Sunday, November 29, 2015

Collection evaluation: a foundation for collection development

Bullard, Sherrie
Agee, J. (2005). Collection evaluation: A foundation for collection development. Collection Building, 24(3), 92-95. doi:10.1108/01604950510608267


Summary: Librarians have many strategies available for evaluating collections. This article describes three major approaches to collection evaluation: usercentered evaluation; physical assessment; and specific subject support. Each approach employs a variety of specialized evaluative techniques. The benefit of using any of these techniques is that a focus can be developed on any aspect – subject, age, quality, or use – of the collection. Evaluating the collection allows librarians to know what resources are already available, what may be needed, and whether future collection development can be filled most effectively with print or electronic resources. The results from these techniques give justification for investment of staff time and energy in evaluation projects.


Evaluation:  Without collection evaluations that provide a clear assessment of available resources, future collection management – budgeting, format consideration, selection, or deselection – may be inefficient and at risk. Librarians in large or small libraries can employ the collection evaluation methods in this article to gain meaningful information about their own holdings. Wise collection building is dependent on a foundation of current resource assessment. This article provides some tools to build such a foundation successfully.

Labels: Assessment, Collections management, Project evaluation, Information media, Resources

Reference in transition: A case study in reference collection development

Bullard, Sherrie

Detmering, R., & Sproles, C. (2012). Reference in transition: A case study in reference collection       development. Collection Building, 31(1), 19-22. doi:10.1108/01604951211199146

Summary: The purpose of this article is to describe the ongoing process of weeding, streamlining, and transforming a very large, printbased reference collection at the University of Louisville's William F. Ekstrom Library, focusing in particular on the various issues involved in developing a timelier, focused, and electronicoriented collection. Over the years, the Ekstrom Library reference collection evolved into a large, neglected, printbased collection that ignored current space needs and user preferences for digital sources. To address this, the reference department developed a new, cooperative approach to reference collection development and weeding to improve the user experience and address serious space issues. To achieve a more usable reference collection, the reference department needed to rethink the philosophy behind the collection and completely rewrite the collection development policy. These changes have facilitated the creation of a smaller, more userfriendly collection that embraces the digital environment.

Evaluation:  The article highlights problems and approaches to refocusing a reference collection in a time of transition, as physical library spaces continue to evolve and the value of a traditional reference collection appears increasingly uncertain. This is a great article on how to transform a library space into a learning commons and on the process of improving the user experience.

Labels: Academic Libraries, Collection Development, Collections Management, Reference Collections, Weeding, Learning Commons

Saturday, November 28, 2015

The Self-Published Puzzle



LIBR 266
The Self-Published Puzzle.


In the past self-published titles may have had a bad rap, libraries are setting out to redeem these titles, giving the content a platform to reach and audience.  lnnovation continues to be a hot topic for librarians and information students who are studying the development and maintenance of collections. In the article, Solving the Self-published Puzzle, author, by Greg Landgraf , the potential for incorporating self-published titles is examined (2015). A Toronto library uncovers multiple benefits to integrating self-published works. Writers who have books on local interest subjects prove to have a niche within the Canadian patron population.  According to Landgraf’s article, some libraries even promote local writers by designating a tent where patrons can stop by and purchase copies from the authors.  Other libraries have taken the self-published contributions a step further by incorporating self-publishing tools within the libraries in order to support local writers. It seems that the benefits are mutual between the audience, writer, and library.



Solving the Self-published Puzzle
By Greg Landgraf | October 30, 2015
http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2015/10/30/solving-the-self-published-puzzle/

Friday, November 27, 2015

“Merge Everything It Makes Sense to Merge”: The History and Philosophy of the Merged Reference Collection at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library in San Jose, California.

Poster: Curtin, Shane

Kauppila, P., Belanger, S. E., & Rosenblum, L. (2006). “Merge Everything It Makes Sense to Merge”: The History and Philosophy of the Merged Reference Collection at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library in San Jose, California. Collection Management, 31(3), 33-57.


Summary:

This article was about the merging of the San Jose Public and San Jose Academic Librarys' reference collections. Both sections of the San Jose library realized they stood to profit from combining some of their collections. The authors review the literature from other libraries with mixed collections, and extoll the virtues of a shared catalog in these cases. They note that partners in such endeavors must agree on a shared strategy in collection development (particularly with regards to coordinating purchases, assigning selection responsibilities, and funding) to avoid disputes and confusion. They then explain the methods used to develop the reference collection between the library branches, including the political drama surrounding the weeding of duplicates.  The author explains that while this experiment was originally undertaken for cost saving purposes, it did far more in terms of improving user experience.


Analysis:

While duel libraries such as San Jose are not the norm, the lessons learned from their shared collections are applicable to all libraries, especially those which are part of consortiums or cooperative library systems. The library where I work, for example, lends with the county and with other county systems in California or Nevada. The interweaving of collections relieves a certain burden on selectors, as patrons are not barred from access to materials their home library does not have (they can be sent within 48 hours from one library to another). However, it also makes collection development more complicated by blurring the boundaries of any specific branch library’s collection.

The following sentiment was interesting:

“ Local collection development maintenance decisions are difficult enough to make, and inter-institutional programs immediately raise serious questions of locality, loyalty, and identity as the partners try to decide who keeps the new title acquired or retains the copy not weeded. (Seiden, Pumroy, and Medeiros 2002, 193)”

My library is part of the Link+ consortium, a system by which books can be leant to other systems throughout California and Nevada. Everyone wants to benefit front the system by receiving books from other members, but sending them is expensive. Some thrifty libraries try to tip the ratio of imports to exports in their own favor. If only two libraries have a certain piece of material, there is an incentive for each of them to try to be the first to weed that item from their collection, thus freeing them of the burden of having to lend it. Some librarians have told me that they play by this strategy. This is a sad parable about the nature of cooperative systems. They aren’t always so cooperative, and some always end up contributing more than others.
Similar disputes happen on the local county level all the time, and I have witnessed them. There is also no official system for disseminating extra copies of books to libraries in need. Often they end up in the trash when they could have been utilized at other libraries.
One of the county’s strengths, however, is its database collection development strategy. Each library has a representative on a database committee. Together, they review usage statistics, promote databases to patrons using survey, and test all databases for quality before purchasing. Because of the cooperative nature of the enterprise, there is no duplication of digital resources amidst individual libraries.  Costs go down, usage goes up. Having witnessed the benefits of this kind of collaboration, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of the this articles author's. Collaborative collection development, if taken seriously, can be enormously beneficial to librarians, patrons, and the efficiency of the organization overall.



Collections Redux: The Public Library as a Place of Community Borrowing

Poster: Curtin, Shane

Söderholm, J. j., & Nolin, J. j. (2015). Collections Redux: The Public Library as a Place of Community Borrowing. Library Quarterly, 85(3), 244-260.

Summary:

This article discuss the social history of libraries, from the castellated hideouts of Enlightenment academics to the front lines of social reform movements, to the post-Ford commercial world and the digital age. IT analysis how the idea of a self regulating information sphere (aka the internet) and capitalist ideas regarding unfair competition have led to the downscaling of library services as a whole. There are numerous interesting ideas here- like the idea of the anti-collection (the things the library “has” even though they aren’t actually part of its collection, and place oriented research (the library as a social space). It discusses how much of current library talk seems to demote the physical collection and play up digital, but questions wether this idea is genuine, or merely a strategy to be perceived as cutting edge. They advocate a more tempered approach to development, with emphasis on both print and digital resources. They define a library as “ place built around a collection and a collection built around a place”, and their conclusion, though not explicit, seems to be that libraries need to make collection development decisions re: print versus digital based on local patron needs, not according to the philosophical ideals held by those in change of collection development.
I found this quote particularly poignant:
“For more than a century the public library has engaged in developing its (supposed) field of expertise, from a literacy of literature aimed at supporting social welfare through knowledge, as ultimately embodied in books, to a literacy of information aimed at supporting equitable access, not clearly embodied in anything. “

Analysis:

I appreciate this article for not being the cookie cutter “Rah Rah Digital collections” fare.

The notion of digital collections as the end all and be all of libraries really grinds my gears. First of all, digital is only eh way of the future because people insist upon it. Consumers insist upon it because hey are easily suggestible, because they like toys, and because pundits tell them it’s progress. Markets insist upon it because it is profitable. While it has many advantages, it has no supremacy of form to hard copy. Digital life comes with its own sets of problems, like file decay (any preservationist will tell you that digital materials are not invulnerable or immortal)sever failure, hackers (a growing epidemic), and screens that disrupt our brain waves (to name a few).  We are working on solutions to these issues, reverting the old way might be much less trouble.  But it seems that print versus digital has become like Democrats versus Republicans; it is perceived as a zero sum game where coexistence is deemed neither desirable nor possible.

Furthermore we are always talking about access- but equal access in a digital world requires the elimination of all economic disparity. A disenfranchised person with no computer experience is still probably best served by walking into the library and being handed a book on their subject of interest. Yet, librarians by-and-large seem to buy into the “tehno-hubris” that digital is always better. Perhaps they will be purchasing drones for their loved ones this Christmas…?

All this talk of the “digital divide” is rather insipid, because it does not merely seek to raise awareness of a disparity of access, but implies that there is something wrong with not being plugged in. The only reason it is becoming impossible to survive without being online is because people are arbitrarily choosing to convert to digital services that worked much better the way they were before… I recently tried to park in a lot that charged by the hour. It turned out there was no kiosk at which to pay. The only way to pay was to download an app and use a credit card over the phone. This is about 100 times less convenient that the standard procedure, but wait… It must be better, because it involves technology! False. It not only marginalizing everyone without a cell phone (and arbitrarily making a phone necessary in a situation when there was no logical reason one should need a cell phone) it also incapacitates people who lost their phones, who are out of batteries, or who don’t have the data to download yet another pointless app. How is this supposed to work in the long term? Will every parking lot have its own app? How convenient. What colossal morons orchestrate these things, I wonder? Or are these things just the by-products of a society caught up in a technophilic zeitgeist.

As librarians we should be embracing technology that actually improves access for patrons in need, but we should not abandon print material because most patrons, in my experience at least, still prefer it. There were some recent studies that found out people don’t read the majority of the ebooks they purchase, and another on how children still prefer physical books to screens. Who knows how it will all play out...

In abandoning out own loyalty to the classic image of the library, and in eshewing print materials for the exclusively digital, we betray a significant portion of our patrons, and betray ourselves, accelerating the demise of our own profession, and giving more credence to the arguments of those who say libraries are not necessary. The news media and the pundits tell us digital is what people want, but instead of listing to talking heads, why don’t we ask patrons? As the article points out, every community is different. Every person is different. The library should be accountable to its patrons, not to external notions of what a library should be- notions handed down from the media and would-be futurists gabbing into the blogosphere. The library should be what the patron’s want it to be. If it can adapt to their needs, it will always remain and prosper.  If, on the other hand, we become nothing more than a physical directory to digital resources, then we WILL be unnecessary. I’ve no wish to  fight progress, but let's be certain first that the conversion to an all- digital world is actually an improvement.


Mining and Analyzing Circulation and ILL Data for Informed Collection Development


Poster: Curtin, Shane

Link, F. l., Tosaka, Y. t., & Weng, C. W. (2015). Mining and Analyzing Circulation and ILL Data for Informed Collection Development. College & Research Libraries, 76(6), 740-755.


Summary:

This article describes how one library tried reviewed ILL usage and  borrowing statistics for their academic journals in an attempt to asses the strength of their own collection. They drew on circulation data for each LOC class and compared it across a variety of factors. The results were more complex than they had expected. The question posed by their results was not what specific items to buy, but what subject areas to buy for.  They also realized that user preferences for different material types (such as digital journals versus print journals) could not be inferred through the aforementioned methods of study, since people will tend to order whatever is available. The researchers concluded by proposing a further study to address this question, and to establish benchmarks for collection use as it relates to purchasing. How much circulation should be expected for every dollar spent?


Analysis:

In my own library the ILL librarian does not fraternize much with the selectors. The number of ILLs we receive is small and seldom do we get more than one request per item in any considerable span of time. Due to our library’s membership in LINK+ we already have access to the catalogs of most Californa and Nevada libraries; most items can be obtained this way. We DO look at Link+ circ stats to see if we should order something, but not at ILL stats. Most ILL orders are for rare and old-out of print items anyway, not thing we could get our hands on even if we wanted to. Even so, this study was interesting vis-a-vis the content of our class. At the end of the study the author noted that the study is not to be taken as just an investigation of their own circulation, but as a parable of the effectiveness of using circulation stats as  collection development metric.

They of course, used LC call numbers as subject identifiers. While this is not the method recommended by this class, it is the only one available to most libraries, lest they choose to tag their records by subject collection, as we have been doing. In order for circulation data to be valuable to collection development in this sort of arrangement, a new field of some sort would have to be added in item records, denoting their collection grouping. An alternate method that occurs to me is to try and mine the subject data from the MARC 650 fields, but the variety of subject terms are much to numerous to  make this an effective strategy. If we escape the rigid methods of classic collection development by Dewey and item type, other methods of identification will have to be devised to make circulation data sortable in way that is useful  to selectors.

I was amused by one collection use measurement tool the author mentioned- the CFQ (Collection Failure Quotient) - a ratio of a library’s ILL borrowings to holdings. I think my own library is doing ok.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The Ups and Downs of Floating Collections


Summary:  
 This article presents five large, multi-branch libraries, Vancouver Public Library, Cuyahoga County Publich library, a consortium of Ohio libraries, Sarasota County Library, Brown County Library, and their experiences implementing floating collections in their libraries.  Here, floating collections are defined as collections in which “materials remain where patrons have returned them rather than being shipped to an owning branch” (p. 13).  The goals of floating collections are to “reduce the amount of material in transit, reduce the workload of...staff, increase the availability of items on the shelf for users, refresh the collections...and let the collection move itself” (p. 13-14).  Although there were several different approaches to implementing floating collections, the success of their undertakings seemed to vary depending on how gradually or quickly they applied new policies.  For instance, surveys at the Vancouver Public Library, where floating collections were fully introduced over the course of a single year, indicated that only 48% of staff were satisfied with floating, while at the Cuyahoga County Public Library, where floating was implemented incrementally over 3 years, “the vast majority of staff members are comfortable with floating” (p. 15)

Response:
             I had never heard of a “floating” collection before reading this article; to me, it sounded like an idea that is great on paper but so difficult to execute well in practice that the obstacles would outweigh the benefits.  Indeed, the logistical hurdles that can be created by changing collection management procedures proved to be an issue for all five libraries studied in this piece; however, those that implemented changes gradually and planned carefully were ultimately able to provide patrons with a continuously refreshed collection and easier access to in demand items.  If a library exists as a part of a group of libraries in the immediate area, treating separate collections that are already being shared regularly as a single, unified entity seems like a good way of making more of the library’s collection available to patrons.  Floating, applied perhaps only to certain areas of the collection, might even benefit small consortiums of academic libraries with good histories of cross-circulation, potentially providing participating institutions valuable insight into necessary acquisitions and weeding opportunities while giving students easier and more flexible access to materials.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

E-Resource Acquisitions in Academic Library Consortia

Turner, C. (2014). E-resource acquisitions in academic library consortia. Library Resources and
            Technical Services, 58(1), 33-48.
15pp

In his article, “E-Resources Acquisitions in Academic Library Consortia,” Turner discusses the shift that academic libraries have been experiencing over the past decade that is becoming more marked in recent years concerning acquisition and making access to e-resources. There is concern about duplication of items because of package deals that some libraries have not been able to avoid. There are also collaborative consortia aimed at reducing the cost of e-resources among libraries sharing resources. Though consortia demands are in sympathy with academic library needs, they do impose some of their own competing demands.

Policy Route Map for Academic Libraries’ Digital Content

Koulouris, A., & Kapidakis, A. (2012). Policy route map for academic libraries’ digital content.
            Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 44(3), 163-173.
            doi: 10.1177/0961000612444299

As policies for academic library collection management are created currently, they have to be flexible enough to allow for copyright laws of e-resources. When e-resources are acquired they can be accessible in several different levels. These resources can have access restrictions anywhere from proprietary and only reproducible upon consent to open access. The library’s collection management policies have to be adapted to accommodate such widely varying accessibility.