Collection development - Evaluation

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 273-278

  Carrigan, Dennis P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030186241     PISSN: 00991333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0099-1333(96)90117-2     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Barr Catherine. The Bowker Annual. 39th ed. 1944;447-455 Bowker, New York.
2. In this article, "collection developers" are those who have collection development as their primary or sole responsibility, as well as those materials selectors who have collection development as a responsibility, though it is not their primary responsibility. The latter group includes many teaching faculty. The work of collection development is not limited to the selection of materials to be added to the collections, though arguably selection is at the heart of collection development. As will become clear, this article concerns itself with the selection function.
3. Buckland Michael K. The Roles of Collections and the Scope of Collection Development. Journal of Documentation. 45:September 1989;213.
4. For an indication of the amount of attention, see Nisonger Thomas E. Collection Evaluation in Academic Libraries: A Literature Guide and Annotated Bibliography. 1992;Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO.
5. Edwards Anne E. Performance Evaluation of Collection Development and Acquisitions Librarians. Cenzer Pamela S., Gozzi Cynthia I. Evaluating Acquisitions and Collection Management. 1991;115-122 Haworth Press, New York. Anne Edwards discusses the need for the evaluation of collection development librarians, but among the "skills, qualities, and duties" she mentions for evaluation she does not include the librarians' skill in selecting appropriate titles to be added to the collection.
6. Although ILL, document delivery, and transaction-based electronic access may enable all academic libraries to deliver ultimately the same materials to their clients, decisions about what to have in the local collection and what to make available only through other forms of access bear greatly on - if not determine - the nature and level of services. Such decisions are the province of collection development.
7. For elaboration of the argument outlined in this paragraph, see Carrigan Dennis P. Toward a Theory of Collection Development. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory. 19:1995;97-106.
8. In this article, ther terms "collection development" and "collection developers" are used interchangeably. Although "collection development" is the far more common term, "collection developers" is used here, too, to call attention to the fact there are people responsible for the comparison of a library's collections. It is the efforts of those people that should be evaluated.
9. Mosher Paul H. Quality and Library Collections: New Directions in Research and Practice in Collection Evaluation. According to Mosher, "Perhaps the most common form of collection evaluation is based on the shelfist or shelf count of titles...." Overselection would not be detected. Simonton Wesley. Advances in Librarianship. Vol. 13:1988;219 Academic Press, Orlando, FL. On the other hand, F. W. Lancaster points out that a portion of a collection may be "underused," which may be due to "buying the wrong books," i.e., overselection.
10. Lancaster F.W. If You Want to Evaluate Your Library ... 1988;39-45 Academic Press, Champaign, IL. The quote appears on p. 41.
11. Edelman Hendrik. Selection Methodology in Academic Libraries. Library Resources & Technical Services. 23:Winter 1979;38.
12. Getz Malcolm. The Electronic Library: Analysis and Decentralization in Collection Decisions. Journal of Library Administration. 14:(3):1991;78.
13. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;69.
14. Futas Elizabeth, Vidor David L. What Constitutes a 'Good' Collection? Library Journal. 112:April 15, 1987;45.
15. David S. Sullivan, "Budgeting for Users: Rethinking the Materials Budget," in Evaluating Acquisitions and Collection Management, p. 18.
16. David S. Sullivan, "Budgeting for Users: Rethinking the Materials Budget," in Evaluation Acquisitions and Collection Management, p. 16.
17. For opportunity costs and libraries, see Carrigan Dennis P. Improving Return on Investment: A Proposal for Allocating the Book Budget. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 18:November 1992;294.
18. Carrigan Dennis P. Librarians and the 'Dismal Science'. Library Journal. 113:June 15, 1988;22.
19. Schauer Bruce P. The Economics of Managing Library Service. 1986;108-109 American Library Association, Chicago, Economists impose the condition that the opportunity cost of a choice be stated in terms of the best alternative use of the resources.
20. Futas and Vidor, "What Constitutes...," p.45.
21. Getz Malcolm. The Economics of Research Libraries: Present State and Future Prospects. IFLA Journal. 15:November 1989;302.
22. Getz Malcolm. The Economics of Research Libraries: Present State and Future Prospects. IFLA Journal. 15:November 1989;303.
23. For an interesting discussion of this, see Roberts Michael, Cameron Kenneth J. A Barometer of 'Unmet Demand': Interlibrary Loans Analysis and Monographic Acquisitions. Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory. 8:1984;35-36.
24. See, for example, Getz, "The Electronic Library ...," p. 78, and the cited works by Metz and Britten (see notes 24 and 26).
25. Although the single resource, money, receives most attention, nevertheless in going about their work collection developers also allocate other valuable resources, library space and their (collection developers') time as well as the time of those in acquisitions and cataloging.
26. Bonn George S. Evaluation of the Collection. Library Trends. 29:January 1974;272-273.
27. Bonn George S. Evaluation of the Collection. Library Trends. 29:January 1974;273.
28. Metz Paul. The Landscape of Literatures: Use of Subject Collections in a University Library. 1983;American Library Association, Chicago.
29. Metz Paul. The Landscape of Literatures: Use of Subject Collections in a University Library. 1983;7-16 American Library Association, Chicago.
30. Britten William A. A Use Statistic for Collection Management: The 80/20 Rule Revisited. Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory. 14:1990;183-189.
31. Trueswell Richard L. Some Behavioral Patterns of Library Users: The 80/20 Rule. Wilson Library Bulletin. 43:January 1969;458-461.
32. The "80/20 rule" does not hold that in every library 80 percent of circulation will be concentrated among 20 percent of holdings. Although 80/20 may describe the actual situation in some libraries, nevertheless 80/20 has come to be a succinct representation of the general phenomenon. Britten set out to determine the actual situation at his institution.
33. William A. Britten, "A Use Statistic...," p. 183.
34. William A. Britten, "A Use Statistic...," pp. 184-185.
35. William A. Britten, "A Use Statistic...," p. 185.
36. William A. Britten, "A Use Statistic...," p. 188-189.
37. As used here "interlibrary loan" includes document delivery.
38. For the use of ILL data in collection development, see, for example Rottmann F.K. To Buy or to Borrow: Studies of the Impact of Interlibrary Loan on Collection Development in the Academic Library. Journal of Interlibrary Loan & Information Supply. 1:1991;17-27.
39. Williams Brian W., Hubbard Joan G. Interlibrary Loan and Collection Management Applications of an ILL Database Management System. Journal of Interlibrary Loan & Information Supply. 1:1991;63-90.
40. Aguilar William. The Application of Relative Use and Interlibrary Loan in Collection Development. Collection Management. 8:Spring 1986;15-24.
41. Byrd Gary D., Thomas D.A., Hughes Katherine E. Collection Development Using Interlibrary Loan Borrowing and Acquisitions Statistics. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 70:January 1982;1-9.
42. Hardesty Larry. Use of Library Materials at a Small Liberal Arts College. Library Research. 3:Fall 1981;271.
43. Hardesty Larry. Use of Library Materials at a Small Liberal Arts College. Library Research. 3:Fall 1981;272.
44. In that regard, Roberts and Cameron comment: [I]t is ... known, if not often admitted, that much that has been purchased on academic recommendation in the past has slowly yellowed on the shelf, unloved and unread.
45. Roberts & Cameron, "Barometer of 'Unmet Demand,'" p. 41.
46. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;50 It is unfortunate the authors, in their title, use the expression "evaluation of library resources" rather than the expression "evaluation of library collection development." It is noteworthy that, in their first paragraph, the authors appropriately refer to "how the library's collecting program supports the department."
47. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;52-57.
48. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;59.
49. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;58-67.
50. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;68-76.
51. Carpenter David, Getz Malcolm. Evaluation of Library Resources in the Field of Economics: A Case Study. Collection Management. 20:1995;81-83.