Bishop, Andrew
Pickett, C., Stephens, J., Kimball, R., Ramirez, D., Thornton,
J., Burford, N. (2011). Revisiting an Abandoned Practice: The Death and Resurrection
of Collection Development Policies. Collection
Management, 36(3), 165-181, DOI: 10.1080/01462679.2011.580426
Using Texas A&M University Library’s process to
create a new, up-to-date collection development policy following at least ten
years of not having updated or even consulted one as a lens, the authors
examine the reasons libraries abandon having a written collection development
and maintenance policy and how and why to return to having and using one. The literature review found that many
libraries do not have written policies, or have not updated them in several
years. The policies that do exist vary
in the level of detail. The studies
cited say lack of budget and manhours is the main reason a policy does not
exist or is not maintained, although there is some lack of understanding as to “the
lack of precise definition of what a written policy is as opposed to what it
does” (168) can also be a reason no codified policy exists. Proponents of formal policies in the
literature say written policies provide a guide for acquisitions, as well as a “rationale”
for development decisions that helps protect against censorship. Opponents say the policies limit selector
freedom and can be inflexible. Policies
focusing on content were found to be more flexible as electronic resources
became more prevalent.
Texas A&M’s Collection Development Committee began
their revision and updating of the policy by reviewing the current environment
by reviewing the university’s statistics listing not only all the majors, but
the enrollment and number of courses for each college and department. They also reviewed the university’s strategic
plan for the new century and several ALA publications relating to policy
creation. They also looked at the
websites and catalogs of the libraries from comparable institutions throughout
the country, looking specifically at their collection development policies. The committee determined each subject would
have its own, specific policy, based on a committee generated template, while
the overarching policy would deal with management issues such as storage and
consortial membership. The authors
concluded that collection development policy creation and maintenance require
clear purposes and goals. Texas A&M
needed a new policy, for example, because collection development “lacked
coherence” (172) and the mandates articulated in strategic planning needed more
planning to implement.
The authors’ final conclusion was that the policy
creation process was overall a success due to the committee’s organization,
level of study, quality control given to the subject groups, standardization,
and recognition of the fact that if the collection development policy needed to
remain updated and in touch with the curriculum in order to keep the libraries
relevant to the campus community. The
resurrection of the policy helped bridge the gap between the strategic plan and
daily collection development practice in a way that supports the subject
selectors’ efforts.
Evaluation
A good in-depth look at one method of policy creation
in action. While the method of determining
current needs isn’t explicitly explained, given the committee’s review of the
curriculum and the recognition that some majors and certification programs were
undersupported, it sounds like they used collection mapping or some variant in
their process. For a large,
multi-disciplinary institution such as the A&M libraries, creating umbrella
subject groups with their own specific policies as well as an overall university
policy seems like a good way to combine solid guidance with flexibility and
adaptability.
