Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:00 - 3:45 PM Speakers: Michael A. Matos - American University; Patricia J. West - American University Library Reference collections are best managed through collaboration and cooperative assessment. A “blue skies” approach to print reference is to never discard a title. However, for most institutions budgets are tight, space is limited, and today’s information seeking behavior favors digital formats. A major evaluation of any reference collection is especially difficult due to the existence of multiple stake holders and a lack of clear "ownership." And, while the bulk of scholarly literature discusses weeding collections through reliance on internal documents, bibliographies and other librarian-created tools, this paper will examine an innovative process for assessing and reallocating reference resources based upon consensus building. We will explain how a systematic assessment of the reference collection was conducted via small teams of subject specialists comprised from units throughout the library. We will elaborate on the method used to weight usage statistics against the teams’ recommendations. Using a model based upon transparency and consensus we were able to arrive at timely and thoughtful decisions without strife. We will elaborate on the primary and tangential benefits that resulted from the project, such as increased familiarity with the reference collection, cost savings, re-evaluation of the lending policies and location of the collection, and the creation of a new reference collection plan based upon a forward thinking user-centric model. Attendees will gain valuable insight into this portable, cost-effective, and straightforward approach to re-envisioning reference resources.

1. To Weed
or
Not to Weed:
Reference Collection
Assessment through
Consensus
Michael A. Matos
and
Patricia J. West
American University
Charleston Conference
November 2010

2. Other Reference Collection
Review Examples
• Work handled solely by the Reference
Department.
• Work primarily delegated to a team or
single individual.
• Only librarians give input.
• Decision driven primarily by usage
statistics.

3. About American University Library
Campus population = 11,000 FTE
1.1 million volumes
300 + databases
6,164 titles (comprising roughly 10,300 volumes/editions)
3,700 linear feet of shelving
Reference stacks location on main floor of library
Reference collection historically not weeded (at least 10 years).

4. Evolving Reference
• Under-utilization of the print reference collection
• Predominance of electronic versions
• Changing user research habits
• Expectation that everything is available online.
• Mediated access no longer required
• Focus on empowering the users
• Increased demand for open floor space.
• Users want more computers and study areas
• Situated in a prime location on main floor of the
library.

5. REFERENCE COLLECTION
The Consensus Based Weeding Process

6. Collection Options
REFERENCE
COLLECTION
Retain in
Reference
Move to
General
Stacks
Off-Site
Storage
Discard

7. REVIEW
Collection Review Process
Collection review divided among
librarians and staff
Collection physically separated for
final review
Review of master list of all
decisions
Review of collection issues or
disagreements
Process document and criteria
document created

8. • The golden rule: Only discard a title if
the opinion is unanimous.
• Take the most conservative position
when there are disagreements.
Process and Criteria
Documents Created

9. Subject Specialists
Actions
D
C
S
R
D
C
S
R
D
C
S
R
Collection Review Divided Among Librarians
and Staff
Portion of the collection is reviewed
by subject specialists, who make their
recommendations for each title.
Decisions were recorded into a database
to collate all opinions for each title to arrive
at consensus.
Subject specialists could use whatever
method they wanted to arrive at their
recommendations.

11. • Disagreements were brought to the
reference team for review when there was a
tie or strong difference of opinion.
• Anyone could request that a title be
discussed at the reference team meeting.
• Missing titles or preservation issues were
brought to the team as well.
Collection Issues or
Disagreements

12. • Access database created to track all
title recommendations.
• Actions list were sent to all librarians
weekly for comment.
Master List of All Decisions

13. IMAGE

14. • Opened for review by the entire library.
• Allowed everyone to browse the discards to
insure no mistakes were made.
• Assisted cataloging once decisions were
finalized to process materials.
Collection Physically
Separated for Final Review

15. Benefits/Outcomes
– Reference collection decreased by 60%
– 2,404 titles remained in reference
– 1,629 titles were discarded
– 1,177 were sent to the stacks
– 69 titles were sent to storage
– 800 titles could not be located

16. Continued…
• Opened up more floor space in the library.
• Liberated many titles for circulation.
• Created a leaner, more useful reference collection.
• Librarians became more familiar with the collection.
• Pointed out holes in the current collection.
• Led to creation of a new reference collection plan.
• Saved money by cancelling redundant titles.

17. Lessons Learned
• We needed better usage data
for our non-circulating
collections.
• Press to reduced the collection
has not been abated.
• Fiscal limitations held back
many print to electronic
decisions.
• Many books have been moved,
but are really getting used?
• There were/are philosophical
differences between colleagues.

18. Where we go from here…
• A new reference collection plan was
created.
• The collection will be evaluated every
two years.
• Emphasis will be given towards
acquiring electronic resource over
print.

19. Questions?
• Michael A. Matos
matos@american.edu
• Patricia J. West
pjwest@american.edu