Artists’ Books & Collection Development

Author: de Santiago-Stewart, Brenda

Citation:

McLeland, D. C. (2017). Artists’ books collection development: Balancing traditional and nontraditional acquisition strategies. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, 18(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.18.1.19

Summary:

McLeland examines how collecting artists’ books pushes libraries to rethink traditional acquisition workflows. Because artists’ books often use unconventional materials, formats, and production methods, standard purchasing channels don’t always work. The article compares traditional acquisitions (vendors, publisher catalogs, established artists) with more experimental approaches (direct purchases from emerging artists, attending book fairs, collaborations with local art communities). McLeland also acknowledges real budget constraints that limit how much curators can experiment.

Reflection / Relevance to Collection Management:

This article connects directly to the challenges I’ve been thinking about with RISD’s Artists’ Books collection. In my Collection Map, it’s easy to categorize something as “Build,” but McLeland reminds me that “building” this area often means navigating nonlinear acquisition paths and making curatorial choices that don’t fit the usual workflows. It reinforces the idea that collection management for artists’ books is as much about relationships — with artists, local communities, and alternative presses — as it is about budgets or policies. For a school like RISD, where experimental formats are the norm, this flexible acquisition mindset feels essential.

Diversity Assessment in Academic Libraries

Author: de Santiago-Stewart, Brenda

Citation:

Ciszek, M. P., & Young, C. L. (2010). Diversity collection assessment in large academic libraries. Collection Building, 29(4), 154–161.

Summary:

This article outlines different strategies for assessing diversity within academic library collections. Ciszek and Young describe quantitative tools (like WorldCat collection analysis, circulation data, subject breakdowns) and qualitative approaches (focus groups, user feedback, faculty conversations) to identify gaps in representation. They argue that without a clear, actionable definition of “diversity,” collection assessments can feel inconsistent or performative, leaving major blind spots untouched.

Reflection / Relevance to Collection Management:

This is a helpful reminder that “diversity” in a Collection Map can’t just be a value statement — it has to translate into measurable decisions. For RISD’s Fleet Library, where subjects span art, design, identity, and cultural production, assessing diversity should include both who is represented and which materials, formats, and voices are missing. It also makes me think about how my own CM proposals could incorporate more systematic assessment tools instead of assuming I “know” where the gaps are. Diversity assessment isn’t a one-time audit — it’s a continual, proactive process.