use of collection development policies in electronic resource management

Use of collection development policies inelectronic resource management

Suzanne Mangrum and Mary Ellen Pozzebon

James E. Walker Library, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA

AbstractPurpose – Library resources evolve daily with ongoing expansion of electronic offerings by publishers and vendors. Collection development policieshave long been employed to guide decision making and inform stakeholders, but how are these policies serving libraries and their users as ourcollections continue to move online? This paper aims to discuss the role of collection development polices, past and present, and the challenge ofcollections moving to an electronic format.Design/methodology/approach – The authors performed a content analysis to discover how academic libraries are addressing this change incollection development.Findings – The paper finds that virtually all libraries do an excellent job of addressing the traditional elements of collection development. About half ofthe libraries mentioned electronic licensing issues in the policy, but most of those were general statements.Originality/value – Although the library profession is well aware of the changes that electronic resources bring to libraries, there is not a lot ofresearch on how collection development policies should guide electronic resource management. As shown in this research, it is often completely left outof the collection development policy process.

Keywords Collection development, Collection development policies, Collections management, Electronic resource management,Electronic resources

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Electronic Resources (ER) management has created aparadigm shift in libraries on many levels. The

consequences of this shift in publishing and informationaccess continue to be felt throughout the library. We are, in

fact, straddling two paradigms, and attempting to cope withboth simultaneously. Libraries still fulfill roles as a physical

space for use, and a provider of in-person services and printresources, much like they did before automation. In the newparadigm, we acquire ER and discovery platforms, and

facilitate access with online services and technologicalresearch tools for multiple purposes. Each library deals with

these changes in unique ways. Collection developmentpolicies have long been used to guide the growth of library

collections, but little discussion has been given to how policiescan evolve to help manage the life cycle of ER. This studyseeks to determine how well library CD policies address

fundamental areas of ER management.Collection development (CD) evolves daily with ongoing

expansion of ER by publishers and vendors. CD in academiclibraries has already undergone a lengthy evolution from the

days when books were donated and teaching faculty did allselecting (Johnson, 2009) to today’s sophisticated approval

plans, automated selecting tools like YBP’s GOBIe, “big

deal” journal packages, and aggregators. Collection

developers keep collections relevant by gathering

information from multiple stakeholders, including teaching

faculty, reference librarians, users, and vendors. Libraries

continue to acquire print monographs and periodicals for

their physical collections. They also acquire materials

electronically that compliment, supersede, or are redundant

with print collections. The acquisitions and maintenance of

ER necessitates a level of coordinated decision making and

teamwork that is not present with the acquisition of physical

collections.There are CD decisions that are new to librarianship. In

contrast to print materials, ER are commonly packaged

collections of journals, indexes, books, or other material

types. Collection mangers must decide to buy all of the

collection or none of it. Large outlays of funds must be

committed and the sustainability of the ongoing costs and cost

increases must be considered. Libraries are also in the

position of duplicating print collections and/or other

electronic collections when a new resource is purchased.

Electronic resource products often duplicate each other to

some extent, and the library may have already spent

significant amounts of money on the same resources in

print. Since users prefer electronic access, and the full-text is

often included with electronic indexes, librarians are in the

unfortunate position of spending money on redundant

collections. Challenges with born digital and open access

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0160-4953.htm

Collection Building

31/3 (2012) 108–114

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0160-4953]

[DOI 10.1108/01604951211243506]

Received: 20 January 2012Accepted: 1 March 2012

108

resources illustrate the how the changing publishing industry

affects our profession. Access restrictions, whether

technological, like digital rights management (DRM) orlegal, like limits on perpetual access, require an informed,

flexible, and proactive CD strategy. Patron-driven-acquisition

(PDA) puts librarians in the back seat of the selecting process,and creates new issues with selection, funds management and

OPAC access.The ER management job description is multi-faceted. ER

librarians work in a team setting, across departmental

divisions, in order to evaluate, negotiate, acquire, license,and implement new selections. The work required to provide

access and facilitate discoverability increases daily. ER

librarians handle technical issues with resources such asmaintaining URLS, editing web pages and customizing a

variety of vendor platforms. ER librarians must also connectwith users in completely new ways to promote trials, market

resources, and provide training and support. There is endless

variety in the ways that librarians adjust to and cope with ERmanagement; they may include fewer or more tasks than the

authors have covered here.In this turmoil, CD policies have been all but ignored. Most

libraries have some type of document relating to CD. It often

includes broad statements in support of acquiring materialthat support the mission of the library and denouncing

censorship, but they have ceased to be working documents

that describe the day-to-day functions of the library and itsactivities in relation to the community it serves. We are

missing an opportunity to provide clarity and consistency to

our CD strategies, internal workflows, and externalcommunications.

2. Literature review

CD policies are typically formal documents that describe

issues such as the scope of the collection, the budget, selecting

responsibilities, and weeding (Johnson, 2009). There isendless variety in how CD policies are developed. The

American Library Association provides a starting point. AnALA Collection Management and Development Guide

defines CD policies as those that plan for the ongoing

development of library resources, while reflecting collectingstrengths and collection depth in specific areas. It also

includes a statement of selecting philosophy, selecting criteria,

and intellectual freedom (Bucknall, 1987). CD policies areusually touted as one of the foundations of library operations.

Johnson (2009) states that a library without a collection

development policy is like a business without a business plan.Yet many libraries do not use policies at all (Snow, 1996;

Vickery, 2004; Pickett et al., 2011).Shortcomings of CD policies are that they can be too

prescriptive or too vague, unresponsive to change, and

densely written. Consequently, they are consideredimportant, but not consulted in day-to-day selection

activities (Ferguson, 1995; Snow, 1996). It can seem futile

to maintain and use policies as working documents in themidst of dealing with shrinking budgets and the onslaught of

new workflow required by ER management. Snow (1996)bluntly states that, “when budgets for new materials cease to

exist, or become so paltry as to be meaningless, policies

resemble pointless exercises, a costly endeavor to build aworld of fantasy” (p. 193). Such statements are disconcerting,

but there is some truth to it. There is a disconnect between

the idealistic language of many CD policies and the actual

day-to-day practices that take place in the maelstrom of fiscalyear spending. Conger (2004) recommends that policies are

treated as learning documents that include a process forperiodic renewal.There are some redeeming qualities of CD policies that are

lost when they are mothballed. CD policies emphasize the

mission of a library as an information provider to a specificcommunity and, most importantly, assert support for the

freedom of information (Johnson, 2009). It can informadministrators, librarians, faculty, students, and the wider

community that are affected by how the library carries out itsmission. The policy serves as an internal document to train

selectors and explains circumstances under which gift booksare accepted. CD policies describe the library’s acquisition

priorities and funding allocations. This is important because itcan explain why, in this age of static budgets and ever-risingcosts, certain items were not purchased (Johnson, 2009).Most importantly, policies give librarians the opportunity to

map a course for the future while providing for consistent CD

strategies. Policy statements help us to avoid pitfalls, anddetermine some control over the direction in which

librarianship and scholarly resource access are heading.Librarians can assert support for open access publishing by

stating in policies they will give preference to certain types ofpublications, and protect against disadvantageous vendor

business models by prohibiting certain licensing terms. Theycan state what will and will not be accepted during

negotiations with vendors, and how important it is to havefull disclosure of access throughout the lifecycle of a product.

It can also place emphasis on gathering feedback for renewaldecisions (Gregory, 2006).The literature shows that some libraries are trying to

expand policies to make them relevant to today’s

environment. Texas A&M University Libraries elected torecreate collection development policy statements that aresubject-specific. A hierarchical review system is in place that

uses first peers, then an oversight committee, to review policystatements annually. It is the task of each subject librarian to

perform an environmental scan of departments and programsin his or her charge, to account for such things as faculty

research and curriculum changes, and then update the policy.The policy revisions are part of the annual performance

review, so the administration sees the value of this work andexpects that this will be a significant portion of the librarians’

workload (Pickett et al., 2011).Libraries need to be proactive and strategic in adapting to

new publishing models and how that affects collectionmanagement, as broadly defined (Anson and Connell,

2009). The negotiation of licenses has become an importantnew process and skill (Gandel, 2005). The lack of advocacy in

the profession about prohibitive license agreements suggeststhat librarians do not fully appreciate the consequences of

negotiating away terms that are important to users. Access toresources is no longer governed by copyright, but by contract(Conger, 2004).Access methods for print collections have been well

established. Access methods for electronic collections are

continually evolving and require carefully scrutiny at the pointof evaluating a new acquisition as well as assessing current

holdings. It is important for librarians to understand and havepolicy standards for electronic access (Pearlmutter, 2005;

Conger, 2004). The cost structure for ER is completely

Use of collection development policies in ER management


Collection Building

Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2012 · 108–114

109

different than for print. There are many different types of

pricing models and the commitment to a specific product has

long-term consequences for the library budget, especiallywhen the print is no longer acquired (Pearlmutter, 2005).Managing ER throughout the lifecycle requires a multi-

faceted level of cooperation. Multiple stakeholders must workin tandem, throughout the stages of evaluation, acquisition,

activation, access, maintenance, marketing, assessment, andrenewal. Added to that, the lifecycle for products can be

different, and require input and support from different

people. The most effective workflow will have documentedguidelines to aid with these multi-step and multi-layered

processes (Jewell et al., 2004; Martin et al., 2009). These are a

few of the issues evaluated here. This article is a study of theuse of collection development policies to help document and

guide processes and decision making related to collections in

the hybrid library world.

3. Methodology

In order to discover how libraries are, or are not, using their

CD polices to address ER in library collections, the authorsconducted a content analysis of CD policies. The sample was

obtained using the 2010 peer institutions of Middle

Tennessee State University. These are obtained by theinstitution for use in the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE, 2011) and the Consortium for Student

Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE, 2011). To this list wereadded peers based on the Carnegie Classification (Carnegie

Foundation, n.d.). The authors chose schools that were four

year institutions, and had the same undergraduate instructionprogram and doctoral/research classifications as MTSU.This process resulted in a sample of 41 schools. CD policies

from the institutions’ library web sites were obtained in

December of 2010. Unfortunately only half of the policies

were found; 23 policies were obtained. This sample size isconsistent with a similar survey conducted by Texas A&M

Libraries (Pickett et al., 2011). However, it should be noted

that some of the libraries may have policies that are notdisplayed online or additional documentation that exists apart

from the CD policy. The researchers used information linked

to the CD policy in any way. For instance, some libraries hadsections on electronic resource development while others had

hyperlinks to separate electronic resource development

policies. All supporting documentation was used as long asit stemmed from the CD policy document or webpage.It is also possible that the researchers were unable to find

the policies on the webpage. In order to prevent the possibility

of missing a policy, each site was given a thorough search and

site searches were conducted, if possible, using search termsuch as policy, policies, collection development. We

particularly looked in the areas of general library

information, tech services, liaison program, collections,policies and procedures as well as any site indexes that were

available. All links on the CD webpage or liaison pages were

printed, but the researchers did not specifically search for ERdocuments.The goal was to evaluate how well each policy addressed

traditional as well as contemporary issues in CD. The

evaluation instrument listed nine areas that affect CD. These

measures are based on literature discussing policydevelopment, definitions of ER management elements from

the Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resource

Management report (Jewell et al., 2004), and the authors’

experience in CD and how it relates to ER management. The

criteria were organized into nine major categories:1 cost;2 consortia;3 responsible parties;4 content;5 access;6 usability;7 assessment;8 licensing (user perspective); and9 licensing (library management).

Each category in the analysis was given four levels of detail, or

elements, based on the sources stated previously. There were36 elements total. All elements were weighed equally; a point

was given if the policy addressed an element. For example, the

elements for the Cost criterion are:1 brief mention of cost;2 pricing model;3 justification; and4 hidden costs.

The evaluation tool included an explanation of each element

in order to provide for consistent coding (see Table I). Forexample, the definition of the “pricing model” element is “Is

the product purchased as a subscription, one time, etc.”. CD

policies that mentioned pricing model issues would receiveone point. CD policies that did not provide this type of

guidance for selectors and stakeholders did not receive a point

for this element.The two researchers developed the criteria together, but the

coding was done primarily by a single researcher. In order toestablish inter-coder reliability, the other researcher coded a

sample representing a little more than 10 percent of the entire

group of results. Each coder used the criteria overview as thecodebook and discussed coding techniques beforehand. The

two researchers deemed that an agreement rate over 80

percent (Beck and Manuel, 2008; Lombard et al., 2010)would be acceptable. The researchers obtained an 84 percent

rate of agreement.The policies were printed for the purposes of evaluation and

read twice, once for an overall understanding of the policy and

a second time to mark any elements covered. Some criteria,

like Cost and Content, could include print materials as well asER. The authors looked specifically for coverage of ER issues.

There was wide variety in the organization of policies. If an

element was mentioned anywhere in the policy, it wascounted with one point. This did not allow the researchers to

record the depth of coverage, which differed from library tolibrary, but it was a more inclusive method to record if the

criteria were included at all. The levels of criteria give some

indication of the thoroughness of policies, but the evaluationtool was not designed for that purpose.

4. Results

Most libraries do an excellent job of defining the content of

their collections: 96 percent of the libraries addressedcurrency and authoritative standards and academic need

regarding content. Of libraries 78 percent mentioned the

scope and depth of the content of their collections. A briefmention of cost was found in 87 percent of the policies. These

elements depict the traditional language of CD policies. On



Collection Building

Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2012 · 108–114

110

the other end of the spectrum, only 52 percent of libraries

briefly mention licensing issues or protecting users from

unreasonable restrictions. Only 22 percent addressed

termination rights, and 17 percent addressed interlibrary

loan considerations in licensing electronic material. See Table

II for a complete overview of the results.Of the policies sampled, the average completeness of each

policy was 41 percent, meaning that the average policy

addressed less than half of the criteria details. The top scoring

policy had a completeness of 94 percent while the bottom

policy only addressed 8 percent of the elements. However,

Table II also shows that the majority of CD policy samples

addressed the most basic criterion detail (usually a “brief

mention”) for the majority of the nine criteria. This indicates

that the samples addressed most of the criteria on the

evaluation tool, but not in great detail.Looking at the criteria averages, the traditional elements

easily rise to the top, but there are a few unexpected findings.

Table I Overview of evaluation tool

Criteria Criteria details Definitions/examples/notes

Cost Brief mention Any brief mention of the cost

Pricing model Is the product purchased as a subscription, one-time, etc.?

Justification How will pricing increases be handled? How will funds be re-allocated to cover

costs?

Hidden costs Incidental costs, service fees, software, etc.

Consortia Brief mention Any brief mention of the role of consortia

Consortia participation How is the selection and assessment of materials accomplished?

Consortial maintenance How are statistics gathered? How is maintenance work divided and

communicated?

Consortia cost negotiation What is the structure for negotiation with vendors?

Responsible parties Who evaluates? For selection purposes, sets up trials, etc.

Who acquires? Including negotiation and licensing

Who implements? Who sets up access maintains access

Who assesses? Manages statistics, reporting, and gathering feedback?

Content Current and authoritative Accurate, from a trusted sources

Academic need Who is the collection for?

Scope/depth Is the level of the product addressed? Are materials purchased for specialty

areas?

Overlap with print Discuss how overlap is handled as a selection or weeding issue

Access Brief mention/site license Any mention of access to electronic materials or mention of ip range, site

licensee, etc.

Interoperability Can communicate with other open url discovery resources.

Software/plug-ins Any mention of special add-ons needed for access

MARC record availability Any mention of how material is made available through the library’s catalog

Usability Interface Is the product easy to use, maneuver between screens; display of non-text

Tutorials/training How much training is needed? Is tech. support available? Tutorials/help screens

available?

Search tools/metadata Quality of the search engine, reliable metadata that produces useful results

Vendor Does the vendor have a reputation of being reliable?

Assessment Trial period Is there any emphasis of testing or gathering feedback before purchase?

Feedback from users Does the policy mention gathering feedback from any users during the trail or

for renewal, etc.?

Statistics Any mention of gathering statistical data to evaluate usage, renewal, etc.

Renewal decisions How are renewal decisions made, is there any criteria for renewal or protocol?

Licensing (user perspective) Brief mention Any mention of licensing or any mention of protecting users from unreasonable

restrictions

Interlibrary loan Any mention of addressing interlibrary loan rights concerning electronic

resources

Perpetual access/archival copy Any mention of obtain perpetual access or the ability to create an archival copy

Authorized users Defining who has access to electronic resources, students, public use, alumni

use, etc.

Licensing (Library

Management)

Duration License dates, automatic- renewals, multi-year licenses

Fair use Fair use or DRM is addressed in any way

Liability Indemnification or liability issues are addressed

Termination rights How can the library terminate the contract?



Collection Building

Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2012 · 108–114

111

Figure 1 shows the average occurrence of the nine criteria

details. The top criterion, content, is addressed in 84 percent

of the policies. The numbers drop after that, but usability and

responsible parties also have definite representation in

policies. All usability details were covered in approximately

half of all policies. This, like most details, varied from brief

mention, to specific elements such search tools or tutorials.

This is encouraging evidence that libraries are documenting

ways to consider the patrons’ perspective when as they select

electronic resources. Further evidence of this can be found in

the results for the criterion of licensing (user perspective).

Although it only appeared in 38 percent of the policies, it

fared better than most other criteria. This shows that some

libraries are attempting to address licensing in collection

development policies. In particular, perpetual or archival

access to electronic material was found in 61 percent of the

policies.

Table II Overall results of criteria details

Criteria Criteria details

Percentage of policies

that addressed criteria

Content Current and authoritative 96

Content Academic need 96

Costs Brief mention of the cost 87

Content Scope/depth 78

Responsible parties Who evaluates (for initial purchase) 70

Access Brief mention of access for electronic resources/IP/site license 70

Responsible parties Who acquires 65

Content Overlap with print and other electronic sources 65

Usability Brief mention of usability needs/interface/display 61

Licensing (user perspective) Perpetual access/archival copies 57

Consortia Briefly mentions consortia 52

Usability Search tools/metadata quality 52

Licensing (user perspective) Brief mention of licensing issues/protecting users from

unreasonable restrictions

52

Usability Tutorial/help screens 48

Usability Vendor reliability/reputation 48

Access Interoperability (can communicate with other OpenURL/

Discovery Resources

43

Responsible parties Who assesses 39

Assessment Renewal decisions 35

Costs Pricing model 30

Consortia Consortia participation in selection and assessment 30

Access Software/plug-ins 30

Assessment Feedback from users 26

Assessment Statistics 26

Licensing (user perspective) Authorized users/public use 26

Licensing (library management) Fair use/digital rights management 26

Costs Justification of the cost 22

Responsible parties Who implements 22

Licensing (library management) Duration of the license/automatic renewal 22

Licensing (library management) Termination rights 22

Licensing (user perspective) Interlibrary loan 17

Licensing (library management) Indemnification/liability 17

Costs Hidden costs 13

Consortia Consortia maintenance of electronic resources is discussed 13

Assessment Trial period 13

Consortia Consortia cost negotiation is discussed 4

Access MARC record availability 4

Figure 1 Average occurrence of criteria details in policies



Collection Building

Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2012 · 108–114

112

The lowest ranking criteria, assessment, consortia, and

licensing (library management) indicate that libraries are not

using collection development policies to guide internal

functions of the ER lifecycle. All areas of licensing (library

management) and assessment were consistently low. The

Consortia criterion details varied from a 52 percent

occurrence of a “brief mention” to a 4 percent mention of

negotiation issues handled through consortia. Although it is

possible that these internal procedures are found on other

documents, it appears that they are not being covered from a

CD standpoint, if at all.Over half of the libraries tried to address ER in some way.

However, most policies contain traditional language with a

section on library ER inserted into the latter portion of the

document. Statements addressing the internal management of

ER ranked the lowest, just below assessment. The lowest

ranking element came from a variety of criteria, but each

bottom-ranking detail is an important part of the selection or

lifecycle of an electronic resource.

5. Discussion

As one might expect from a traditional CD policy, criteria that

concern pre-purchase decision making, such as content

evaluation and academic need, occur most frequently. These

elements relate closely to traditional policy language for print

collections, which have an established acquisitions model.

However, other factors are equally important when making a

decision to buy or renew ER.In the middle of the data rankings are implementation

concerns that are new to CD managers, but must be

considered in the product evaluation stage. These include

interoperability (open-url, federated search/discovery),

pricing model, means of access, usability of the platform,

metadata quality, and some mention of licensing issues

pertaining to user access. These elements affect the library’s

ability to support and respond to users’ content and access

needs.More concerning are the bottom-ranked elements that

represent advocacy and assessment issues. Libraries can

provide guidance to selectors in these areas, which include

consortia participation, DRM, hidden costs, renewal

decisions, feedback from users, and interlibrary loan. Most

of the licensing elements were ranked in the lower third of the

data. While these may not seem to be of primary importance

when evaluating a resource, a lack of awareness can have

consequences if disadvantageous licensing terms are agreed

to.There is endless variety in the way that ER are packaged

and sold. The acquisition, implementation, and use of ER

require coordination and cooperation across the library. A

robust policy that is treated as a learning document will

ensure that decision-making is consistent and the activities

surrounding CD are efficient, thorough, and transition across

departmental lines. Libraries may develop internal documents

to guide the ER acquisition process. However, a publicly-

available policy will inform all stakeholders about how the

library handles ER throughout the life cycle.As librarians seek to leverage new means of resource access

into enhanced relevance to external customers, they need

some guidance to address decision making on a conceptual

level.

6. Conclusion

The professional literature, blogs, and listservs are replete

with testimonies about the effects of the changing nature of

resources on our collections, budgets, and services. The way

we work with content creators and content consumers evolves

daily. While this is, perhaps, precisely the reason why libraries

do not continually maintain their CD policies, it is also the

reason why they should. Libraries are still essentially

information providers. In order to continue to provide

relevant collections at the time of need, library personnel

need a shared frame of reference regarding the criteria

determining how we make decisions about resources, who

informs decision-making, how those decisions are

implemented, and what we expect from vendors. CD policy

documents can inform internal and external customers about

how the library fulfills its most basic, and simultaneously most

complicated, function as resource access evolves.

References

Anson, C. and Connell, R.R. (2009), E-book Collections,Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC.

Beck, S.E. and Manuel, K. (2008), Practical Research Methodsfor Librarians and Information Professionals, Neal-Schuman

Publishers, New York, NY.Bucknall, C. (1987), Guide for Writing a Bibliographer’sManual, Collection Management and Development GuideNo. 1, American Library Association, Chicago, IL.

Carnegie Foundation (n.d.), Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, available at: http://classifications.

carnegiefoundation.org/ (accessed 2 June 2011).Conger, J.E. (2004), Collaborative Electronic ResourceManagement: From Acquisitions to Assessment, Libraries

Unlimited, Westport, CT.CSRDE (2011), The Consortium for Student Retention Data,available at: http://csrde.ou.edu/web/index.html (accessed 2

June 2011).Ferguson, A.W. (1995), “Interesting problems encountered

on my way to writing an electronic information collection

development statement”, Against the Grain, Vol. 7 No. 2,

pp. 16-19.Gandel, P.B. (2005), “Libraries: standing at the wrong

platform, waiting for the wrong train?”, Educase, Vol. 40

No. 6, pp. 10-11.Gregory, V.L. (2006), Selecting and Managing ElectronicResources: A How-to-do-It Manual for Librarians, Neal-

Schuman Publishers, New York, NY.Jewell, T.D., Anderson, I., Chandler, A., Farb, S.E., Parker,

K., Riggio, A. and Robertson, N. (2004), “Electronic

resource management: report of the DLF ERM Initiative”,

Digital Library Federation, available at: www.diglib.org/pub

s/dlf102/ (accessed 11 February 2011).Johnson, P. (2009), Fundamentals of Collection Developmentand Management, American Library Association, Chicago,

IL.Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C.C. (2010),

“Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder

reliability in content analysis research projects”, available at:

http://astro.temple.edu/, lombard/reliability/ (accessed 5

November 2011).Martin, H., Robles-Smith, K., Garrison, J. and Way, D.

(2009), “Methods and strategies for creating a culture of



Collection Building

Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2012 · 108–114

113

collections assessment at comprehensive universities”,Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, Vol. 21 Nos 3-4, pp. 213-36.

NSSE (2011), National Survey of Student Engagement,available at: http://nsse.iub.edu/ (accessed 2 June 2011).

Pearlmutter, J. (2005), “Policy components for onlineelectronic resources”, in Hoffmann, F.W. and Wood, R.J.(Eds), Library Collection Development Policies: Academic,Public, and Special Libraries, Scarecrow Press, Lanham,MD, pp. 218-29.

Pickett, C., Stephens, J., Kimball, R., Ramirez, D., Thornton,J. and Burford, N. (2011), “Revisiting an abandonedpractice: the death and resurrection of collectiondevelopment policies”, Collection Management, Vol. 36No. 3, pp. 165-81.

Snow, R. (1996), “Wasted words: the written collectiondevelopment policy and the academic library”, Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 191-4.

Vickery, J. (2004), “Making a statement: reviewing the casefor written collection development policies”, LibraryManagement, Vol. 25 Nos 8/9, pp. 337-42.

Further reading

Hazen, D.C. (1995), “Collection development policies in aninformation age”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 56No. 1, pp. 29-31.

Johnson, P. (1994), “Collection development policies:

a cunning plan”, Technicalities, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 3-6.

About the authors

Suzanne Mangrum is the Collection Development and

Assessment Librarian at Middle Tennessee State University

(MTSU). Her work at MTSU involves building the library

collection for new programs and providing library information

for external reviews. She is also the Coordinator of the Liaison

Program. In this role she works with other librarians serving

as liaisons, maintains all slip and approval plans, and serves

on the Collection Development Committee.Mary Ellen Pozzebon is the Electronic Resources Librarian

at Middle Tennessee State University and teaches Collection

Development as Part-time Instructor in the MLIS program at

San Jose State University. She manages access,

interoperability, discovery, procurement, licensing, and

assessment of electronic resources. She has presented on

web applications for electronic resources, web site

development, library instruction, and distance education.

She was awarded the 2010 Tenn-Share Resource Sharing

Award for her leadership in improving consortial purchasing

of electronic resources in Tennessee. Mary Ellen Pozzebon is

the corresponding author and can be contacted at:

[email protected]



Collection Building

Volume 31 · Number 3 · 2012 · 108–114

114

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

use of collection development policies in electronic resource management

Documents