Developing a Library Collection Today: Revisiting “Collection Evaluation, the Conspectus and Chimeras in Library Cooperation”

The context

An AARL paper in 1989 explored collection measurement and evaluation in the context of the Collection Development Policy prepared by the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW). The paper referred to the proposed use of the Research Libraries Group (RLG) Conspectus as a tool for collection evaluation within Australia; fledgling cooperative collection development concepts emerging within Australia in association with the growing use of the Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN); and, the emphasis on accountability and performance management emerging within the public sector.

What has changed since? Practically everything including library user behaviour, collection content formats, approaches to information resource discovery and management and the nature of the library itself. What is a library today? The term ‘library’ by definition still refers to a collection of books used for reading or study, or to the building or room in which such a collection is kept. But knowledge banks, learning hubs, research repositories, digital media laboratories, scholars’ portals, information resource centres, 3D printing services, cyberspaces, cultural destinations, 24-hour bookstores, coffee shops, pop-up learning commons, data visualisation laboratories and social collaboratories are also libraries or can in some circumstances be regarded as such. What is the role of the library collection in this context? How have libraries responded to the changes? What approaches are being taken to collection evaluation and collaboration today?

Behaviour of library clients

Developments in information technology and communication have changed the role of the Library and its collections. So too has changed behaviour of library clients. Library users blend formal and informal learning, seek ideas, inspiration and information, research problems, watch movies and videos or listen to podcasts, and read and review print and online resources. All exchange information via SMS, email and social media. While most people still think libraries are important, that libraries level the playing field for those without vast resources and that people still read books, they also think that libraries have re-branded themselves as technology hubs. Library users identify as learners and seek personal enrichment. Speed and convenience of access are paramount (Rainie, 2016). Most users consider themselves competent in finding information yet almost all surveys continue to reveal that library clients are unaware of key services provided by libraries. Libraries must engage with their clients both to understand client needs and provide appropriate collections and services.

Changing collection content

Library collections today range from streaming videos to print books. New approaches to research, study and learning, scholarship and knowledge creation have contributed to changes in scholarly communication. Huge quantities of data are being added to traditional collection content. The open access movement has led to the emergence of ‘free’ open access journals, institutional/subject repositories, blogs, open textbooks, individual and institutional websites and documents with creative commons licenses providing outreach and access for all. Podcasts, vodcasts and twitter feeds contain information content. E-journal back-sets have replaced long print runs. Libraries are digitising their legacy and heritage print collections. The Google Books Library Project scanned millions of books from large libraries throughout the world and made them available digitally. Many information resources are ‘born digital’. Both popular and scholarly books are produced in e-versions, print and audio versions and whether e-books are outselling print books continues to be contentious.

Visual images are becoming more important as sources of information and access through FlickR and YouTube is enhancing library collections. Information is ubiquitous, pervasive and being ‘mashed-up’. Knowledge growth is a moving target.

Twentieth-century research library collections were defined by local holdings …. Twenty-first-century research library collections demand multiple strategies for ensuring broad access…[with] increased collaboration within and among institutions, as well as a shift from thinking of collections as products to understanding collections as components of the academy’s knowledge resources … But the purpose of collections remains the same: to support the creation and dissemination of new knowledge … the library is now an engaged agent supporting and embedded within the processes of scholarship … (Association of Research Libraries, 2012)

New perspectives on library collections have been epitomised in work by OCLC and framed in a collections grid (Dempsey, Malpas, & Lavoie, 2014) mapping content against uniqueness and stewardship. In their view, libraries have traditionally put most effort into published materials (and this was the case in 1989), a little effort into open web content and increasingly are devoting more attention to the areas of special collections and the growing category of digital research and learning materials. New approaches to collection management are required to ensure effective information resource collection, discovery, evaluation, access and use.

Current modes of acquisition and chains of supply

Large research libraries in Australia use collaborative purchasing agreements through CAUL Electronic Information Resources Consortium (CEIRC) (http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/ceirc) or the National and State Libraries Australia eResources Consortium (http://www.nslaconsortium.org.au/). These have resulted in ‘big deals’ for e-journals and increasingly e-books from particular publishers like Elsevier or Wiley or aggregator vendors like Proquest or Ebsco. These vendors group publications by broad subject area packages, provide print as well as electronic content and offer collection management and resource discovery tools. Large suppliers like Amazon and Vitalsource have emerged and deal directly with individual and institutional users to provide content (https://www.vitalsource.com/).

Many libraries have e-preferred policies. Some content is purchased outright and some ‘leased’. The realisation that large percentages of library collections are not used is leading to ‘just in time’ approaches to collection development rather than ‘just in case’. Libraries are developing collection profiles based on publisher, author, subject or other criteria for the purchase of library materials with their suppliers. Such profiles are translated into approval plans and might include automatic supply of items, selection by librarians from a proffered list of possibilities, and/or ‘demand driven’ approaches where records meeting a particular profile are loaded into local library discovery layers for users to select items. Making appropriate decisions on whether and how to license content, provide for ‘short loan periods’ or purchase content outright is becoming increasingly challenging.

The Conspectus

At the beginning of the 1980s, RLG pioneered the Conspectus concept as a common language for describing libraries’ collection strengths and collecting intensity. It was widely used throughout the world. Updates ended in 1997, and RLG became a part of OCLC in 2006. Work on Conspectus development ceased, although some libraries have continued to use it. The Library of Congress is one such library and uses the following (https://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/cpc.html):

Out-of-Scope: The Library does not collect in this area.

(1)	Minimal level
(2)	Basic Information level
(3)	Instructional support level
(4)	Research level
(5)	Comprehensive level

International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) promotes the use of the Conspectus levels in its statements on collection development (International Federation of Library Associations [IFLA], 2001). The Australian Libraries Gateway (ALG) introduced the use of collecting levels (Australian Libraries Gateway [ALG], 2009) based on an amended version of the RLG approach. Australian libraries are still encouraged to complete the collecting level data although few appear to do so. The 1989 paper referred to ‘chimera’ implying that the Conspectus might be a dream or a fantasy. It has been no dream, was applied, although not universally, and continues to be used. Describing library collections at a broad subject level might still have use. However, one could contend that users are better served by more precise resource discovery tools like WorldCat, Trove, local catalogues or search engines.

Purpose of collection evaluation

Some libraries evaluate their collections to ensure they are fit for purpose, meet new and emerging needs and are responsive to the changing context. Some seek to build on strengths or eliminate weaknesses. Some approach collection evaluation with a view to the discard or replacement of items or their transfer to a remote store. Collection evaluation may be undertaken to meet accreditation requirements of professional bodies or to evaluate the appropriateness of particular services. Collection evaluation may be carried out to indicate return on investment to funding authorities, to inform decisions about budgeting, human resource management, space allocation, marketing for recruitment of faculty or students, or future planning. Assessments made are relative to the library’s community and not absolute. The purpose of collection evaluation remains much the same as it was in 1989. Do library collections meet user needs and library and institutional strategic directions and do library collections provide value for money expended?

Methods of collection evaluation

Collection evaluation encompasses many methods ranging from analysis of in-house use, circulation, overlap, citation and availability studies to document delivery tests, journal-ranking exercises, benchmarking findings against other libraries, checking of lists prepared by experts, examination of standards developed by professional groupings and measurement tools like Conspectus. A useful collection evaluation matrix chart identifies methods as quantitative or qualitative and use- and user-based or collection-based (Johnson, 2014).

Collection-based methods seek to examine the size, growth, depth, breadth and variety of collections. User-based approaches examine user expectations and frequency of use of materials by particular groups and often focus on user failures to locate required materials. Quantitative techniques measure transactions, examine requests and identify expenditures. Examination of data available on integrated library management systems in use facilitates such analysis but has not often been used to feed into collection development. Evaluation tools like LibQual+ and commercially available comparative services like Worldshare Collection Analysis (https://www.oclc.org/en-AU/collection-evaluation.html) have added to the panoply of potential collection evaluation tools. Services like Counter (http://www.projectcounter.org/about/) provide for examination of use of e-resources.

The literature on library performance evaluation is vast, emphasises accountability of service providers in a service context and includes reference to the collections. ISO standard 2789 (International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 2013) provides guidelines for the collecting and reporting of library statistics. ISO 11620 (ISO, 2014) provides guidelines and performance indicators for libraries, moving away from prescriptive approaches of numbers of titles/volumes or budgets and emphasising adequacy, access and availability. The Association of College and Research Libraries in the United States (ACRL) has developed standards for libraries which articulate expectations and outcomes against strategic directions and are evidence- and performance-based (Association of College & Research Libraries [ACRL], 2011). Australian public library standards provide guidelines and some quantitative measures (Australian Library and Information Association [ALIA], 2012).

Collection evaluation over time has become much more sophisticated and provides a wide range of approaches which can be used by libraries to improve service delivery and optimise client satisfaction.

The State Library of New South Wales

The SLNSW has revised its Collection Development Policy many times since 1989 and its website outlines the current approach: Building our collections: What we collect and how we care for and share the Library’s collections (http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/research-and-collections#block-views-db73e084160a58b6848a37026efa2bda). Various documents are provided including a Collection Development Policy, a Collection Acquisitions Policy and a Digital Collections Policy. The principles and legal provisions that define and govern the Library’s collecting strategies are outlined and available online for public consultation, including the strategic context, legal deposit requirements, selection criteria, legislative framework and policies and processes on acceptance of donations. Users are invited to submit suggestions for purchase. Reference is made to collaborative arrangements, the Library’s digitisation projects, creative use of the Library’s collections and open data. In short, the development of the collections at the SLNSW remains firmly based on a sound policy framework and linked strongly to user needs.

Cooperation and collaboration

Libraries have a strong history of collaboration and efforts appear to have increased since the late 1980s. The ABN has morphed into Libraries Australia. Trove provides the portal for online information resource discovery bringing together content from libraries, museums, archives, repositories and other research and collecting organisations across Australia through collaboration between the National Library, state and territory libraries and hundreds of research and cultural institutions. The national and state libraries collaborate through NSLA (http://www.nsla.org.au/) and university libraries through CAUL (http://www.caul.edu.au/). Collaborative projects include purchasing, heritage collections and nationwide library borrowing schemes for university students and staff in Australia and New Zealand (http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/ulanz/about-ulanz). International collaboration is increasing in areas like open access and one project is the formation of the International Alliance of Research Library Associations in 2016 with its work on developing a vision of open data (http://libereurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IARLA-release.pdf).

The future?

The future focus is engagement with the library’s community of users to ensure collections and services meet needs. Collection formats and means of acquisition will continue to expand in range and complexity, and effective collaboration with a growing range of stakeholders will be essential to ensure access to new forms of information output as well as more traditional sources. Collection management must go beyond collection development to guarantee the availability of information on the topics and in the formats required by users, both for the present and the future. Collection management must address information discovery through appropriate information skills training and search mechanisms; access to content in the most convenient manner possible; and ongoing evaluation to confirm realisation of the vision for effective library service. Collection access not ownership is the primary focus.

Bad libraries build collections. Good libraries build services (of which a collection is only one). Great libraries build communities. (Lankes, 2012)

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Janine Schmidt has led and managed libraries in Australia and Canada. She is the Trenholme Director of Libraries Emerita, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and the Director, Mukurta Solutions, Brisbane, Australia. Previous positions include University Librarian, University of Queensland; Director, Collection Services, State Library of New South Wales, Sydney; and Senior Lecturer, School of Information Studies, University of Technology Sydney (formerly Kuring-gai C.A.E.). Janine has published widely, presented papers at conferences and participated in ALIA and IFLA activities. As a consultant, she has reviewed services in university libraries, provided guidance in strategic planning and library building design and conducted leadership training programs.