Decker, Betty

Dismantling the Reference Collection

Johnson, A. M., Finley, S., & Sproles, C. (2015). Dismantling the reference collection. The Reference Librarian, 56(3), 161-173. doi:10.1080/02763877.2014.994192

Summary:

In 2008, the Ekstrom Library, the main branch of the University of Louisville, noticed a rather large and outdated Reference Collection. The library had acquired a collection of titles from one of the other University libraries that had closed. Ekstrom Library found itself with around 30,000 reference volumes. These 30,000 volumes were located on the first floor next to the Learning Commons area. As Eksrom Library set forth to curtail the Reference Collection, its first step was to create a collection development policy that “highlighted the need for a current, lean, electronic-based collection that focused on the needs of the current users” (Johnson & Finley, 2015, p. 163).

After completing the new collection development policy, Ekstrom started an assessment of their current collection. The library tracked the reference titles re-shelved during a five year period. With an average use per year of the total print reference volumes at 4.6%, the need to weed was imperative. Using a three person team and implementing a title-by-title review allowed Ekstrom to inventory as well as weed the reference collection. The weeding team created reports through their ILS by Library of Congress for all numbers.  Each week the team would “pull several carts of books from the shelf, compare the list to items on the shelf, and examine each piece” (Johnson & Finley, 2015, p. 165); each volume was then given a decision. Decisions could be “keep, transfer out of reference, or weed.” When the weeding was completed, only 14% of the reference collection was retained. The majority, 77% of the collection, was transferred out to either the stacks or the robotic storage collection. Of the titles that were withdrawn, the majority was withdrawn due to duplication in other university libraries. As a whole this process completely changed the reference collection.

Evaluation:

I am currently weeding my part of the Reference Collection, which include the 200s, 600s, and 700-789. Viewing the weeding process of other libraries is something I am always interested in. My library follows a weeding cycle where some ranges are weeded every other year and some every year. Adhering to the cycle keeps our other library departments involved in our collection development cycle from becoming mired in the weeding process. With my Reference Collection I use the same reference titles re-shelved report that Johnson & Finley used, but I also view the age of the of the collection. As a public library, I want to provide the most up-to-date information that I can and not necessarily the historical information. This report was a great evaluation on weeding the reference collection. The only issue I find is how unbelievable and lackadaisical it is to let your collection go for that long without weeding it.