“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.