Too Many Books? How One Librarian Took Control of Her Library

 Stevens, Tyler

Source:
Montana State Library, (2024, October 4). 3 Keys to Collection Development [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbonz8Lnt0w

Summary: In this 58-minute seminar video hosted by the Montana State Library features Jonna Underwood, the Sheridan County Library Director in Plentywood, Montana. She shares her experience taking over the local public library from the previous director and frames it in the context of three key principles which she used to create a welcoming community space for her community, which are:

1. Quality vs Quantity: the primary issue with the library initially was an overcrowding of books, which led directly to issues such as an unaligned physical and digital catalog, literal decomposition of books, and a space that was not easily navigable for patrons.
2. 
   Know Your Patrons: Some larger collections which were rarely touched by the community (in this case, nonfiction) were deaccessioned from the library collection, spaces were created to invite patrons to engage with the material in the way they wanted to, and informal conversations with patrons identified favorite chunks of the collection (such as mystery/thriller/suspense).
3. Get Creative: Methods which Underwood used to inform her decision-making over this multi-year cleanup included visiting other libraries for curatorial inspiration, using book displays, a semi-regular newspaper column, and programming such as Blind Date With A Book (which she used to get patron feedback on less-used books to identify hidden gems and buried stinkers in the collection).

The seminar concludes with a Question & Answer session. One of the questions Underwood answered was on the subject of how the community responded to her efforts to clean up the clutter. She answered that the community didn't have much of a reaction beyond an acknowledgement that changes were happening. Underwood felt that the extension of trust by the community may have resulted partially from her own upbringing within the Plentywood community; the community might not have extended trust as easily if she had been a stranger to the community.

Evaluation: This seminar took my attention because my hometown is relatively close to Plentywood. I found it interesting that in order to handle the library collection, certain things needed to be removed, up to and including major pieces of furniture like entire bookshelves and collection chunks. For the latter, Underwood and her patrons would rely on library Connections in order to meet infrequent but specific needs. For example, she removed a significant amount of the nonfiction collection, shrinking it significantly and removing many books which were outdated or specific and seldom checked out by the community. Nonfiction as a subject was still kept available to researching community members through interlibrary loan, a library Connection to other libraries in the larger MSL network. In this way, Underwood was able to expand the physical space in the library so her patrons could more comfortably peruse the shelves without sacrificing the overall offerings of the library itself.

To reflect on my earlier post about Iceland, Underwood understands that there is a unique relationship between the human community and the objects within the library which they interact with; one of the neglected objects in this library was physical space. The lack of space made the library more difficult to navigate and directly impacted the accessibility of the items within the library collection. By increasing the space and introducing elements such as corner bean bags, Underwood strengthened the library's agency to impact the Plentywood community. Underwood understands that preservation and storage both have a cost, both financial and spacial. While both are limited, space defines the relationship the patrons have with the books. In other words, you can't have everything physically available, so you need to select what you need and make space for people to interact.

Preparing for renovation: Estimating shelf occupancy to inform decision making regarding the redevelopment of library space.

1. Chieng, Tracey

2. Weare, W. H., Jr., Moffett, P., & Cooper, J. P. (2016). Preparing for renovation: Estimating shelf occupancy to inform decision making regarding the redevelopment of library space. Collection Management, 41(3), 168-181. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01462679.2016.1212755

3. Summary: The University Library at Indiana-Purdue University Indianapolis prepared for renovation by having the Access Serices Team estimate shelf occupancy. Renovation of library spaces have been motivated by three main factors: the shift from print to digital access, needs and expectations of the library of students have changed, and shortage of campus space means more campus units are now housed in the libraries. As a result of that, spaces that hold titles that are rarely used or materials that are available online can be better used. The Access Services Team used a systematic random sampling method to estimate current free space on shelves and how much space would become available after weeding materials. They found that over 30% of current shelf space si empty and over 25% is occupied by journals that are available electronically. The authors posit that this general estimate can apply across many university libraries.

4. Evaluation: The article begins with the authors saying they believe these estimations found can be applied across many university libraries. While their findings are interesting, I do not think the numbers can be used for other libraries. They used a rather simple sampling method and collections can differ quite a bit across different universities. However, I do believe it is useful to estimate how much free space there is in the stacks in preparation for repurposing a space.

Collection Development and Management

Chase, Matthew
Fall 2016

Citation:

Lehman, K. A. (2014). Collection development and management: An overview of the literature 2011-12. Library Resources & Technical Services, 58, 169-177.

Summary:

This article provides comprehensive insight into the collection development literature published during 2011 and 2012. The author examined the issues confronting librarians as budget cuts, space limitations, and the increasing emergence of digital resources arise. In order to thrive in the new digital world, Lehman pays special attention to how collection development and acquisitions strategies are shifting toward patron-driven demand. The issues presented by the author have also provided libraries with the opportunity of innovative thinking as they strive for balance between print anddigital collections with open access resources, shared collection building, and re-purposing space beyond ownership.

Evaluation:

In addition to being a bibliographic treasure of citations on collection development trends, the article also proves to be a valuable glimpse into the ever-changing direction of the subject. In particular, it offers innovative strategies drawn from other libraries on how to address issues affecting many communities today such as budgetary and space limitations. Yet these very limitations, as the author points out, have led to new ways of building collections that better reflect their intended users.

In Favor of Weeding

Bishop, Andrew

Ferguson, C. (2015). In Favor of Weeding. Serials Review 41(4), 221-223. DOI: 10.1080/00987913.2015.1103573

An examination of the faculty and student objections to the storage of hard copy monographs and serials in favor of creating more study spaces during a library renovation at Colby College leads Ferguson into a contemplation of the future role of the library in campus life and what being a library will mean as technology and pedagogy advance, and what role weeding plays in the space allocation considerations of libraries going forward with a modernization of their physical space.  Colby College moved almost 40% of its monographic collection to off-campus storage to make room in the library for more learning commons type spaces in the facility.  Faculty objected to this move, arguing for the utility of browsing and serendipity, which are more difficult using electronic discovery resources, in research.  Ferguson argues that while these are valid concerns, “…ultimately, at the heart of most objections raised against weeding and storage initiatives in libraries is a debate on the role of the library itself” (221).  These questions and determinations often come from users, Ferguson cites MIT’s recent survey revealing students wanted study spaces and a café in the renovated library, rather than from the library apparatus itself.  Ferguson also points out the financial cost of a hard copy collection, saying a recent estimate in Library Journal put the cost of storage at over $11 per book, although renovating an existing space into a learning commons can run as high as $457 per square foot.  Preserving space for other uses becomes a higher priority than maintaining a certain collection size, which makes whether an item is worth the space it takes up the number one weeding criterion.  Ferguson makes several best practices recommendations, such as including the community in the decision-making process to both reduce user anxiety over library changes and ensure that the changes truly serve patron wants and needs, transparency of the reasoning behind the weeding criteria and the need for a weeding project, ensuring responsible disposal of weeded materials, and making weeding a regularly undertaken part of the collection development process instead of waiting until it is urgently needed and removing a giant chunk of the collection at once.

Evaluation

I agree with Ferguson’s best practice recommendations, even though they are largely geared toward alleviating patron anxiety over weeding rather than with the process of weeding itself.  Particularly valuable is her suggestion that weeding be an ongoing process rather than an occasional large project.  Not only are patrons reassured by regularity, it’s a lighter burden on the library staff to have something they can incorporate into their routines instead of a big thing they have to drop everything else for.  My main issue with this paper, and it is not necessarily with the paper itself but with the larger issue, is the assumption that study spaces and the like fall under the libraries’ mission and ought to be a part of them.  Is the campus community truly best served by bolting these areas onto the existing library instead of having an exclusive, purpose-built space?  Or is it that library renovations present the first, or only, opportunity for the community to request these paces be created on campus?  I know when I worked in an academic library (very recently), students using the study spaces did not simultaneously use other library resources, such as going out into the stacks or interacting with the reference librarians.  Although they may have been accessing electronic resources such as databases during their group study time, this could just have easily been done anywhere on campus.  Asking such questions falls outside Ferguson’s purpose with this article, though, and I think she gives a brief but thorough argument for weeding as part of not only collection management but management of the library’s physical space.

The Art of Change: The Impact of Place and the Future of Academic Art Library Collections

Falls, S., & Hatheway, H. (2015). The art of change: The impact of place and the future of academic art library collections. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21(2), 185-195.

I found this to be an interesting article because it addresses art libraries, which are a subset of the larger libraries we study.  From my experience, they are rarely, if often, discussed.  This article explores two art libraries, the Fine Arts Library of the Ohio State University, and the Haas Arts Library at Yale University, and how over time the architecturally significant spaces they occupy have changed, and how this has impacted their collections.  The authors state that, “as subject specific collecting on campuses has been decentralized by collaborative collection development, consortial borrowing, and the quick availability of materials in both digital and print formats” (p. 185), the need for a physical space for research in the library has diminished.  Circulation at the Fine Arts Library has decreased over the years, in addition to less use by patrons.  One way the space has been repurposed is using it as an exhibit space.  A series of successful art exhibits were displayed in the library as a way to engage users.  The Haas Arts Library experienced the reverse, where because study space is at a premium on campus, the library has been inundated with students.  The library itself is not able to accommodate more materials, but having a study space for patrons, and providing specialized assistance to them, is deemed more important.  As both libraries are in a state of flux, there are no guaranteed answers, in regards to their collections, and their space.  The authors conclude that they “are further challenged to promote our space as one of many options to study for all disciplines, and remain the principle location to receive specialized help and guidance for arts research…In the future, at both institutions, a service model that balances the needs of the general library user with those of the special subject user is being investigated” (p. 193).