A Different Point of View for Collections Development

Kelly, M. (2015). The materials-centered approach to public library collection development: A defense. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unLedu/libphilprac/1232 (Posted on course blog)

A great deal of literature regarding collection development discusses the importance of creating user-centered collections by polling actual and potential users to determine their needs.  Kelly plays devil’s advocate in this counter-essay which holds that a materials-centered approach is better for the continued betterment of society and perpetuation of knowledge.  He begins by defining public libraries as “at once repositories for the accumulation and sanctification of types of knowledge that drive civic progress, while offering a value-free, encyclopedic approach to knowledge that does not explicitly privilege science, humanism, or any particular epistemological creed.”  Kelly asserts that a materials-centered approach to collections, which focuses on the quality of materials needed in order to satisfy a large representation of users across demographics, is the best way to continue fostering this definition.  Kelly notes that public libraries, unlike academic libraries, don’t have unlimited time to build up an unlimited collection on a subject, but rather must gather the best available materials as quickly as they can within the given constraints of their budget and physical space.  When seeking to achieve this goal, a user-centered approach to collection development tends to perpetuate the same types of behavior over and over again without allowing for competing viewpoints within the same sphere of knowledge.  This effectively creates an echo chamber.  So, while the intentions of user-centered collection is to meet the needs of the patrons, Kelly holds that this is a disservice to the “sanctification” of knowledge because it doesn’t provide access to complex issues and opts instead to “dumb them down”.  It is particularly important to offer this broad cross-section of viewpoints because patrons tend to be browsers, and this browsing behavior makes for ample opportunities for patrons to become students of new subjects.  And while some would argue that interlibrary loan is the perfect mechanism for providing these sorts of varied titles without expending financial resources, Kelly claims that ILL is not even utilized in the most well-suited instances in academic settings, so it is unlikely that it will be used by public library patrons.  Therefore, he holds that ILL should not be a crutch leaned upon by collection experts when trying to avoid purchasing varied material that might not be as frequently utilized as user-centered material.  It was interesting to read a different viewpoint on collection development from the user-centered approach.