Adventures in Weeding

Adventures in Weeding

Williams, P. C., & Halvonik, B. N. (2004). Collection management: Assessing and weeding the foreign language collection. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 11(2), 103-126.

Williams and Halvonik describe an epic weeding project of their library’s Romance language collections, using the OCLC Interactive Collection Analysis System; lists of “bests,” like Books for College Libraries and Choice Outstanding Academic Titles; and faculty participation.  

 Of most universal interest is their lit review on weeding, which includes MUSTIE (which another classmate’s post explains).  The review shows how Williams and Halvonik set up their own project: they used White’s Brief Test of Collection Strength: A Methodology for All Type of Libraries (White, 1995), which incorporates “selected list checking and comparisons”(p. 105);  and they determined obsolescence by using Line and Sandison’s theory (as cited in Perrault, Madaus, and Armbrister, 1999) that, “Literature may decline in use faster when a. it deals with data of ephemeral relevance; b. it is in the form of a report, thesis, ‘advanced communication,’ or pre-print; c. it is rapidly advancing technology . . . . [and L]iterature may decline more slowly when a. it is descriptive, b. it deals with concepts, and c. it is critical” (p. 105).   

Obsolescence also depends on the discipline, and of course, a college library would do well to include faculty in their weeding/collection development process.  In fact, this study found the most out-of-date collection (Spanish Lit in Europe) hadn't had any faculty champions for a while, whereas the Spanish Lit in the Americas collection was in much better shape and had had faculty actively interested in its development.