Download to read offline
Uploaded byNASIG
Managing a Mass Collections Review from Assessment to Deselection
This document outlines the process of managing a mass collections review at Villanova University, initiated in January 2017 to address the need for more study space and to update outdated resources. The review involved data analysis using OCLC's Greenglass tool, public review opportunities for faculty, and systematic weeding based on specific criteria. Reactions from librarians and faculty varied, with some expressing support for the transparency of the process while others raised concerns about the potential impact of the weeding on available resources.
More Related Content
Similar to Managing a Mass Collections Review from Assessment to Deselection
Managing a Mass Collections Review from Assessment to Deselection
- 1. MANAGING A MASSCOLLECTIONS REVIEW FROM ASSESSMENT TO DESELECTION David Burke Managing Librarian for Description Management Villanova University June 9, 2018
- 2. THE NEED TOWEED • Preparation for a building renovation • Campus-wide report demonstrated need for more study space on campus • Past faculty complaints of students using outdated research • No formal, overall, or systematic collections review in the past • Evolving trends in collection building • Electronic over print formats • New collaborative collection building over multiple libraries (e.g., HathiTrust, EAST, PALCI)
- 3. TIMELINE • January 2017:Director announces collection review to staff, and GreenGlass will help narrow decisions • March 2017: bibliographic, item, and circulation data sent to OCLC to load into GreenGlass • April 2017: Villanova’s GreenGlass instance goes live, training soon follows • Summer 2017: 2 task forces created Collections Review Working Group GreenGlass Data Analysis Working Group • August 2017: Collections Review Task Force convenes to oversee collection review processes and adjust as necessary
- 4. • September 2017:Director talks to Provost, Deans, and Faculty Senate to announce and justify the need for the review ; AI librarians do the same with their assigned departments and begin preparing lists for public review • October 2017: first lists made publicly available for faculty review ; online forms created to allow faculty to request titles remain in collection or added to their personal libraries • November 2017: student workers use October lists to pull books from shelves and remove from catalog ; first batch shipped to Better World Books ; new lists made available for review while old lists taken down
- 5. BASELINE WEEDING CRITERIA •Purchased prior to 2006 • Never circulated in past ten years • Widely available in other libraries (40+ in U.S., 4+ in Penn.) Liaisons free to “interpret” guidelines as they see fit
- 6. • Product ofOCLC, Sustainable Collections Services (SCS) • “Visualize and model your collection.” • Promotional website: http://www.oclc.org/en/sustainable- collections/features.html • 215 libraries using GreenGlass (ca. April 2018)
- 8.
- 9.
- 11.
- 12. EDITED REPORT FORFACULTY REVIEW
- 13.
- 14. REACTIONS: LIBRARIANS • Useof GreenGlass data & base criteria varied between liaison librarians • OCLC holdings the least used datapoint • How many check-outs were ILL; how many uses did not involve check-out • Great for weeding in-bulk by answering easy questions • Some usability issues (e.g., cannot download visualizations) • Easier to share lists of interdisciplinary titles • Discovered more post-1923 books are public domain and in HathiTrust than expected • Hope to inaugurate more systematic approach to collection review
- 15. REACTIONS: FACULTY • Volumeof GreenGlass data appeased those from whom we most needed support (provost, deans, most department chairs) • Most faculty silent on the project • Appreciation for opportunity to claim weeded books for themselves • Some vocal dissenters, most placated through further explanation • Concerns of a weeding “quota” • Over-reactions to limited titles on weeding lists (e.g., copy of The Republic listed isn’t only one Library has) • Some feel lists too long to review in a month • Some diehard advocates of print over electronic under any and all circumstances
- 16.
- 17. DIRECTIONS TO CUT-&-PASTEFROM SPREADSHEETS
- 18. GREENGLASS ASSESSMENT • Amountof data and graphics makes for a great public relations tool • Librarians mostly made decisions based on circulation data—readily available locally in Voyager • Cannot download graphics • Faculty suggestions: Include citation counts and publisher for each title • For holdings include metropolitan areas as option • Some flaws in data (partly mistakes on our part)
- 19. NEXT STEPS • Newdata run in GreenGlass, Winter 2019 • Cleanup of any remaining/new remediation candidates • Full inventory of remaining collection • Make collection reviews routine • Educate faculty on costs of print retention
- 20.