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.

The Hidden Cost of Sharing

Situ, P., & Voyles, J. F. (2008). Collecting forever or just-in-time: An alternative to enhance customers’ access to Chinese language materials through resource sharing. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 19, 39-50.

This university has a physical storage issue that impacts its Chinese language collection especially. Off-site storage was not an option, and the types of materials in this collection are less likely to be available in digital format. The library decided to try a just-in-time approach (versus an anticipatory approach, or "just-in-case" as they put it). They decided to use ILL to meet the patrons’ needs instead of buying books.  

The program worked well enough, but what I found potentially perturbing was an idea discussed in the literature review.  The paper's authors cite Ferguson & Kohoe (1993) as showing ILLing articles being cheaper than owning them.  This would be problematic as a widespread policy for multiple reasons: if no one buys the periodicals, no one can borrow them, and the fewer people who invest, especially in academic publications which don’t enjoy wide circulation to begin with, the harder it is for periodicals to survive.  The journals can’t meet their overhead costs, so they are forced to raise their prices, which hurts everyone.  Another cited work (Ameen 2005) said patrons didn’t “care how the library obtained materials for them,” the encouragement of which attitude could lead to unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement in the patrons, and which wouldn't take into account the cost or consequence to creators or manufacturers. 

The section is a bit choppy—the authors included the ideas without connecting them critically—so it’s not clear if they agree with these ideas, or whether the original articles offer solutions or no (or in what context the original authors discussed these topics), but to me it demonstrates how important it is to raise awareness among our patrons about what goes into our trying to make as much information available to them as possible despite the limitations of space and budget, and the repercussions--ethical and otherwise--of some of the choices that we make to do it.

References 

Ameen, K. (2005). Developments in the philosophy of collection management: A historical review. Collection Building, 24(4), 112–116.

Ferguson, A. W., & Kehoe, K. (1993). Access vs. ownership: What is most cost effective in the sciences. Journal of Library Administration 19(2), 89–99.