Anda di halaman 1dari 23

Australian Academic & Research Libraries

ISSN: 0004-8623 (Print) 1839-471X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20

A Collection of Importance: The Role of Selection


in Academic Libraries

Bruce Munro & Peter Philps

To cite this article: Bruce Munro & Peter Philps (2008) A Collection of Importance: The Role of
Selection in Academic Libraries, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39:3, 149-170, DOI:
10.1080/00048623.2008.10721347

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2008.10721347

Published online: 08 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4221

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ualj21
A COLLECTION OF IMPORTANCE:
THE ROLE OF SELECTION IN
ACADEMIC LIBRARIES
Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

There has been little recent research into the roles and
responsibilities of academic librarians in collection
development in Australian universities. In 2007
the authors reviewed the findings of a 1994 study
of collection management in Australian university
libraries, examining current practice and taking
into account the impact of technology over the past
13 years. Two models of responsibility for selection
of monographic materials in Australian academic
libraries were identified from the study and these are
presented and compared with a generalised model of
practice in academic libraries in the United States.
AARL September 2008 vol 39 no 3 pp149-170.

Bruce Munro and Peter Philps, Collection Development


Librarians, University Library, The University of New
South Wales, Sydney 2052. Emails: b.munro@unsw.
edu.au, peter.philps@unsw.edu.au

T
here has been little current research on the changing roles and
responsibilities of academic librarians with regard to the development
of Australian university library monograph collections. Ryland put
forward the view, back in 1982, that ‘faculty selection leads to major problems:
the wrong books selected because of lack of time, unbalanced collections, and
1
a tendency to overbuy in periodicals, among others. Who, then should select?’
While there have been some moves away from faculty selection, the question
posed by Ryland is just as relevant today within Australian academic libraries.
When it comes to collection development, what authority do selectors have in
2
making these decisions?
All academic libraries are required to meet the needs of their users, fulfilling
their institution’s mission statement and achieving its goals, as well as satisfying
the budgetary constraints of their parent institution. In light of this, the

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 149


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

responsibility of purchasing library resources and spending public money is no


easy task. Most large university libraries in the United States employ a class
of librarians titled bibliographers to develop and administer their collections.
Bibliographers are expected to have a general knowledge of the subject area
for which they are responsible. Within their subject areas bibliographers select
and order new materials for the collection, basing their decisions on their own
research and on requests from academics and students, and maintain approval
plans. In more recent times, the bibliographers’ role at some institutions has
developed to include cataloguing, research appointments, reference service and
3
bibliographic instruction to clients.
4
Kennedy considers selection as a ‘high profile’ duty of librarianship. Library
selection should be conducted by professional librarians, with the addition of staff
outside of the library making suggestions for possible selection. Selection is not to
be purely an academic exercise; it also requires the intuition of the library staff.
The results of a 1994 study of collection management in Australian university
5
libraries, however, indicated that the participation of academic librarians in the
selection of monographic resources was limited. Leonard found that selection
was left in the hands of the academics, as they had the required knowledge for
their specific fields. She noted that students’ needs were being overlooked, as
were resources based on new technologies. Leonard concluded that the librarians
should have the primary role in selection within an environment of collaboration
between the library and the faculties.
In an attempt to examine the changing nature of Australian academic library
collection development, our study reviews Leonard’s findings in the light of
current practice and the impact of technology over the past 13 years. Following
on from her findings, we consider whether these institutions still rely on their
academics and approval plans for selection of monographs (print or electronic)
and examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Australian university collection
development models.

VIEWS ON COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT


It is clear from the American and Australian literature that there is no standard
definition of collection development. As this study is concerned primarily with
the purchase of materials and not with their storage or preservation, we use
a narrower definition of collection development than is often used currently,
namely
the development of the library collection, including the
determination and coordination of selection policy, assessment
of needs of users and potential users, collection use studies,
collection evaluation, identification of collection needs, selection
6
of materials...

The aspects of collection development we discuss include policies, selection and


the responsibilities of academics and library staff.

150 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

Policies
While academic library practices vary in the use and implementation of collection
development policies, the literature strongly supports their application. It is argued
that collection development policies ‘ensure continuity and balance in collection
7
growth’. They help to clearly define library policy regarding duplication of
8
resources and increase accountability to the library’s stakeholders. In the face of
the high and increasing cost of library resources, a policy assists a library define
9
its collection focus. Although a collection development policy is intended as a
working document for library staff, it needs to be remembered that the procedures
contained within it should be developed through collaboration among library
10
staff, faculty members and library users and should be re-evaluated regularly.

Selection
The Guide for Training Collection Development Librarians considers collection
development policies as a guide for selecting appropriate materials for the
library. Policies should include the existing strengths of the collection for the
11
selectors’ reference. Gorman and Kennedy indicate key selection guidelines
as depending on policy decisions and practical procedures, and professional
competence, including reading the relevant literature, knowledge of the library’s
purpose and making well-informed independent judgments regarding selection
12
of materials.
Collection development policies that include analysis of the present collection
and long-term goals assist in building a collection that benefits the current and
future users of the library. Format of the material, such as electronic or print,
should be a fundamental consideration.13 Most academic libraries have stated
they prefer electronic formats over print because of the limitations on physical
space and because they enhance their virtual collection. Some e-book vendors
provide flexible automated loan and purchase options.14 With e-books the
selector needs to take into account issues relating to hardware, search engines,
cataloguing, archiving and training.15 Policies concerning whether or not the
library will have approval plans should also be clear, as should the reviewing of
the profiles and responsibility for this duty.
Although the collection development policy is a tool for use by librarians who are
selecting materials, it needs to be formulated in collaboration with academics.
Among the advantages of this collaboration are the contribution of detailed
information that academics can make in their subject areas, the extension of
librarians’ subject knowledge, and the guidance of academics in identifying
important works published in the past that the library may need to acquire.16

Responsibilities
There are opposing views in the literature about whether library staff or
academics are more qualified to select material for a library collection. Some
authors argue that librarians should not make assumptions about users’ needs
and that material requested by users should be selected, ensuring its relevance
for the research and teaching needs of the institution. Other authors believe that,

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 151


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

although the library exists to serve its users, a librarian has the skills to select high-
quality material to meet current users’ needs and to provide a comprehensive
17
range of resources for current and future users. Playing a significant role in
library collection development within Australia are subject librarians and/or
liaison librarians and academics, while in the United States most large academic
libraries have bibliographers playing the key role in collection selection and in
18
controlling funds for purchasing monographs.

Roles in Selection
Part of the role of the subject librarian is the selection of material for the library’s
collection, which requires them to have a knowledge of current publications,
book vendors and approval plans, to balance needs and wants with the budget, to
assess of the collection, and to communicate with faculties, academics and other
19
library stakeholders. There are numerous advantages to subject librarians being
primarily responsible for the collection. A librarian considers expense, curriculum
relationship, other sources of access, reputation of publisher, and authority of
20
publication. Even though faculty members have a specialised knowledge in
their subject areas, reliance on academics for collection development can result
in a narrow focus in collection building leading to gaps in the collection. Reliance
on librarians as selectors should ensure that the collection has a balanced range
21
of resources. Optimal selection is evident when librarianship skills are paired
22
with subject expertise.
Consultation with faculty members is considered a vital part of collection
development in that it allows for the exchange of ideas between faculties and the
23
library. The liaison librarian’s role is to communicate with individual schools
in the selection of library material, to select additional material not identified
by academics for a balanced collection in that area and to inform the relevant
24
academics and schools of this material of value and interest. Walden, in her
25
1990 study at the University of Minnesota, concludes that good relationships
between library staff and faculty add value to the collection.
The main weakness of collection development by faculty members is that, although
academics may have detailed knowledge of their subject areas, they view the
library within the limits of their subject focus, resulting in gaps in subject areas
26
and, particularly, in interdisciplinary areas. Faculty library representatives may
also consider their role as purchasing material for department specialists without
27
considering the broader group of users. On the other hand, because of their
expertise academics are ideal selectors as they know most of the relevant literature
28
for their discipline. There is also the tendency for a collection developed by
academics to lack cohesion over time, because of academic staff turnover, and
29
for material of a more general nature to be overlooked.
Academics in US universities are moving towards increasing their responsibility
in book selection. While their desire to be involved in the selection process should
be acknowledged, the value of academics having more collection control should
30
be considered carefully. An example of academics having collection control is
documented in a study undertaken at Kent Library, Southeast Missouri State

152 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

University. While a collection development policy place some controls and


provides some guidance, academics control the money. Departmental library
liaison personnel are responsible for individual departmental subject collections,
31
with library staff reviewing these decisions in line with the policies.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As evidenced in the preceding paragraph, the literature on collection develop-
ment is extensive and that on the role of the librarian as selector is only slightly
less so. The relationship between the library and academic staff has been
neglected, however, particularly from an Australian viewpoint.
To remedy this and to analyse what occurs in practice within an Australian
context, the authors carried out research using interviews with collection
managers on current practices and, to a lesser extent, Web-based collection/
selection policies. The aim was to develop models of practice used by Australian
32
academic libraries. The sample was restricted to the Group of Eight (Go8)
universities (Australian National University, Monash University, University of
Adelaide, University of Melbourne, University of New South Wales, University
of Queensland, University of Sydney and University of Western Australia) so as
to maintain a manageable sample and to provide a comparison with Leonard’s
1994 paper. These institutions are Australia’s leading universities and for this
reason were considered to provide a comprehensive sample for the purpose of
this study.
Exploratory semi-structured interviews were carried out with collection managers
of each of the eight libraries during the first six months of 2007. This interview
technique was considered most effective for this study, as predetermined questions
were asked while respondents still had the latitude to answer questions in their
own way. (Appendix 1 lists sample questions.) It also enabled the interviewer to
33
probe for more information in areas of interest. Questions focused on who has
the responsibility for the collection, the roles of the academics and the relevant
librarians, library staff competencies, collection development policies and
procedures, the process of selection, approval plans, e-books, and strengths and
weaknesses of the collection.
Having completed the interviews and preliminary readings, flowcharts were
created to illustrate the models of collection development practice used at each
of the Go8 libraries (see Appendix 2). The flowcharts demonstrate the collection
development responsibilities as consisting of three parts:
• the requesting process displays all the stakeholders of the
university who can request monographic material to be
purchased for the library;
• the approval process is made up of library teams and services
that have an impact upon those requests; and,
• collections represents the addition of those requested materials
to the library’s collection.

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 153


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

The arrows in the flowcharts depict lines of communication between the different
parties. This communication can be a one-way directive (for example, an email
request from an academic to the library) or a two-way consultation between
parties (for example, library staff involvement in faculty meetings).
The similarities and differences of each library’s model were illustrated in these
flowcharts, presented in Appendix 2. From the comparison of each library’s
model, two distinct models were identified, which are described more fully
below.

RESULTS
From the literature a generalised American model for selection of monographic
resources was devised. The main requesting party is the bibliographers/subject
librarians, while academics/students may consult with the bibliographers and
be consulted by them in return. All collection material is approved through the
bibliographer/subject librarian. In addition, libraries that purchase through
approval plans have their profiles maintained by bibliographers/subject
librarians. The bibliographers/subject librarians have the final responsibility for
the collection and its development (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Collection Responsibility Model - USA


Collection
Collection

Approval Bibliographers/ Approval plan


Process Subject librarians

Requesting Bibliographers/ Academics/


Process Subject librarians Students

154 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

From the sample of Go8 libraries, two distinct groups emerge. These models are
differentiated by the role the academics have in the selection of monographic
material. These groups are labeled here Group 1 and Group 2. These models only
consider the collection development responsibilities of the particular position.
The roles of a number of the subject librarians include additional responsibilities,
such as the delivery of reference and information literacy classes.
Before describing these groups, it is important to note that the interviews
conducted made it clear that within some institutions the various faculties had
different relationships with the university library relating to selection procedures.
The authors have endeavoured to use the procedures that applied to the greatest
number of faculties or schools.

GROUP 1
Group 1 comprises four university library collections (see Universities B, D, F and
H in Appendix 2) from our sample. In this group of libraries both the collection
development librarian and academics have key roles in collection development.
Academics can either select material without having to go through an approval
process or request through the collection development librarian (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Collection Responsibility Model - Group 1


University
Collection collection

Approval Subject Approval plan/


Process librarians Blanket orders

Requesting Academics
Process Subject Students
librarians

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 155


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

Group 1 University B
Academics and librarians share the responsibility for this collection. Subject
librarians focus on the selection of reference and teaching material as well as
identifying gaps in the collection. Approximately a quarter of the budget is
allocated to the subject librarians for these purposes. The teaching and research
material are selected by academic staff. Each school has a library liaison officer
who has varying responsibilities depending on the school’s needs. They may be
considered as an authorised requester for the schools. Recommendations may
also be sent directly to the subject librarians who have a significant role in liaising
with academics with regard to collection development. Subject librarians are
considered vital in this process to insure that all teaching areas are sufficiently
represented within the collection. E-books are a growth area for the future and
some reference items have been purchased. The gradual transition to e-books is
attributed to the fact that publishers are not offering deals flexible enough for
the library’s requirements.

Group 1 University D
This university is currently going through a restructure and, as part of this
restructure, the library’s collection development policies are being reviewed
by the Information Awareness & Literacy Services, Information Access staff
and key academics. Each faculty has their own monograph allocation and is
permitted to change the balance between monographs and serials within their
budget allocation. Academics have the authority to send purchase requests to
the technical staff and these are automatically ordered. Some recommendations
from academics, however, go through to the Information Awareness & Literacy
Services staff who look at the funding available, sign it off and send it on to
Acquisitions staff. There is an individual approval plan for eight of the subject
areas, which is administered by the Information Awareness & Literacy Services
staff. Approval plans are not used for the bulk of the purchased monographic
collection. Interlibrary loan requests for items that have been published within
the last two years are automatically purchased. Electronic formats are preferred
to print formats. At present the collection of e-books is limited, although the
library plans to expand its online resources.

Group 1 University F
Both the subject librarians and liaison librarians have responsibility for selecting
monographic items to be reviewed for the collection. Only the subject librarians
have the authority to spend funds. It is the library’s responsibility to spend
the budget and the subject librarians seek the assistance of academics in this
by forwarding catalogues and slips to them. In general, academics send their
requests to the subject librarians, who approve them and pass them onto the
technical services staff. Some academics send their requests directly to the
technical services staff to be ordered and bypass the subject librarians. This
library purchases through several limited blanket orders which are maintained
by the Collection Management Librarian. On the library’s website there is
a purchase request form that can be accessed by any member of the public,

156 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

and these requests are automatically purchased if they are of an appropriate


academic standard. Having already subscribed to a number of e-book vendors,
this library recently acquired the EBL e-book product. This will allow academics
and students to borrow these e-books twice and on the third loan request they
will be automatically purchased. The subject librarians will be informed of this
third request and may stop the purchase if there are extenuating circumstances.

Group1 University H
Academics are the key selectors within this university library, as they are considered
to have a broad knowledge of and an interest in what is being published. The
library ‘overwhelmingly’ responds to requests from academics and, in some
subject areas, encourages further review only when funding is limited. Faculties
and academics allocate the funds between research and coursework materials.
The liaison librarian is the conduit between the departments and technical
services, although each discipline approaches this relationship differently. The
relationship between the library and academics is further expanded through
library committees focusing on budget allocation. These may or may not
include faculty liaison librarians, depending on the faculty. The faculty liaison
librarian assists academics in the selection process by sending publishers’ slips to
individuals, encouraging academics to take up the online services and what they
offer in terms of notification of publications, and providing academics with titles
that they can potentially purchase. Materials are also acquired through approval
plans administered by technical services staff members. Profiles are generally
set up to receive everything within a small range of subject areas, although
some have been redefined to reduce receipt of irrelevant material. E-books are
currently limited to reference items, although the goal is to develop the e-book
collection especially as usage has increased.

GROUP 2
Group 2 also comprises four university library collections (see Universities A, C,
E and G in Appendix 2) from our sample. The distinguishing feature of these
academic libraries is that requests from academics must go through to library
staff to be approved and then ordered. The relevant librarians receive the requests
and are responsible for ensuring that these requests are in line with the library’s
collection development policy, as well as with the research and teaching needs of
the institution. The librarians have the final say in whether or not monographs
are purchased (see Figure 3).

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 157


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

Figure 3: Collection Responsibility Model - Group 2


University
Collection collection

Collection
Approval Development Subject Approval
Process Advisory librarians plan
Group

Requesting Subject Academics Students


Process librarians

Group 2 University A
At University A liaison librarians have the responsibility of ensuring that the funds
are used to purchase relevant material for research, coursework and teaching.
They must ensure that the material purchased will add to the collection, both
locally and nationally. To achieve this, the liaison librarians contact the schools
and discuss the needs of the academics, students, and the library’s funds. This
position of liaison librarian is considered to be a specialist, not a generalist,
position, and the librarians appointed to these positions are required to have a
certain degree of expertise in their subject area and to continue to develop this
knowledge. Academics have a different level of input into the selection process,
depending on historical patterns, the relationship between liaison librarian
and the school, the nature of the research being undertaken and their length
of employment at the university. The liaison librarians’ contact with academics
is an important part of their role, as can be seen in the regular review of their
respective subject areas collection development policy in consultation with that
school. They also maintain and regularly review an Australiana approval plan.
Any monograph or set of monographs valued at over $15 000 must be forwarded
by the liaison librarians to the Collection Development Advisory Group. The
liaison librarians try to meet the requests of the academics and also monitor
interlibrary loan requests to determine whether requested monographs should
be purchased outright, rather than borrowed from another institution’s library.
The library has purchased some e-books for their collection.

158 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

Group 2 University C
The material selection responsibilities lie with the Academic Services librarians.
Each librarian is allocated a Dewey range, giving individuals ownership of each
particular subject collection. All monograph purchases must be approved by
the Academic Services librarians. They identify and submit material for the
collection based on their subject knowledge, new publications, research needs
and teaching requirements of the university. Selection is governed by the
collection development policy. Academics are considered to be important in
the identification of relevant material because of their specialist knowledge, and
may submit collection suggestions through an online purchase request form.
Outreach librarians are responsible for ensuring that academics’ needs are
met, liaising between academics and Academic Services librarians. Academics
have direct contact with Academic Services through the submission of purchase
requests and research consultations for resource selection. A large portion of the
collection is acquired through an approval plan selected according to detailed
subject profiles. Academics are consulted by Outreach librarians with regard to
these profiles. It is the Academics Services librarians’ responsibility to monitor
and approve the approval plan profiles. Any collection purchase over $15 000
is to be approved by the Collection Development Group. E-books are currently
not the focus of this collection.

Group 2 University E
This library’s collection is reliant on their research librarians’ knowledge and
expertise, which has been developed over their many years of service. The
library allocates funds to the faculties, disciplines and schools based on a formula.
However, the library retains enough funds to select material of a general and
interdisciplinary nature to round out the collection. It is the research librarians’
role to administer these funds and select relevant material. Academics must put
through their recommendations to the research librarians and these materials
will usually be ordered. The research librarian applies certain checks to the
orders, for example, confirming that a particular academic is not spending all of
their school’s budget allocation. The research librarians work on the assumption
that academics know what they need and that academics currently cannot find
the time to order material, so they assist in the selection of research material,
sometimes by sending information to the academics and sometimes by actually
purchasing the material themselves. When a new subject area is proposed by the
University, the implications on the library collection are discussed with academic
staff. The research librarians also work closely with postgraduate students.
As often stated, the relationship between the library and different faculties
varies considerably. Because of funding restrictions this library maintains a
small collection of e-books, which they buy outright; they do not subscribe to
e-books.

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 159


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

Group 2 University G
This library is divided into five separate precincts. Each precinct consists of a
subject-based collection and is under a Precinct Manager who is responsible for
both the collection and the user services. This manager is responsible for the
staff within their respective precinct and allocates personnel according to needs.
The librarians who report to the Precinct Manager liaise with the academics
about collection development and purchase requests. This library has a broad
collection development policy, essentially stating their aim to collect in all
research, teaching and administrative areas in the University. Academics select
textbooks for the collection which are automatically bought, while requests for
research materials are sent to the relevant librarians, who analyse the requests
and order them if they fit within policy guidelines and if funding is available.
These librarians also purchase material they believe is relevant for the collection,
as well as recommend monographs to the academics. Library staff are of the
opinion that there is a strong relationship between the faculties and the library.
In addition, an approval plan, limited primarily to philosophy and the social
sciences, is administered by these librarians. There is a Collection Coordination
Group consisting of library staff from each of the five precincts. This group
determines policies, procedures and approves some interdisciplinary purchases.
It is believed that the packages of e-books currently available are not suitable
and, therefore, they maintain only a limited collection of monographs in this
format.
At each of the Go8 libraries students are entitled to request the purchase of
monographs through the library website. These requests go to the approving unit
(that is, subject librarians in most cases) and are considered on their individual
merits. The librarians have complete authority regarding these requests. Also in
all cases, required textbooks are identified by the academics and automatically
bought by the library.

FINDINGS
From the interviews and collation of data emerge clearly defined trends and
evidence of both strengths and weaknesses within collection development at the
Go8 libraries. Some of these strengths and weaknesses are common to both of
the collection responsibility models, while others are more evident within just
one.

Common Strengths
Communication between librarians and academics occurred in two libraries of
the Group 1 model and in all libraries of the Group 2 model. This communication
relates especially to collection development and was generally related to policies
or individual purchases. This ensures that all research areas are represented in
the collection and encourages academics to be proactive towards the collection,
including the selection process, discussion of library funds and two-way sharing
of subject expertise.

160 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

Group 1 Strengths
One library in Group 1 purchased monographs published in the last two years
and requested through the library’s interlibrary loans service.

Group 2 Strengths
One library in Group 2 aimed to recognise material not currently studied but
which may be part of a future need. Two libraries in this group had a clearly
defined procedure for academics requesting monographs. One library described
their specialist librarians’ extensive experience as being able to talk about their
respective subjects areas ‘under wet concrete’. One library monitored interlibrary
loans as an aid to selection, although it did not automatically purchase these
materials.

Common Weaknesses
All four Group1 libraries and one Group 2 library revealed a lack of consistency in
the requesting procedures between faculties and library. Two libraries of Group 1
and one of Group 2 currently do not have a formal collection development policy.
Two libraries of Group 1 and one of Group 2 found that academic purchase
requests are dropping off because of time restrictions and that consultation
with library staff was decreasing. Other academic responsibilities, such as the
Research Quality Framework (now ERA (Excellence in Research Australia)), will
also impact on their time.
Three libraries of Group 1 and three libraries of Group 2 considered there to be
a lack of formats other than print, such as e-books, in their collection. This will
need to be addressed given the digital direction of libraries in the future. Two
libraries from Group 1 and one from Group 2 noted that a significant percentage
of monographs purchased on an approval plan are not being borrowed. This
indicates the need for a reassessment of the profiles and is evidence of a potential
waste of resources. This reassessment should include both librarians and
academics.

Group 1 Weaknesses
All libraries, except one of Group 1, have indicated that they have been hesitant to
purchase extensive e-book collections. Three libraries of Group 1 had too many
ways of requesting material, making them unable to monitor requests accurately.
One library of Group 1 perceived there were gaps in the collection arising from
unbalanced selection by academics. One library of Group 1 stated the need to
review the role of subject librarians to identify how their positions can better
address the research needs of the university through the library collection.
In one library of Group 1 academics were selecting material but had limited
knowledge or control of funding, resulting in overspending without considering
priority material. One library of Group 1 had a dramatic loss of staff, leaving
a gap in selection expertise and collection knowledge. One library of Group
1 found a lot of cross-over with monographs when 40 000 e-book items were
uploaded to their catalogue.
Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 161
Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

Group 2 Weaknesses
Two libraries from Group 2 stated that staff turnover makes achieving long-
term goals difficult. The collection is too reliant on librarians’ knowledge and
expertise. One library in Group 2 found that changes in teaching discipline focus
left gaps in the collection.

CONCLUSIONS
The interviews identified strengths and weakness consistent with those described
in the literature on collection development. The three models in this paper present
varying responsibilities of library collection development. The American model
and Group 2 are very similar, the only real difference lying in the definition of
the bibliographer versus the subject librarian. The bibliographer, as described
in the literature, appears to play a more proactive role in library collection
development than the Australian subject librarian. The American model and
Group 1 are dissimilar in that the main collection responsibilities of Group 1
reside with academics who exercise their responsibility through suggestion and
selection of monographs. Group 1 allows for the use of the discipline expertise of
academics but suffers from a narrow collecting focus, whereas Group 2 utilises
the skills of the librarians and benefits from their broader focus.
All Go8 libraries indicate the importance of subject specialist librarians in
collection development, regardless of their varying roles and responsibilities.
The benefits attributed to subject librarians include the ability to apply subject
knowledge as well as their professional library skills to collection development,
to recognise gaps and provide a broader collection focus, and to assist in the
formulation and implementation of collection development policies. The
importance of collection development policies was obvious in the Go8 library
processes. Libraries with up-to-date policies reviewed in consultation with subject
library staff and faculties displayed clear direction in their library collection
building. Collection development policies are an area of further development for
most libraries involved, as five of the seven libraries have inconsistent processes
when communicating with faculties on collection-related matters. In addition
to this, the authority to enforce the collection development policy should be
retained by library staff, because it is central to the collection.
Walden concluded that a good relationship between faculty and the library adds
34
to collection development. This research clearly concludes that communication
between librarians and academics is essential to enhance each other’s skills
and knowledge to build the most relevant collections possible to meet library
users’ needs. Such communication will also increase the continuity of staff
knowledge and reduce the impact of staff turnover. Although the majority of the
libraries maintained some form of relationship with academics, the roles and
responsibilities of the subject librarians needs to be re-evaluated to maximise the
benefits of this relationship.
The Group 1 and Group 2 models both have strengths and weaknesses that it
is important to review for optimising academic library collections. This study

162 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

indicates that the Group 1 model does not utilise the subject librarian’s skills
and creates negative variations within the development of a library collection.
This is evident through lack of communication, procedures, policies and library
resources that may not meet library users’ long term research needs. Although
35
Ryland noted this in 1982, the message is only slowly getting through. In the 13
36
years since Leonard’s paper there has, in half of the Go8 libraries, been a shift
away from academics having prime responsibility for the collection to subject
librarians exercising this role. It is clear that subject librarians need specialist
knowledge that is continually developed to maintain a well-informed view of
the current resources. It is also essential that subject librarians facilitate the
relationship between faculty and the library. Approval plans have been identified
as an additional selection method of monographs. This has been a practice with
academic libraries since Leonard’s earlier study, but a number of libraries have
questioned the effectiveness of approval plans, upon consideration of loans
statistics for material selected through approval plans. The current weakness in
the area of e-books is due to slow adoption of new technologies, as well as the
unsuitability of producer packages for academic libraries. Even with a gradual
shift in half of the libraries away from selection by academics, the adoption of
new technologies is still lagging behind, as Leonard noted in 1994. These are
areas for further study and current issues for collection development.
This paper was limited in scope to libraries of the Go8. Interviews were
conducted with library personnel only. To develop the conclusions of this paper
further, it would be constructive to expand the focus and include interviews and
research from the perspective of the academics and their changing roles within
the university, taking into account such issues as workloads and funding. This
paper only considers collection development from the perspective of library
collections as a whole; there may be some interesting findings if a comparative
study was conducted on the development of discipline-specific collections. This
could encompass the different selection patterns of various faculties and subject-
specific differences within library processes. The authors hope research into this
aspect of collection development is conducted in the future.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to ALIA and to YBP/Lindsay & Croft
for entrusting them with a Research Award for Collection Services. The authors
also acknowledge the valuable assistance of Mary Anne Kennan and the support
provided by the University Library, University of New South Wales.

NOTES
1. J Ryland ‘Collection Development and Selection: Who Should do it?’
Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 1982 vol 6 pp13-7.
2. E Futas (ed) Collection Development Policies and Procedures Phoenix, Ariz.
Oryx 1985 p207.

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 163


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

3. T L Allison and M T Reid ‘The Professionalization of Acquisitions and


Collection Development’ in P Johnson and S S Intner (eds) Recruiting,
Educating, and Training Librarians for Collection Development
Westport CT Greenwood Press 1994 pp24-5; University of Colorado at
Boulder Bibliographer’s Manual III at http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/
collectiondevelopment/bmanual2/III_bibliographers.htm viewed 7 March
2007.
4. J Kennedy Collection Management: A Concise Introduction Wagga Wagga
Centre for Information Studies 2006 pp34-5.
5. B G Leonard ‘A View From Across the Pacific: The Role of the Academic
Librarian in the Selection of Monographs’ Australian Academic and
Research Libraries 1994 vol 25 no1 pp55-9.
6. H Young The ALA Glossary of Library and Information Science Chicago,
American Library Association 1983 p49.
7. L Cherepon ‘Collection Development at SJU Libraries: Compromises,
Missions, and Transitions’ in D C Mack Collection Development Policies:
New Directions for Changing Collections New York Haworth Information
Press 2003 p69.
8. F T Chu ‘Librarian-Faculty Relations in Collection Development’ Journal
of Academic Librarianship 1997 vol 23 no 1 p15.
9. J M Budd and B M Harloe ‘Collection Development and Scholarly
Communication in the 21st Century: From Collection Management
to Content Management’ in G E Gorman and R H Miller Collection
Management for the 21st Century Westport CT Greenwood Press 1997
pp3-4.
10. ibid; E Buis ‘Collection Development Policies: Coordinating Teaching
Faculty and Library Staff Interests at Southeast Missouri State University’
Collection Management 1990 vol 13 no 3 pp12-3.
11. S L Fales (ed) Guide for Training Collection Development Librarians
Chicago American Library Association 1996 pp8-10.
12. G E Gorman and J Kennedy Collection Development for Australian
Libraries Wagga Wagga, Centre for Information Studies 1992 pp291.
13. K Ameen ‘From Acquisitions to Collection Management: Mere Semantics
or an Expanded Framework for Libraries?’ Collection Building 2006 vol 25
no2 p58.
14. G Hardy and T Davies Letting the Patrons Choose: Using EBL as a Method
for Unmediated Acquisition of Ebook Materials 2007 at http://www.
information-online.com.au/docs/Presentations/ebl_online_conference_
paper_davies_hardy.pdf viewed 20 September 2007.
15. Fales op cit pp22-3.
16. Ryland op cit p15.
17. Gorman & Kennedy op cit p290.

164 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

18. B L Walden ‘Faculty Participation in Book Selection in a Large Academic


Library: The Case of German Studies’ Collection Management 1990 vol 13
no 3 p27.
19. E Forte et al ‘Developing a Training Program for Collection Managers’
Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 2002 vol 26 no 2
pp299-301.
20. D Law ‘The Organization of Collection Management in Academic Libraries’
in Collection Management in Academic Libraries C M Jenkins & M Morley
(eds) Aldershot Hants Gower 1999 p18.
21. Futas op cit p208.
22. Fales op cit p20.
23. Cherepon op cit p71.
24. Gorman & Kennedy op cit p296.
25. Walden op cit pp41-2.
26. Futas op cit p208.
27. F T Chu ‘Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System: Librarian-Faculty
Relations in Collection Development’ Library & Information Science
Research 1995 vol 17 no 2 p142.
28. Gorman & Kennedy op cit p295.
29. J W Allard A Role for Faculty in Academic Collection Development
Thessaloniki University of Macedonia 2001 at http://www.lib.uom.gr/
palc10/english/allard.htm viewed 18 April 2007.
30. E Shreeves ‘The Acquisitions Culture Wars’ Library Trends 2000 vol 48 no
4 p888.
31. Buis op cit pp13-7.
32. Collection development policies are available on the websites of four of the
libraries studied: Monash University (http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/policies/
cdp/); University of New South Wales (http://info.library.unsw.edu.au/monos/
pdf/collectiondevpolicy082006.pdf); University of Queensland (http://www.
library.uq.edu.au/ias/cdp/); University of Western Australia (http://www.
library.uwa.edu.au/about_the_uwa_library/about_our_collections)
33. S Markless & D Streatfield Evaluating the Impact of your Library London
Facet 2006 p105.
34. Walden op cit p42.
35. Ryland op cit pp13-7.
36. Leonard op cit p59.

APPENDIX 1: Interview Sample Questions


Which staff are responsible for the library’s collection development? Subject
Librarian’s role?
What is the description of their roles?

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 165


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

What are the Faculties/Academics’ roles in the collection development?


What collection development policies and procedures do you have in place?
Can you talk me through the process you follow for selection of new
monographs?
Who initiates requests and are there different procedures based on this?
Do you have an approval plan?
How was it put together and updated? Who was/is responsible for this and the
update of the approval profiles? Is it successful?
Do you have e-books in your collection? Why?
What percentage of the collection is made up of e-books?
What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of your current collection
development policies and procedures?
Can you describe the relationship between the library and the various faculties?
Do you have a body within the library that deals with special requests? e.g.
collection development advisory group

APPENDIX 2: Collection Responsibility Models

University A


UNIVERSITY A
COLLECTION
Collection (Sen. Manager, Info Res.)

Collection
Approval Development Liaison Approval
Process Advisory librarians plan
Group

Requesting Liaison
Academics Students
Process librarians
(e-books only)

166 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

University B


UNIVERSITY B
Collection COLLECTION

Collection
Management
Library liaison Subject librarians
Approval officers Team
(Associate
Process Authorised subject librarian)
requesters

Requesting Academic Subject librarians


Services Students (reference &
Process
librarians teaching; e-books)

University C


UNIVERSITY C
Collection COLLECTION

Collection
Approval
Approval Development Academic Plan
Process Group Services
librarians

Requesting Academic
Services Academics Outreach Students
Process
librarians librarians

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 167


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

University D


UNIVERSITY D COLLECTION
Collection (Information & Education Services)

Library Information
Approval Inter-
Resources & Awareness
Approval Plan library
Services & Literacy
Process Advisory loans
Services
Group (IALS)

Information
Requesting Awareness
Process & Literacy
Academics Students
Services
(IALS)

University E


UNIVERSITY E
Collection COLLECTION

Approval Research
Process librarians

Requesting
Research
Process Academics Students
librarians

168 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries


A Collection of Importance

University F


UNIVERSITY F COLLECTION

Collection (Collection Management


Librarian, info. Res. Div.)

Approval Blanket orders


Process
e-books Subject librarians

Requesting Subject Liaison


Process Academics Students
librarians librarians

University G


UNIVERSITY G
Collection COLLECTION

Collection Approval plan


Approval Coordination (primarily
Process Group Librarians Philosophy only)

Requesting
Process Librarians Academics Students

Australian Academic & Research Libraries September 2008 169


Bruce Munro and Peter Philps

University H


UNIVERSITY H COLLECTION
(Director of Digital and Technical
Collection
Services

Approval
Approval Liaison
Technical plan
Process librarians
Services
staff

Requesting
Liaison
Process Academics Students
librarians

170 Volume 39 Number 3 Australian Academic & Research Libraries

Anda mungkin juga menyukai