The Art of Weeding to Avoid Criticism

Jonathan P. Bell

INFO 266

Spring 2016

Allen, M. (2010). Weed ’em and reap: The art of weeding to avoid criticism. Library Media Connection, 28(6), 32-33.

Open access URL: http://public.sd38.bc.ca/~gpowell/libe461/docs/art-of-weeding.pdf

Republished as:

Allen, M. (2015). Weed ’em and reap: The art of weeding to avoid criticism. In Repman, J., & Dickinson, G. K. School library management (253-254). Columbus, Ohio: Linworth Pub.

Summary

Allen’s brief but informative article argues that consistent weeding is necessary to maintain an optimal library collection. Allen explains the need to maintain current materials in an era of evolving curriculums and rapid technological change. Libraries should develop a weeding policy to guide deselection. Books removed from collections should be recycled, if possible, before being trashed. While Allen’s piece focuses on weeding in a school library media center, the lessons learned are broadly applicable to other library environments.

Why weed?

Weeding can daunting if undertaken infrequently. Therefore, Allen argues to approach weeding as an ongoing process, one section of the collection at a time. She outlines 4 justifications to weed regularly:

• Keep “the best” resources in the face of increasing space limits
• Maintain “uncluttered” shelves to aid finding
• Provide materials in “good condition” that patrons will enjoy using
• Remove outdated materials that may contain “stereotypes and misinformation”

How to weed

Allen recommends that libraries develop a weeding policy to guide decisions. A weeding policy aids transparency and accountability in explaining or justifying deselections to patrons. The weeding policy should have a criteria applicable to a broad array of items. As Allen says, the guiding question is, “Does this resource serve an appropriate purpose in the learning community?”

Allen proposes the MUSTY mnemonic device for developing an effective weeding policy:

• M - Misleading or inaccurate information
• U - Ugly and damaged beyond repair
• S - Superseded by new or better edition
• T - Trivial with little value
• Y - Your collection has no use for the item; it’s irrelevant to your community’s needs

Citing a tendency for general print materials and computer-mediated items to seem outdated after 3 to 5 years, weeding based on “currency” is emphasized. Thus Allen proposes a 10-year rule, whereby most items in the collection (except war history and reference) should have a copyright date of less than ten years.

Making use of discards

A well weeded collection will leave staff with discarded materials. Allen recommends recycling and repurposing these items. She identifies charities that accept books and offers ideas for adaptive reuse of printed materials such as art projects, picture cutouts, and scrapbooks. Trashing materials should be a last resort for salvageable items, or exercised for items damaged beyond practical use.

Evaluation

This is the first resource I’ve read on the topic of weeding in my 6 years at SJSU iSchool. I’m a bit late. I generally understood the practice and purpose of weeding, but admittedly my understanding was gained from tertiary learning (e.g. reading references to it in other works, hearing others talk about weeding, etc). I started modestly here, with a brief piece that provided a concise overview of weeding library collections. I found the article highly useful and informative. I feel like Allen hits all the major points of weeding: what weeding is, why we do it and how often, how it should be done, and what happens to materials after. While the article was written with library media centers in mind, the learning is applicable to other library environments. Allen’s recommendations are based on real world experiences and can be implemented in other libraries.

I especially appreciated how Allen encourages librarians to engage patrons about weeding. Educating patrons about materials deselection brings them in as partners in the library. If they know what weeding is and why it’s needed, they’re more aware of the library’s efforts to optimize the collection to reflect community needs. Such engagement efforts remove perceived hierarchies between patrons and librarians. A forward thinking weeding policy could even include patrons in the weeding process. For example, the library can establish an advisory committee comprised of patrons who advise library staff on items to keep and remove.

The decision to remove materials can be controversial. Library items may have value beyond their superficial condition or copyright date. This is especially the case outside of school library media collections. Following a MUSTY criteria might help guide decision making but I caution against relying solely, and uncritically, on a checklist when it comes to deselecting items from the collection. Other questions need to be asked. Perhaps the book has value as an artifact for your local history collection? Perhaps it was written by a local historic figure or community leader? Perhaps it’s the last copy available?! Considerations like these challenge Allen’s proposed 10-year rule and the simple admonition: “If the paper is yellowed… then weed that book.” I argue that wiggle room, grey area, awareness of intangibles, and discretion are required for an effective weeding policy.