challenges for the 21st century academic librarian. Journal of electronic resources librarianship, 16(31), 149-162. doi: 10.1300/J101v16n31_14.The article presents an overview of tools and recommended practices for librarians new to collectionsmanagement, or new to managing a particular subject area. Purchasing, liaison work, weeding andonline resources are discussed. Herzog advises librarians to implement a systematic collectionsmanagement process; while the general collection can be evaluated every 3-5 years, the authorrecommends current periodicals be reviewed annually.Hoffman, F.W., & Wood, R.J. (2005). Library collection development policies: academic, public, and special libraries, Toronto: Scarecrow Press.The article defines development policies across library types, providing examples of how criteria can beapplied. Hoffman and Wood establish that a research level library collection supports doctoral and otheroriginal research. As such, certain criteria are common across institutions (i.e. including new findings,important reference works, relevant foreign language resources, older materials kept for historicalresearch etc.). Drawing upon the Dalhousie University Libraries Collection Development policies,Hoffman and Wood note that different subject areas may benefit from using different collection tools.Lai, K. (2010). A revival of the music conspectus: a multi-dimensional assessment for the score collections. Notes, 66(3), 503-518. doi: 10.1353/not.0.0310.Lai discusses the adoption of the Music Conspectus model at the Hong Kong Baptist University, and themanner in which they redefined the conspectus lines and established their own subdivisions based ongenres (instead of Library of Congress classification). To compile a list of core materials, the libraryreferred to ALA standard bibliographies, audition lists of major schools and orchestras, repertoirerequirements for competitions, and course syllabi.Lee, M. (2009). Weeding is not just for gardeners: a case study on weeding a reference collection. Community & junior college libraries, 15(3), 129-135. doi: 10.1080/02763910902979460.Lee presents an analysis of Regent University’s weeding practices for reference collections. In additionto reviewing publication date, number of copies and if a newer edition is available, the Library addedelectronic availability to their criteria. The article discusses how weeding can be affected by TechnicalServices work backlogs (Regent University temporarily relocated their weeded items until TS was able toattend to them). Lee also noted that the increase to the circulation department’s workload needs to betaken into account when planning workflows.Metz, P., & Gray, C. Public relations and library weeding. (2005). The Journal of academic librarianship, 31(3), 273-279. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2005.01.005.Metz and Gray emphasize the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with librarypatrons (in particular faculty members). The authors report that faculty who got involved in the processearly on typically stepped away from the project once they were confident in their liaison librarian’s
abilities and the intentions of the Library. Metz and Gray provide general criteria and criteria based onformat in Appendix B.Rais, S., Arthur, M.A., & Hanson, M.J. (2010). Creating core titles lists for print subscription retention and storage/weeding. The Serials Librarian, 58(1-4), 244-249. doi: 10.1080/03615261003625984.This article is based on a presentation, and focuses on the core journal title lists developed by the LomaLinda University. Rais, Arthur, and Hanson explain that ultimately two core lists were created: onewhere the items should remain accessible in the stacks, and the second where titles should be kept inboth print and electronic formats. The authors also indicate that, at a certain point, the decision-makingprocess becomes subjective despite the available data, and that librarians should be mindful of this.Scarletto, E. (2011). Collection development guidance through reference inquiry analysis: a study of map library patrons and their needs. Journal of map & geography libraries, 7(2), 124-137. doi: 10.1080/15420353.2011.566835.Scarletto reviews and analyzes reference questions when assessing non-circulating collections. Theauthor outlines that subject, geographic and user-status are all factors that should be taken into account.This information may also reveal trends or usage themes over time. Scarletto does criticize that thisapproach only looks at the needs of patrons who approach the reference desk, and concludes thatfurther research should target the larger user population.Shirkey, C. (2011). Taking the guesswork out of collection development: using syllabi for a user-centered collection development method. Collection management, 36(3), 154-164. doi: 10.1080/01462679.2011.580046.The article presents a study of syllabi solicited from Art, English, Language and Literature, History andPhilosophy faculty. Of the 98 syllabi examined, 936 unique texts were identified. Shirkey presents theresults of a follow-up survey, and cites that 298 titles were identified as potential candidates foracquisition. In addition to assisting with selection, the study was an opportunity to liaise with facultymembers and better understand their expectations and needs.Welch, J.M., Cauble, L.A., & Little, L.B. (2000). The evolution of technology in the management of noncirculating library collections. Technical services quarterly, 17(4), 1-11. doi: 10.1300/J124v17n04_01.The authors provide an overview of the history of the methods and tools used for managing anchoredand reference materials. While this article is dated, it identifies the value of in-house use for non-circulating collections.