Collection Mapping of Topical Collections at UC Riverside

Peretiako-Soto, Alexandria

Article Citation:
Haren, S. M. (18 June, 2015). Data visualization as a tool for collection assessment: 
Mapping the latin american studies collection at university of california, riverside.  
Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services. (38)3-4. pp. 70-81.     
 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2015.1059219


Summary:

This article describes how a university employed the use of visual aids to better 
understand the content of a current topical collection, much like the collection 
mapping technique practiced in this course. Collection mapping and the use of 
visual aids is a key method large libraries can use to understand the contents of 
their collection, including size, strengths, formats, etc. Collection mapping helped 
UCR find that their Latin American Studies collection was heavily print based, 
multilingual, globally sourced, and primarily focused on history and literature. 
With this visual aid, the library has a good grounds to determine how effectively 
this topical collection is meeting this departments curricular needs.

Evaluation:

This article served as a nice supplement to the course text readings on creating 
a collection map. It explained the ways in which developing a visual aid helps 
understand the collections strengths, weaknesses, and content in general. It 
allows individual topics to be looked at and evaluated for relevance to the 
collection as a whole. A good article for anyone looking to read more on 
collection mapping, especially in academic libraries!

A Dual Approach to Assessing Collection Development...

Rowland, Sarah

Danielson, R. (2012). A dual approach to assessing collection development and acquisitions for academic libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 36(3/4), 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2012.09.002

Summary: This article is about a dual approach study that was done to evaluate the collection development and acquisitions process. This was achieved by looking at what was collected, what was actually used and what wasn’t collected, but should have been. The study was done using B.L. Fisher Library of Asbury Theological Seminary and the collection was split up using the LC Classification. They concentrated only on monographs excluding serials, electronic resources, reference and other materials. They looked at what was bought within a certain time frame and how much was checked out. They mention that it isn’t exact science due to “There is no way to know how a particular monograph was used, if it was check out and never read, or if it was a foundational resource for an academic paper” (p. 86). They examined what should have been bought by looking at what patrons requested through Interlibrary Loan. In conclusion it was determined that, “Both of the two studies revealed important strengths and weaknesses in the library’s approach to collection development and acquisitions. One type of study alone would be insufficient to get a clear view of how effective the library is at these tasks” (p. 95)

Evaluation: I thought it was a well written study and article with lots of details of what they looked at. If a library wanted to do a similar study they could determine how to approach it from this article. I found it fascinating that they determined that 526 titles should have been added to the collection but weren’t, along with “six to seven out of every ten books acquired are not being used” (p. 87). It would be interesting to see this study done in a patron driven acquisitions system.