Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 13, pp. 45-50, 1989 0364~6408/89 $3.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1989 Pergamon Press plc

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT IN ACTION

THE NORTH AMERICAN INVENTORY PROJECT: A TOOL FOR SELECTION, EDUCATION

AND COMMUNICATION

BONNIE MacEWAN

Subject Specialist, Art and Music

University of Missouri-Columbia Libraries

Columbia, MO 65201-5149

It is difficult to define knowledge, difficult to decide whether we have any knowledge, and difficult, even if it is conceded that we sometimes have knowledge, to discover whether we can ever know that we have knowledge in this or that particular case.

Russell, Analysb of Mind

In a recent article in the Journal of Academic Librarianship, James Cogswell states that “although librarians have long been viewed as guardians of book collections, it has been only recently that they have exercised any real control over building those collections.” Robert Stueart points out in the treatise Collection Development in Libraries that it was not until the latter part of the 19th century that professional librarians even began to discuss the matter of systematic book selection. As recently as 1957, the idea that primary responsibility for book selection should rest with librarians was termed “avant-garde” in a survey of academic library acquisitions practices. I think this piece of our past is very important for understanding the importance of collection evaluation to our libraries today for several reasons: (1) Those years when the teaching faculty had nearly complete control have left us with the legacy of very in- teresting (albeit sometimes lopsided) collections, but collections that are not very well under- stood either by the library or by the college or university community as a whole, (2) We are about to begin a process that can be called “reselection.” As our collections deteriorate, we will have to decide what to preserve, what to replace, and what to let slip away. In most libraries, the nature of the collections was determined by energetic faculty members and opportunities to acquire private collections. Our current collecting policies are determined by assumptions about collection strengths and a need to support current curriculum and research. What is needed is a tool that will allow libraries to describe their collections in a way that helps them to understand their own collections and to communicate with other libraries about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the collections. The North American Collection Inventory Project grew out of this need to understand, describe, and communicate informa-

45

46 B. MacEWAN

tion about the relative strengths and weaknesses of collections. It was intended to give a gen- eral analysis of what we were doing in our libraries.

The Conspectus is divided into broad discipline sections. Examples include: agriculture, reli- gion and philosophy, economics. Each section is subdivided into lines defined by Library of Congress numbers. Each line of the Conspectus includes: a range of Library of Congress numbers, a unique line number, a subject description of the line, a place for the conspector to assign a code for the existing collection strength (ECS), a space to assign a code for the current collecting intensity (CCI), and a place for notes. The codes the conspector may assign for ECS and CC1 are:

0 -out of scope

1 -minimal level

2 - basic information level

3-instructional support level

4 - research level

5 -comprehensive level.

In addition, codes are assigned for language coverage. These codes are:

E -English language material

F - Selected foreign language material

W-Wide selection of materials in all applicable languages

Y-Material is primarily in one foreign language.

Once you decide to evaluate your collection using the Conspectus, there seem to be two pos- sible approaches. The first could be called the “get-the-darn-thing-done” approach, and the other is to work through the sheets slowly and use the project as an opportunity to learn about the collection in depth and as an internal communication tool. Many RLG Libraries were able to complete the Conspectus very quickly, but it is important to note that they often have full- time bibliographers who spent many years getting to know their parts of the collection very well. At UMC, we expect the project to take us about five years. All of our selectors are part- time: collection development is about 25% of their workload. Nearly all of the selectors are responsible for subject areas diverse enough to require them to work on more than one sec- tion of the Conspectus.

The first thing we did was to think about the kinds of information we would like to have about our collection. An essay by Sheila Dowd, “The Formulation of A Collection Develop- ment Policy Statement,” was very useful in this process. We decided that we would like to add a column for desired collection intensity. This column would require the selector’s fill- ing out the worksheet to ask one further question. Along with the questions “What do we have [existing collection strength]?” and “What are we buying now [current collecting inten- sity]?“, we ask, “What should we buy in the future [desired collection intensity]?” This col- umn would give us the information we want to have in a collection policy. We also added a column for a shelf list count, and added a space for local notes as well as for notes that would be included in the national database. Finally, we decided to include the information for each

The North American Inventory Project 47

branch that collects in a particular subject area and then have a composite line for the Librar- ies. One of our worksheets would include:

1. the Library of Congress call number range (below the LC call number we list the Dewey numbers where older books on the same subject are located),

2. the line number assigned by RLG, 3. the subject group assigned by RLG to describe the line, 4. the location-all branches which collect in this area are listed, the branch that is the

main collection is starred, and an overall line for all of the UMC Libraries is given, 5. the existing collection strength, 6. the current collection intensity, 7. the desired collection intensity, 8. a shelflist count for each location and for the Libraries as a whole, 9. in the notes field, both local notes (marked with a L) and national level notes (marked

with a N).

See Table 1 for an example. Quite candidly, this project is a lot of work. To be successful, any collection evaluation

project must have strong support from the library managers. It is going to require a great deal of time and effort on the part of the selectors. They must sense that the library administra- tion is strongly behind the project in order to make the kind of investment that is required. I believe we can show that this investment is warranted, and that is what I would like to dis- cuss next. I think that many of the benefits we are seeing are not unique to our library, nor are they unique to research libraries.

First, let me say that I believe the stated purposes of the project are very important: (1) to develop an online inventory of research library collections Ljust last week I used the online inventory for some information for a grant proposal]; (2) to strengthen coordinated manage- ment of national research collections; and (3) to help to determine shared responsibilities for these vital resources. These are enough to justify the work and effort we are putting into the project.

However, we are seeing some other expected benefits and some unexpected benefits. The first thing we realized about this project was that each and every selector was going to have to get to know the collection very well. We were finally going to figure out what the faculty had been buying all of those years before we gained some control over how funds were spent. We were going to have the opportunity to see our patterns of collecting as a part of a grand plan. The second benefit we have seen is that the project has become an opportunity for some very valuable communication with the teaching faculty. The primary selector for each sec- tion works alone or with a team of librarians to propose collecting levels. They use a vari- ety of quantitative and qualitative methods combined with an examination of the books themselves-shelf scanning. In some cases, expanded guidelines are available for a section of the Conspectus. The expanded guidelines indicate specific lists to be checked and suggest the percent of each particular list that should be held for a particular collecting level. The selector always documents his or her work so that when we review the sections, the original work can be easily understood and replicated. The Collection Development Committee reviews the sheets, and then the sheets are sent along with a long explanatory letter to the concerned fac- ulty for review. We thought that this method would show the faculty that the selectors have an understanding of the collections and are in control of the process. At the same time, it

48 B. MacEWAN

TABLE 1 RLG CONSPECTUS WORK SHEET

COLLECTION LEVELS AND LANGUAGE COVERAGE

Agriculture LC Class Subject Group Location ECS CC1 DC1 LC Dewey Notes

Animal Culture continued

SF105121 AGR147 Breeding. Stock farms. Exhibitions. Stock shows.

SF170-180 AGR148 Working animals, 633.12; 633.22 Draft animals.

SF191-275 AGR149 Cattle and 633.1-633.12; dairying. 634-634.7

SF221-250 AGRlSO Dairying. 634-634.7

SF250.5 AGRlSl Dairy processing. 275 Dairy production. 634.3-634.14; 634.23-634.24; 634.43-634.44; 634.63-634.64

SF277-359 AGR152 Horses. 633.2-633.24

Ellis* 2E 3E 3E 109 Vet 1E 2Ea 2Ea 44 UMC 2E 3E 4E

Ellis

Ellis* Vet UMC

IE 1E 1E 2

3E 3E 4E 682 1E 2E 1Ea 87 3E 3E 4E

Ellis* 3E 3E 4E 257 Vet 1E 1E 1E 14 UMC 3E 3E 4E

Ellis* 2E 2E 3E 109 Vet 1E 1E 0 8 UMC 2E 2E 3E

Ellis* 2F 2E 2Ea 602 Vet 2E 2E 1Eb 168 UMC 2F 2E 2E

128 19

-

825 26

436 11

53 0

308 15

N:a: Collecting levels only for SFlOS- 105.5. Otherwise col- lect at 3 levels.

L:a: Vet buys at a 2 level in care and behavior relating to animal health, refer- ence books on breed identification, dis- ease aspects of envi- ronmental health.

Dairy husbandry- UMC dissertations classed at SF239 (105 titles)

L:a: Horse racing in Missouri might raise the DC1 in the future. L:b: Vet buys at a 2 level in care and behavior relating to animal health, refer- ence books on breed identification, dis- ease aspects of envi- ronmental health.

*Indicates primary collecting responsibility.

would give us the opportunity to get input from the faculty, and we hope to gain their sup- port by formally bringing them into the process. A byproduct of going about this in what may seem an upside-down way would be increased selector confidence and renewed respect for the selector on the part of the teaching faculty. Most selectors have been surprised to learn how

The North American Inventory Project 49

well they know their collections. As we begin each section, there is a flurry of activity as bib- liographies are carefully checked at the selector’s insistence. This is accompanied by annoy- ance that there are no standard bibliographies in some areas, and neither ARL nor other libraries can give us a recommended bibliography to check. At the end of the section, the selector almost always concludes that he or she had a pretty good idea of the strength of the collection to begin with. When the worksheets go to the teaching faculty, we are always sur- prised by how seldom they disagree with the levels proposed by the selectors, even for the potentially controversial DCIs. The comments we receive from the faculty show that they are cognizant of the political and fiscal realities of the institution. At least one meeting between the NCIP team and concerned faculty is held. We learn a great deal from these meetings. The collecting levels seem to form a neutral vocabulary for the discussion of some touchy issues. I have heard interactions something like this: “We see that you have ranked line 45 as a 4 and line 56 as a 2. I guess we didn’t tell you that we lost Fred who used to teach theology, and we decided to replace him with Sally Brown who is going to teach comparative religion. Can we reverse those and make 56 the 4 and reduce 45 to 2?”

Another benefit we are seeing is that we are sorting out some very touchy branch-versus- main-library issues. An immediate effect was that librarians who serve overlapping subject areas were brought together on teams to look at the collections. This could be done with or without NCIP, but in our busy library, it probably would not have happened without the necessity of completing the worksheets by a certain date. A great deal is learned when the groups get together and many myths are exploded. Some misunderstandings have been eas- ily cleared up and a lot of hard work has gone into trying to clearly define collection respon- sibility to avoid duplication, especially costly duplication in the science areas. One thing we have learned is that some duplication is going to be unavoidable because of the overlap in the work the various user groups are doing. We also have learned that some of the researchers on campus are not using the best collection available, because a Level 2 or Level 3 collection is available in their branch and they simply do not know about the Level 4 collection in the main library. We have tried to direct these users to the best collections and in some cases have even transferred some expensive titles from one library to another. This kind of information and these kinds of benefits would also be derived from a consortium of libraries working together on a collection evaluation project.

We have begun to use the information we have gathered to guide selection. Selectors have used it to guide the expenditure of firm order monograph funds, and the completed sections were used heavily when we revised our approval plan last month. We have also used com- pleted sections for accreditation reports. It is clear that NCIP can be a guide for building col- lections. It can act as a road map, helping us figure out where to direct our resources. It can inform us of the strengths of other libraries, and this may make it possible to decide to depend on another library for certain categories of materials. It is a tool for education. We are educating ourselves about our own collections, each other about our relative strengths and weaknesses, and the faculty about the collections which support their teaching and research. It is a way to tell them about the collections in our library and a way for them to discuss the collection with us. The Conspectus is a tool, almost a vocabulary, for communicating this information. In many cases, we are right when we say we already knew what the Conspectus was telling us, but we didn’t have a way of communicating that information before. In many cases, the’very process of completing the project becomes even more important than the infor- mation gathered. Examining the collection and filling out the sheets can be a very valuable education process for any selector, new or experienced.

We have certainly seen one last benefit at Missouri. We have had more discussions and

50 B. MacEWAN

debates about our collections, collecting policies and goals, since we began NCIP than we have ever had before. I often remind myself after an especially difficult meeting that this proj- ect has focused our attention on the collection and has caused us to have these serious and often fruitful discussions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Christiansen, Dorothy E., Davis, C. Roger and Reed-Scott, Jutta. “Guidelines to Collec- tion Evaluation through Use and User Studies,” Library Resources and Technical Ser- vices, 27 #4 (October/December), 432-440, 1983.

Cogswell, James. “The Organization of Collection Management Functions in Academic Research Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 13 #5 (November 1987), 268.

American Library Association. Guidelines for Collection Development. Chicago: Ameri- can Library Association, 1979.

Dowd, Sheila T. “The Formulation of A Collection Development Policy Statement,” Col- lection Development in Libraries: A Treatise. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1980, pp. 67-87.

Farrell, David. “The NCIP Option for Coordinated Collection Management,” Library Resources and Technical Services (January-March 1986), 47-56.

Farrell, David. “The North American Collection Inventory Project (NCIP): Phase II Results in Indiana,” Resource Sharing and Information Networks, 2 (Spring/Summer 1985), 37-48.

Futas, Elizabeth and Inter, Sheila S. “Collection Evaluation,” Library Trends, 22 #3 (Winter 1985), 237-436.

Gwinn, Nancy E. and Mosher, Paul H. “Coordinating Collection Development: The RLG Conspectus,” College and Research Libraries, 44 (March 1983), 128-140.

Manual for the North American Inventory of Research Collections. Prepared by Jutta Reed- Scott. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Stud- ies, 1985.

Mosher, Paul H. “A Natural Scheme for Collaboration in Collection Development: The RLG-NCIP Effort,” Resource Sharing and Information Networks, 2 (Spring/Summer 1985), 21-35.

Nisonger, Thomas E. “An Annotated Bibliography of Items Relating to Collection Evalua- tion in Academic Libraries, 1969-1981,” College and Research Libraries, 43 #4 (July 1982), 300-311.

North American Collections Inventory Project. Phase II-January-December 1984. Wash- ington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, 1985.

Rice, Jan, et al. Report of the Agriculture NCIP Team. Columbia, MO: University of Mis- souri, 1986.