Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

of

Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 1 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 2 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 3 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 4 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 5 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 6 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 7 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 8 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 9 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 10 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 11 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 12 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 13 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 14 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 15 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 16 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 17 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 18 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 19 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 20 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 21 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 22 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 23 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 24 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 25 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 26 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 27 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 28 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 29 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 30 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 31 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 32 Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Slide 33
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0 Likes

Share

Download to read offline

Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library

Download to read offline

Presentation given by UCD Library's Collections Support Librarian Catherine Ryan at 'Collection Management: Sharing Experiences' Joint Seminar organised by CONUL Collections and CONUL Training and Development, 24th October, 2018 at the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library

  1. 1. Leabharlann UCD An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Átha Cliath, Belfield, Baile Átha Cliath 4, Eire UCD Library University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Defining Collections Collection Management and GreenGlass at UCD Library Catherine Ryan Collections Support Librarian Collection Services
  2. 2. Background • Review (and weed!) of print book collections • Began life as the GreenGlass project in December 2017 • Collections curation and management project – Defining what our users need on the shelves – Defining what we want in our collections – Weeding – Purchasing new materials – Long-term, sustainable approach to managing collections and library spaces
  3. 3. Why are we doing this?
  4. 4. Why are we doing this?
  5. 5. Why are we doing this? 70% of what our readers are actually using is less than 30 years old
  6. 6. Why are we doing this? • Increases user satisfaction • Can actually find relevant books • Shelves look better, more pleasing to browse • Less staff time maintaining shelves means more time with users • Better use of space • Competing requirements for space and money, more strategically deployed on services that users want • Study spaces, social spaces, events • Strategic alignment • UCD Library strategic plan 2016-2020 • 2015 Quality Review Report
  7. 7. GreenGlass • Sustainable Collection Solutions (SCS) and OCLC • Collection analysis and decision support tool • Usage data, acquisition data… • Ebook alternative, duplicates • Authoritative lists (Choice) • Comparison to holdings in other institutions in Ireland, UK, and Europe • Available in HathiTrust
  8. 8. Literature Review • Quantitative and qualitative criteria – Typically projects start with quantitative criteria like usage data and then apply more locally specific qualitative criteria • Core Collections – Percentage of the collection that would satisfy a given percentage of user demand • Large scale rules based projects – More data is now available – In theory, can weed at scale • Rightsizing – Core collection – Systematic, rules-based approach – Shapes collection to user needs – Providing access v. ownership – Collaborative collection management * See end of presentation for list of reference sources
  9. 9. Our Approach – Core or retention approach – Determining ‘value’ of our collections • To our user communities • To UCD Library, UCD – Revitalising and updating collections through weeding and purchasing of new resources – Defining a long-term, sustainable approach • Managing library spaces • Collection management policy and workflows – Evidence-based: user behaviour, user needs, collections • Classed analyses of collections • Subject profiles
  10. 10. Our Approach • Define discrete sections to prepare in advance of main review – Duplicates – Multi-editions – Separate locations – short loan, reference • Application of conservative quantitative criteria to the open shelves, on-site store. • Generate candidates for withdrawal list. • Application of qualitative criteria to candidates for withdrawal
  11. 11. Our Approach Curating, not weeding* *Held, T. (2018). Curating, not weeding. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 133–143.
  12. 12. Defining Parameters for Open Access • Used in the last 13 years. • Purchased in the last 6 years. • Age range – Retain copies of all titles within an age range likely to satisfy the majority of teaching and research requirements. • For example, 80% of all recorded use in the 330 (Economics) range over the last 6 years was of materials published after 1997. So, all books published in 1997 and later will remain on open access. • Material with open access requirements. • Reading list materials. • Selected titles or collections of important material to be determined on a school by school level. ‘Sliding window’ of up-to-date resources that are most likely to satisfy the current teaching and research needs of the communities.
  13. 13. Defining Parameters for On-Site Stores • No usage in the last 13 years. • Not purchased in the last 6 years. • Age range – Unused titles within an age range less likely to, but could still satisfy the teaching and research requirements over the last 6 years. • For example, 90% of all recorded use in the 330 (Economics) range was of materials published in the last 31 years. As books 26 years old and under remain on open access, unused books between 26 and 31 years old would go to Store. • Any items requested from Store and checked out would be moved to the open access shelves. ‘Sliding window’ of resources less likely to satisfy users’ information needs, housing them where they do not block access to more relevant materials.
  14. 14. Defining Guidelines for Off-Site Store • Materials to be retained over the long term – Seminal works – Irish academic publishers – Choice reviews – National significance – International significance – Institutional affiliation (past or current member of staff, UCD as subject) – Historical interest – Provenance – Many, many more! • Scarce materials unavailable elsewhere in Ireland (subject specific, of relevance to the University’s teaching and research, national interest, institutional strength) • Legal deposit material.
  15. 15. School Profiles Inform both weeding criteria and selection of new materials • Review of each School’s current teaching and research – Current modules – Current research – Emerging graduate programmes • Review of subject area – Key titles – Key authors – Key viewpoints – Areas of interest to UCD – This will be added to as we go through the collections
  16. 16. School Profiles • Collection Evaluation – Size – Age – Growth areas – Usage and use patterns (part of retention criteria) – Physical condition – Collections of interest to the School – Collections of institutional or historical interest • Collection Recommendations – Where to develop – Where to weed (with evidence) – Identification of source materials for the subject
  17. 17. Withdrawal Any title that does not meet the quantitative and qualitative criteria developed for each School Only retain a title where there is a reason to do so
  18. 18. Long-Term Integration • Ensure that the open access shelves contain, and continue to contain, the most current and relevant resources and that these resources are not hidden away by unused, irrelevant, or out-dated material • Give full consideration to resources of historical, national, or institutional interest • Better planning and managing of the collections and the spaces that they inhabit by ensuring that stock levels in open access and on-site store areas will remain approximately the same size over the medium-term.
  19. 19. Project Timeline Stage 1: Project Set-Up – December 2017 – Data extraction from Sierra • Create Lists – Bib data, MARC format • SQL – Item data – Data cleaning by SCS – Access to the GreenGlass platform in February 2018 Complete
  20. 20. Project Timeline Stage 2: Project Definition and Planning – Define our approach – Define project plan – Approval for approach and project plan in May 2018 Complete
  21. 21. Project Timeline Stage 3: Communication • Summer 2018 – Development of communication documentation » Rationale for the project » Project methodology » FAQ » Libguide – Internal communication – Communications with University Management Team • End September - October 2018 – Libguide, social media, other outreach launch – Emails to Heads of School – First contact with five selected Schools (one for each collections librarian)
  22. 22. Stage 4: Development of School Profiles and Criteria Stage 4: Development of School Profiles and Criteria • Summer 2018 – Collection evaluation – Development of draft profiles and criteria – Input from Client Services team • October – December 2018 – Discussions with School, in collaboration with Liaison Librarians Stage 4: Implementation • December 2018 – January 2019
  23. 23. References Weeding • Ackerman, E., & DeLuca, L. (2018). Weed ’em and reap? Deselection of political science books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.10.003 • Baba, K., Minami, T., & Nakatoh, T. (2016). Predicting Book Use in University Libraries by Synchronous Obsolescence. Procedia Computer Science, 96, 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.082 • Buckland, M. K. (1975). Book availability and the library user. New York: Pergamon Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/bookavailability00buck • DeMars, M., & Roll, A. (2016). Weeding out in the open: what will the neighbours think? In Where Do We Go from Here?: Charleston Conference Proceedings 2015. Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284316252 • Dubicki, E. (2008). Weeding: facing the fears. Collection Building, 27(4), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913689 • Fussler, H. H., & Simon, J. L. (1961). Patterns in the use of books in large research libraries. Chicago: University of Chicago Library. Retrieved from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003908643 • Handis, M. W. (2007). Practical advice for weeding in a small library. Collection Building, 26(3), 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950710761643 • Held, T. (2018). Curating, not weeding. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 133–143. • Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of collection development and management. (3rd ed.). London: Facet. • Joswick, K. E., & Stierman, J. P. (1994). Systematic reference weeding: A workable model. Collection Management, 18(1), 103–115. • Lugg, R. (2012). Data-driven deselection for monographs: a rules-based approach to weeding, storage, and shared print decisions. Insights, 25(2), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.25.2.198 • Lugg, R., & Fischer, R. (2008). Future tense--The disapproval plan: Rules-based weeding & storage decisions. Against the Grain, 20(6).
  24. 24. References Weeding, cont’d • Lugg, R., & Fischer, R. (2013). Future tense--doing what’s obvious: Library space and the fat smoker. Against the Grain, 21(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.2530 • McHale, C., Egger-Sider, F., Fluk, L., & Ovadia, S. (2017). Weeding without walking: a mediated approach to list-based deselection. Collection Management, 42(2), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1318729 • McKee, P. (1981). Weeding the Forest Hill Branch of Toronto Public Library by the Slote Method: A Test Case. Library Research, 3(3), 283–301. • Metz, P., & Gray, C. (2005). Perspectives on public relations and library weeding. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(3), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.01.005 • Murphy, E. (2013). Assessing University Library Print Book Collections and Deselection: A Case Study at The National University of Ireland Maynooth. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(3), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.808252 • Oliva, V. T. (2016). Deselection of print monographs in the humanities and social sciences in the digital age. Collection Building, 35(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-02-2016-0002 • O’Neill, J. L. (2016). Weeding with ADDIE: developing training for deselection at an adacemic library. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(2), 108– 115. • Osheroff, S. K., & Knittel, M. C. (1990). Team weeding in a university library. College & Research Libraries News, 51(8), 723–725. • Perrault, A. H., Madaus, R., Armbrister, A., Dixon, J., & Smith, R. (1999). The Effects of High Median Age on Currency of Resources in Community College Library Collections. College & Research Libraries, 60, 316–339. • Poller, M. (1976). Weeding Monographs in the Harrison Public Library. Collection Management, 1(1), 6–7. • Reed-Scott, J. (1985). Implementation and evaluation of a weeding program. Collection Management, 7(2), 59–67. • Slote, S. J. (1997). Weeding library collections : library weeding methods. (4th ed.). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.
  25. 25. References Weeding, cont’d • Snyder, C. E. (2014). Data-driven deselection: multiple point data using a decision support tool in an academic library. Collection Management, 39(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2013.866607 • Soma, A. K., & Sjoberg, L. M. (2010). More than just low-hanging fruit: A collaborative approach to weeding in academic libraries. Collection Management, 36(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2011.529241 • Trueswell, R. (1964). User behaviour patterns and requirements and their effect on the possible applications of data processing and computer techniques in a university library. (PhD). Northwestern University, Illinois. • Ward, S. M. (2015). Rightsizing the academic library collection. Chicago: ALA Editions. • Way, D., & Garrison, J. (2013). Developing and implementing a disapproval plan: One university library’s experience. College & Research Libraries News, 74(6). • White, B. (2017). Citations and circulation counts: data sources for monograph deselection in research library collections. College & Research Libraries, 78(1). https://doi.org/doi:10.5860/crl.78.1.53 • Williams, P. C., & Halvonik, Brent. (2004). Collection management: assessing and weeding the foreign language collection. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 11(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v11n02_09 • Zuber, P. (2012). Weeding the collection: an analysis of motivations, methods, and metrics. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education / Engineering Libraries Division Annual Conference, Texas.
  26. 26. References Collection Evaluation and Development • Agee, J. (2005). Collection evaluation: a foundation for collection development. Collection Building, 24(3), 92–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604950510608267 • Borin, J., & Yi, H. (2008). Indicators for collection evaluation: a new dimensional framework. Collection Building, 27(4), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913698 • Bushing, M. C. (2001). The evolution of conspectus practice in libraries: the beginnings and the present applications. In CASLIN 2001: Popis a zpřístupnění dokumentů : nová výzva. Czech Republic: Czech and Slovak Library Information Network. Retrieved from http://klement.nkp.cz/Caslin/caslin01/sbornik/conspectus.html • Calvert, P. J. (1997). Collection development and performance measurement. In Collection Management for the 21st Century: A Handbook for Librarians (pp. 121–133). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. • Chipp, J. (2018). Developing a collections review framework at the University of Southampton. SCONUL Focus, 70. Retrieved from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/28.Developing%20a%20collections%20review.pdf • Rowley, G., & Black, W. K. (1996). Consequences of change: the evolution of collection development. Collection Building, 15(2), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604959610113879
  27. 27. Thank you!

Presentation given by UCD Library's Collections Support Librarian Catherine Ryan at 'Collection Management: Sharing Experiences' Joint Seminar organised by CONUL Collections and CONUL Training and Development, 24th October, 2018 at the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

Views

Total views

51

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

0

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×