Reference is dead, long live reference

Pierucci, Jessica

Terrell, H. B. (2015). Reference is dead, long live reference: Electronic collections in the digital age. Information Technology and Libraries 34(4), 55-62. doi:10.6017/ital.v34i4.9098

Summary

The role of print reference in the library is becoming increasingly unclear as electronic information becomes more and more ubiquitous. The author explains that only about 10% of print reference collections are now used. Some librarians have expressed concern about the print reference collection diminishing in size and use, citing concerns of browsability of print, potential reliability issues for electronic sources, and access for those without library cards who therefore cannot use library internet. The author dismisses these concerns, explaining how ready reference is now best handled using mainly electronic resources in the current information environment and many electronic sources used in the library have no more issues with reliability than print sources. In addition, the author thinks the concern about patrons without internet access is better and more cost effectively addressed in ways other than keeping a mostly unused print reference collection for this group of patrons. For example, San Francisco Public Library has the Welcome Card allowing those who don’t qualify for a library card (often due to lack of an address or proper identification) to use computers and check out one book at a time, giving the user limited library privileges. The author cites this as a much better solution to the concern of those without ability to get library card being able to only use print than keeping unused reference material around.

Evaluation

The article’s title is a bit deceiving. The author doesn’t think reference itself it dead. Instead the author thinks the reference print collection is dead and needs to be dramatically weeded in favor of more highly used electronic reference resources. I’m happy that’s the case as I think reference is still important to help patrons develop valuable search skills and find what they want in the library’s collection. This just happens increasingly online.

I agree with the author’s assessment of the print reference collection as in the library where I work I’ve seen how rarely the librarians turn to print to answer reference questions. They generally favor library databases and other electronic resources. They show patrons how to search these resources to find the information they want to answer their inquiry. I was happy to see a passionate argument for weeding a rarely used part of the library’s collection. In a time of ever-shrinking budgets it’s great to find the places where the library can cut acquisitions and weed out unused material to put funds toward well-used parts of the collection.

Reference in transition: A case study in reference collection development

Bullard, Sherrie

Detmering, R., & Sproles, C. (2012). Reference in transition: A case study in reference collection       development. Collection Building, 31(1), 19-22. doi:10.1108/01604951211199146

Summary: The purpose of this article is to describe the ongoing process of weeding, streamlining, and transforming a very large, print‐based reference collection at the University of Louisville's William F. Ekstrom Library, focusing in particular on the various issues involved in developing a timelier, focused, and electronic‐oriented collection. Over the years, the Ekstrom Library reference collection evolved into a large, neglected, print‐based collection that ignored current space needs and user preferences for digital sources. To address this, the reference department developed a new, cooperative approach to reference collection development and weeding to improve the user experience and address serious space issues. To achieve a more usable reference collection, the reference department needed to rethink the philosophy behind the collection and completely rewrite the collection development policy. These changes have facilitated the creation of a smaller, more user‐friendly collection that embraces the digital environment.

Evaluation:  The article highlights problems and approaches to refocusing a reference collection in a time of transition, as physical library spaces continue to evolve and the value of a traditional reference collection appears increasingly uncertain. This is a great article on how to transform a library space into a learning commons and on the process of improving the user experience.

Labels: Academic Libraries, Collection Development, Collections Management, Reference Collections, Weeding, Learning Commons

Weeding the Reference Collection

Nicole J. Hoback

Reference:

Francis, M. (2012). Weeding the Reference Collection: A Case Study

            of Collection Management. Reference Librarian, 53(2), 219-234.

Summary:

In the case study written by Mary Francis, libraries are examined in their practice of weeding the reference collection. While this is an important aspect of every library, maintaining the reference collection, it is often times overlooked, because of the time consuming nature of it. Francis explains that while it is time consuming it is a necessity due to the fact that many are now turning to technology for answers, instead of the reference desk. It is important then for reference collections to remain relevant due to these changes. As well as many patrons see the reference collection and rely on that collection for particular questions, it is important that it is maintained and not neglected. Bringing together all reference librarians to discuss their personal visions of the reference department will help narrow down a cohesive plan for weeding and expansion. Even with technology dominating most of our lives, Francis explains that due to limitations in technology use by some patrons and personal preference by others it is essential that libraries do not get rid of the entire print collection. In other words, print reference material is still needed. Going forward, even with the time consuming process of weeding it is important that libraries take part and not over look this section of the library.

Evaluation:

I really enjoyed the case study by Mary Francis, because as we proceed in our course work, weeding is something that as stated above is overlooked, but nonetheless an important aspect of library maintenance. Collection development and growth are not the only aspects when mapping a collection, it is important to examine where the library can cut back and integrate work into other collections. Coming up with a policy that is practiced for weeding is essential to the outcome. Overall I felt that Francis brought up valid points that discuss the structure and outcome of a reference collection.

Decker, Betty

Dismantling the Reference Collection

Johnson, A. M., Finley, S., & Sproles, C. (2015). Dismantling the reference collection. The Reference Librarian, 56(3), 161-173. doi:10.1080/02763877.2014.994192

Summary:

In 2008, the Ekstrom Library, the main branch of the University of Louisville, noticed a rather large and outdated Reference Collection. The library had acquired a collection of titles from one of the other University libraries that had closed. Ekstrom Library found itself with around 30,000 reference volumes. These 30,000 volumes were located on the first floor next to the Learning Commons area. As Eksrom Library set forth to curtail the Reference Collection, its first step was to create a collection development policy that “highlighted the need for a current, lean, electronic-based collection that focused on the needs of the current users” (Johnson & Finley, 2015, p. 163).

After completing the new collection development policy, Ekstrom started an assessment of their current collection. The library tracked the reference titles re-shelved during a five year period. With an average use per year of the total print reference volumes at 4.6%, the need to weed was imperative. Using a three person team and implementing a title-by-title review allowed Ekstrom to inventory as well as weed the reference collection. The weeding team created reports through their ILS by Library of Congress for all numbers.  Each week the team would “pull several carts of books from the shelf, compare the list to items on the shelf, and examine each piece” (Johnson & Finley, 2015, p. 165); each volume was then given a decision. Decisions could be “keep, transfer out of reference, or weed.” When the weeding was completed, only 14% of the reference collection was retained. The majority, 77% of the collection, was transferred out to either the stacks or the robotic storage collection. Of the titles that were withdrawn, the majority was withdrawn due to duplication in other university libraries. As a whole this process completely changed the reference collection.

Evaluation:

I am currently weeding my part of the Reference Collection, which include the 200s, 600s, and 700-789. Viewing the weeding process of other libraries is something I am always interested in. My library follows a weeding cycle where some ranges are weeded every other year and some every year. Adhering to the cycle keeps our other library departments involved in our collection development cycle from becoming mired in the weeding process. With my Reference Collection I use the same reference titles re-shelved report that Johnson & Finley used, but I also view the age of the of the collection. As a public library, I want to provide the most up-to-date information that I can and not necessarily the historical information. This report was a great evaluation on weeding the reference collection. The only issue I find is how unbelievable and lackadaisical it is to let your collection go for that long without weeding it.