Collection Development Based On Patron

 Mao Yang

APA: Allen, M., Ward, S., Wray, T., & Debus-López, K. (2003). Collection development based on patron requests: Collaboration between inter-library loan and acquisitions. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27(2), 203-213.

Summary:
Allen, Ward, Wray, & Debus-Lopez (2023) used this article to see the effectiveness of collection development based on patrons. They called this method On-Demand Collection Development. On-Demand Collection Development is when the librarian purchases a book rather than borrow through inter-library loan. It was found that this method was more cost-efficient and patrons received their requests faster. Allen, Ward, Wray, & Debus-Lopez (2023) believes that on-demand collection development is a practical aspect that meets both patron and library needs.

Evaluation:
This article focused on using the method on academic libraries. I think this method works well in academic libraries because the patrons are university students or faculty member. I would like to see if this method would work on public libraries. When there is a wider range of interest and patron, I wonder how the on-demand collection development would work. Overall, I think it's a great method in collecting books because the library owns the book compared to inter-library loans.

COLLABORATIVE COLLECTIONS: In academic libraries, collection development is becoming more of a team effort

Brian DeFelice

Dixon, J. A. (2019, August). COLLABORATIVE: COLLECTIONS: In academic libraries, collection development is becoming more of a team effort. Library Journal, 144(7), 36+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A595194907/GPS?u=mlin_s_thomas&sid=GPS&xid=f473f88d


In this article, Jennifer Dixon explores the difficulties that some academic libraries are having with keeping up with the demands of collection development, while also balancing limited budgets and increased demand on their physical spaces. This article explores how some academic libraries have found creative ways to enhance their collection development polices and practices by joining library consortia, sharing spaces, and digitization, and state wide repository. One very interesting element of the article is discussing the idea of "sharing spaces" which really is more of a shared repository for academic libraries. The Research Collections and Preservation Consortia (Re-CAP) services Princeton, Columbia, and New York Public Library by proving off site material storage that can be requested by member libraries. Re-CAP acts as an offsite repository, allowing member libraries to house books off site, but still have them technically in the collection. Patrons can request items that are off site, which are then delivered to the requesting library in an inter library loan delivery fashion.

Of course, not all libraries need to share space or offload physical collections to an off site local. Some can join local public library consortia which allows them to expand their collection without having to actually add additional books on the shelves. Rather than store collected materials in an off site warehouse, each library acts as it's own "warehouse" lending materials to other libraries upon request. Some academic libraries just join other academic library consortia, others, Like Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, MA opt to join public library consortia. Joining a consortia of either type can have an impact on collection development policy because some consortia have particular rules about lending and purchasing of materials. Some Library systems, like in Ohio, are working to create a state wide repository of materials for libraries of all types, to deal issues of limited space, funding, and enhancing resource sharing.

"Tying collection development's loose ends with interlibrary loan"

Kolthoff, Katherine

Ruppel, M. (2006). Tying collection development's loose ends with interlibrary loan. Collection Building, 25(3), 72-77.

Summary: This research paper reports the process and findings of a study done by the author regarding Southern Illinois University Carbondale's Morris Library, exploring the viability of ILL as a means to expand collections. Morris Library is capable of borrowing from the I-Share catalog, the ILL request system for the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (CARLI). The author's study intended to identify the characteristics and overall quality of ILL-borrowed titles in the library, and answer whether ILL data is a viable tool in collection development. To do this, she collected and sorted the entries Morris Library borrowed from the I-Share catalog for the year of 2004, filtering for education and psychology titles, then sorted their reviews where they were available by "positive", "mixed", "negative", and "descriptive". 60% of the reviews collected were positive, 23% mixed, 10% "descriptive", and 7% negative overall. This pattern was mirrored when the author breaking down the titles by discipline. Regarding title characteristics, approximately two-thirds of the materials borrowed were published within five years of the study, and on average cost about fifty dollars. Additional findings suggest that that the ILL materials ordered were generally in good condition, and arrived in an acceptable span of time. The author, after some further analysis, concludes that ILL makes a cost-effective tool in both in serving patrons more effectively and in the consideration process for new additions to the collection; that said, she holds that ILL as an assessment tool really does need to be employed in conjunction with more traditional methods of construction.

Reflection: There are a number of interesting points and observations to take from this article. Firstly, this study had been done in 2004, yet since then Inter-Library Loans have become a staple of modern public and academic libraries, even as the increasingly mainstream access to electronic resources and e-books. (Clearly, despite competition, the utility of the ILL system has not waned.) Secondly, it is interesting that although 18,322 items were borrowed through I-Share, only 574 titles (3.13%) addressed the school's main academic disciplines. Although she suggests that the demand on those titles indicates that they need to add more of these genres to the collection, I wonder if she has grasped that the numbers mean that 96.97% of all ILL orders at the Morris Library have been for other subjects—that is to say, that they should be adding more titles in areas other than Education and Psychology. Yes, all the Education and Psychology titles may have been circulated through ILL at least one time, but considering the imbalance, it seems to suggest they need to reevaluate the quality of their own core collections.

Another point that bears reconsideration, especially now in the Amazon Age, is her assertion that "if a title can be purchased and received just as quickly (or quicker) as if it had been borrowed through ILL, and it fits the library's collection development policy, the library should purchase it." Let's face it, folks: with one-day shipping, purchasing will always win out in the speed factor. At this point, mere speed of purchase cannot be taken as an indicator that a library should purchase something rather than use ILL, or libraries following that philosophy would quickly run up their budget. Significant speed of purchase, or an extended waiting list for a title, should still factor in, but I feel she is incautious in suggesting a Buy-on-Demand program based on ILL requests.

However, she makes an intriguing observation in her argument for a BOD program that seems especially salient for the modern library: "Adding a title to the library collection benefits the library's community of users, not just one patron at a time, as in the case of interlibrary loan. Purchasing an item for a library provides an asset, or an investment, for the community to use in the future." (76) True, but perhaps she is not taking it to its full extent? As a lifelong resident of San Diego, I've been witness to the region's ILL, the Circuit, which enables print media to be borrowed between two UC system, one private, and one CalState university, and both the City and the County's public library systems. Of these, the university libraries all are involved in additional ILL programs through their own system connections. Thus, I feel it is worth considering whether purchases also need to be considered within the context of their ILL communities—since, through ILL, a library's community is not the only one that may benefit from the purchase. Such considerations already occur in UC system libraries—UCSD has a remarkable East Asian studies collection, but relatively little in the way of traditional subject matter: realizing that Berkley and UCLA had that segment covered, they focused their collection on contemporary history and issues. Such niche development may seem obvious, but when we are facing widespread budget cuts and competition to print media (although electronic resources may be a good means to bypass the wait that transporting physical items between libraries requires), every penny-saving measure counts. I know that this may sound hypocritical, given that just above I suggested updating their core collections, but again, that issue of disparity, but again, she is correct in the ability of a purchase to benefit the community as a whole—and thus, given their status as a sub-segment of a larger community, even that won't be a waste of resources.

When you need that One and Only Book

Cassandra Swartzwelder

https://www.chronicle.com/article/When-You-Need-That-One-and/241210

This article is about a patron who is looking for a particular book that is only 
available in a library in Estonia. This is where Interlibrary Loan comes in.
 Interlibrary loan staff "facilitate the exchange of books, articles, and journals
 among libraries" (Turnage, 2017). Not one library has everything in it's collection.
 The majority of people think that there will no longer be a need to lend or
 borrow physical items. This is not the case, there are more and more 
requests for physical items now.

Making a Case for Textbook in Academic Libraries

Murphy, M. (2013). Textbooks on Reserve: A Case Study. Journal Of Access Services, 10(3), 145-152.

 

Summary:

    This article discusses the place of textbooks in the collections of academic libraries and reports on the initiation of an on-reserve textbook collection program at the University of Oklahoma.  Murphy is quick to point out the financial burden of textbooks on students, stating that “textbooks can cost the average college student $900 per year, or 26% of the cost of the tuition and fees at four-year public institutions” (p. 146).  Much of the rationale behind the creation of this library’s textbook reserve collection was rooted in the belief that if the purpose of a library is to provide information resources in the greatest demand by patrons, it is the University of Oklahoma Library’s responsibility to grant students access to textbooks.  After numerous requests for textbook access by the University of Oklahoma’s Student Congress Association, the President’s office agreed to provide $200,000 per year for select textbooks to be purchased and placed on reserve.  These reserve items proved to be a very successful addition to the library’s collection with a current total of 1,895 titles and over 100,000 uses over 5 years.  

Response:

There is no question that the cost of textbooks is exorbitantly high.  Students are rarely, if ever, able to make such purchases without a second thought to finances--if they are able to purchase textbooks, at all.  I absolutely agree with the author that if the library’s purpose is to provide patrons with access to their information needs, and students have a demonstrated intellectual need for textbooks, it is the responsibility of the library to provide that service.  While I realize that there are logistical repercussions for having textbooks in a collection, whether in the stacks or on reserve, I think the value they provide to students and the opportunities they create to actually get students into the library and/or using other library resources is worth the investment.

Buy, Don't Borrow: Patron-Driven Collection Development

Amy Kumar


Anderson, K. J., Freeman, R. S., Hérubel, J.-P. V. M., Mykytiuk, L. J., Nixon, J. M., & Ward, S. M. (August 06, 2002). Buy, Don't Borrow. Collection Management, 27, 1-11.

Summary
This article presents the data collected by Purdue University Libraries in 2000, when the libraries implemented their Books on Demand program. The collection development staff purchased items that were requested via interlibrary loan rather than borrowing the items and added them to the permanent collection once the patron returned the item. Five subject bibliographers reviewed the 800 titles that were collected after a two year period, and compared them to titles acquired the traditional way via acquisition policies in place. The study found that the Books on Demand program was a valuable tool and resulted in relevant titles that fit into the larger collection development goals. The study also found that patron driven purchases filled in the interdisciplinary gaps that typically exist in academic collections.
Analysis
Patron-driven collection development policy techniques are gaining attention across library types, and this study provides a deep look at the various issues within academic library collection development policies. Various aspects are explored, including the long term development of a patron driven collection and interdisciplinary titles and where they belong. The circulation statistics provided in the article are enlightening, and the success of the Books on Demand program is encouraging. I think this would be an important study to cite to those collection managers who are reluctant to implement such a program.  

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. 

Collection development using interlibrary loan borrowing and acquisitions statistic

Paul Zurawski

Byrd, G. D., Thomas, D. A., & Hughes, K. E. (1982). Collection development using interlibrary loan borrowing and acquisitions statistics. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 70(1), 1–9.

Title: Collection development using interlibrary loan borrowing and acquisitions statistics.

Author: G D Byrd

Source: Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1982 Jan; 70(1): 1–9

Number of pages:  10

Summary: This article discusses the importance of utilizing ILL services as a means of extending the reach of the library and covering more topics than space and budget allows, especially in terms of library collection development. The paper followed three libraries and their ILL statistics, as well as the materials being borrowed, as well as what it means in terms of reaching their goals. The author discusses traditional collection development policies and how ILL can help libraries cover these essentials in a cheap effective way.

Evaluation:

While this article is older, from 1980's, a lot of this information is great food for thought. ILL is an excellent tool to help bring materials to patrons that the library is unable or do not want to buy for whatever reason. When the collection is unable to meet the needs of the patron, borrowing the material from another library helps all involved, instead of sending the patron away without any options. When figuring out if a book should be purchased to further the collection, they need to consider if the title is worth the shelf space and money, otherwise borrowing it from another library makes more sense. Plus it enables all libraries to join their collections together, hopefully saving money and redundant purchases.