From: "June K. Schmidt" <JSchmidt_at_library.msstate.edu>
Collection Development Librarians of Academic Libraries Discussion
Group
January 21, 2006
Table 5: Collection Evaluation Techniques and Tools
Facilitator: Emily Stambaugh, University of California
Riverside
Recorder: Yuki Dixon, Virginia Commonwealth University
Introduction
Emily Stambaugh introduced the topic of discussion: As the older
generation of tools for collection analysis is becoming obsolete, it is
imperative for collection development librarians to formulate goals and
effective approaches for collection analysis. The discussion centered on
four areas:
1) What tools are collection development librarians currently
using? What are their strengths and weakness?-Market products?-In-house
tools?
2) What approach to analysis are librarians taking? -Analysis for
Cooperative collecting? Publisher-based cooperation? Subject based
cooperative collecting? Other slices of the pie?-Benchmarking for
accreditation?-Benchmarking for subjects or specific collections?
3) What do librarians hope to gain from this approach?-to lower
costs?-to build a comprehensive repository?-to ensure depth and
scope?-to expand retrospectively?-to identify items for de-selection?
4) What personnel considerations must be addressed?-what skills
are required? -are teams desirable?-Will support from various
departments be needed? What changes in workflow need to occur to ensure
that the data captured in our systems can be extracted and used for
analysis, analytical reports and tools?
5) Other considerations when developing an analysis program?-state
of a library's retrospective cataloging and metadata projects? Can the
program proceed in meaningful ways, even given a backlog or
retrospective cataloging project-match points in descriptive data, which
ones to use requires knowledge of historical choices in cataloging
practices. (ISSN, ISBN, OCLC Record Number, other identifiers?), how can
data be summarized for editions, title changes, analyzed titles?
Discussion Summary
The participants evaluated the various commercial tools for collection
analysis including OCLC WorldCat's Collection Analysis Tool, North
America Title Count, Bowker's Resources for College Libraries, Yankee
Book Peddler's GOBI, Ulrich's Serials Analysis System, and Spectra.
The participants also discussed the variety of in-house tools that their
libraries' had devised for collection analysis. The group concluded
that there are no commercial collection analysis tools that adequately
address their needs. Most participants in the group used a combination
of in-house and commercial tools "cobbled together."
The current state of collection analysis is cumbersome and
time-consuming because of the shortfall in commercial systems. The
group agreed that collection development librarians need to voice their
needs to systems developers and vendors as well as to advocate for team
approaches within the libraries' to develop analysis programs and
tools. The group determined that it would be beneficial to create a Web
site where the systems and strategies developed at individual
institutions could be shared among collection development librarians.
The group discussed the possibility of planning such a site.
The group also discussed tips and strategies for collection analysis.
Linda Behrend of the University of Tennessee and Kevin Merriman of
McNeese State University discussed analyzing interdisciplinary
collections using NATC. Behrend pointed out that since the NATC is
based on LC class numbers and interdisciplinary programs include
materials in a wide range of classes, the NATC can prove difficult (or
inadequate) to analyze interdisciplinary collections. One discussion
participant added that their individual faculty members are allowed to
select the subject areas for which they want an NATC analysis.
Karen Akins of Texas A&M University-Commerce discussed using
subject-based bibliographies for identifying deficits in specific
collections. She also discussed that challenge of tying collection
analysis to student learning outcomes.
Suzanne Clement of the University of Kansas discussed analyzing ILL
activity.
Emily Stambaugh stressed the need for collection development librarians
to collaborate with other departments, particularly acquisitions,
cataloging, and systems.
The group concluded by discussing the common needs of academic
libraries in the area of collection analysis. These include formulating
goals; developing effective tools; hiring people with training and
skills in collection analysis; and creating a Web site to share best
practices.
Submitted by:
June Schmidt
Associate Dean for Technical Services
Mitchell Memorial Library
P.O. Box 5408
Mississippi State, MS 39762
662-325-7672
Received on Fri Feb 17 2006 - 02:39:06 EST