Best Practices
E-Resource Collection Development: A Survey of
Current Practices in Academic Libraries
Robert K. Flatley and Krista
Prock
Introduction
As the amount of money spent on electronic resources
increases, it seems fitting that as librarians we examine the process we use for
selecting such materials. Collection development policies for print collections
and ordering processes for such materials have become commonplace at many, if
not all, academic libraries. As the transfer from paper to electronic resources
occurs, especially in the acquisition of serial titles, we felt it necessary to
examine the process we and other academic libraries use to select electronic
resources.
Purpose/Background
All libraries have experienced a tremendous shift in content
from print to electronic. We are deluged daily by myriad offers for electronic
databases. Frankly the breadth and variety of what is available in e-format is
overwhelming. So the question that naturally arises is how do librarians make
decisions on what to purchase and what to cancel, simply stated how do we manage
our e-collections? At the Kutztown University Library we find ourselves
frequently playing "catch up" with all the e-resources offers. They come to us
via email, listservs, regular mail, visits to conferences, and from faculty and
students. We frequently feel overwhelmed trying to stay on top of all the offers
and make the best decisions. Our protocol involves contacting the appropriate
library liaison, getting input from faculty, meeting with the library dean, and
making the best decision we can at that particular time. It frequently leaves us
feeling dissatisfied and dismayed with the process, often wondering if we are
really meeting the needs of our users. We thought there must be a better way, so
the decision was made to conduct a survey of other academic librarians in
Pennsylvania and determine how they were tackling the problem of "e-resource
overload See information overload and overloading. ." What follows is the
results of this survey.
Literature Review
Much of the literature in this area is devoted to the
selection of Internet resources that are made available through library web
pages. Very little can be found that is devoted to selection processes and
criteria for online databases. Barbara Vignau, et al., suggest that the term
"digital collections" should be defined (139). They also offer a five step
process for collecting electronic (or "digital") material:
-
Gathering of information contents
-
Evaluation of information contents
-
Organization of information contents
-
Construction of digital collections
-
Maintenance of digital collections (140).
The Kovacs Guide to Electronic Library Collection Development
and Gregory's Selecting and Managing Electronic Resources are basically
introductory guides to the topic of e-collection development and concentrate
mainly on creating a collection of web-based resources, not subscription
databases. The processes and criteria they provide could be applied to many
types of electronic resources, however.
The type of information that is absent from the literature is
a study of current library practice in this area and librarian input about
whether the current process (or lack of processes) is an effective way to select
electronic resources. More research is needed to demonstrate processes for
e-resource selection that are currently in practice and effective and
manageable.
Methods
The survey we developed sought to answer one basic two-part
question: What process does your library use evaluate which electronic resources
to purchase and cancel? This question was then followed-up by a series of other
queries to determine the "how and whys." We chose to use the Pennsylvania
Academic Library Consortium, Inc. (PALCI PALCI Pennsylvania Academic Library
Consortium, Inc. ) list of electronic resources librarians as our survey sample.
We did this because PALCI represents a broad variety of libraries across the
state from small private colleges to large research institutions. A total of 72
librarians were contacted via email. We sent an initial email requesting a time
to do a 10-minute interview. We also gave librarians the option to fill out the
survey electronically. We had a total of 18 responses (a 25 percent response
rate).
Results
The results of our survey generally supported our experience
of electronic resource collection development. When selecting electronic
resources there was some definite process and criteria involved some of the
time, but most libraries reported having more informal processes in place for
selecting such materials
Of the 18 libraries that completed the survey, 10 had no
particular process for evaluating resources before purchase. Six had an informal
process and two had a definite process. When asked who is evaluating resources,
responses ranged from a committee of all librarians to one individual decision
maker. The reference department and Two libraries have a specific collection
development policy, and four libraries have an electronic resources collection
development policy as part of the overall library collection development policy.
Seven libraries do not have electronic collection development policies, and one
library has format-independent policies.
The librarians at the surveyed libraries were almost always
the decision makers. In one case one librarian made such decisions, but in all
other cases a group or committee of librarians made decisions as a team. Two
libraries reported having an Electronic Resources Committee. Whether or not
librarians were on a committee to decide what materials are purchased, it was
reported that librarians play a central role in the selection process at four of
the surveyed libraries. Other libraries report that librarians recommend
resources for purchase, serve on the electronic resources committee, manage the
electronic resources for their liaison area(s), or even have final authority
over which resources are purchased. Teaching faculty play a more minor role in
the selection process. Generally, teaching faculty were involved in recommending
resources and might be consulted for input or consulted when cancellation of a
resource was being considered. Administrators had final say over which resources
were purchased in 6 institutions, but in each case they relied heavily on
librarian input. In one library the administrator provided a considerable amount
of input about the resources, and in another institution the administrator made
decisions independently. Other libraries reported that the administrator played
a minimal or no role in the selection process.
When asked about whether there was a specific set of criteria
used to evaluate resources, three libraries reported that yes, a specific set of
criteria had been developed and was used during the selection process. Nine
libraries reported that they did not use a specific set of criteria for
evaluation. The other reporting libraries had a semblance of a set of criteria,
but nothing was used consistently. Although many libraries did not have a
specific set of criteria, most libraries reported using very similar tools to
evaluate resources. The criteria mentioned were faculty input, reviews from
Choice, The Charleston Advisor, etc., overlap analysis (from Serial Solutions
and others), librarian input, trials, student input, past experience with a
company or product, and which other libraries have or subscribe to that
particular resource. When asked whether the print collection was considered when
evaluating a resource, ten libraries reported that yes, print ownership was a
factor to be considered when evaluating a resource. Three libraries did not
consider this, and the remaining libraries sometimes considered this.
Criteria for canceling resources were similar among most
institutions and included usage statistics, budget, duplication and
dissatisfaction with a resource. It is important to note that three of the
libraries surveyed have not canceled any electronic resources.
Consortia usually play a major role in the selection process.
Some libraries are only able to purchase through consortia or purchase most of
their electronic resources through consortia because of the discounts that are
available. Some libraries request that consortia look at resources they are
interested in, and others use consortia to save on items they would buy anyway.
Consortia are also a way for libraries to learn about what electronic resources
are available.
Several comments received through the surveys were
interesting and informative. Librarians mentioned the need more long-range
planning and a structured committee process for electronic resource collection
development. The need for a checklist of criteria for evaluation was also
mentioned. The time to devote to the creation of such a process and selection
criteria was mentioned as a problem for many librarians. Usage statistics were
also a concern, as some librarians were unsure about how to apply them to a
selection or cancellation process. "How much use is too little use?" was a posed
question.
Overall the results supported our experience of being
overwhelmed by electronic resource collection development and support our belief
that a structured process with consistent selection criteria is necessary.
Discussion
The results confirmed our suspicions that we are not alone in
feeling "e-resource overload." Most of the libraries surveyed do not have a
defined procedure in place for selecting and deselecting eresources. Instead
they make decisions in a reactive way to various e-resource offers or
suggestions. This is very disturbing given the large and growing percentage of
library budgets devoted to ecollections. What follows are some suggestions for
"best practices."
Be Proactive
Librarians need to be proactive in making e-collection
decisions. We recommend keeping abreast of new programs and campus initiatives
at your institution. Start by going to your institution's curriculum committee
or better yet volunteer to serve on it. Similarly, ask department chairs what
new programs or courses they are working on. Its also important to keep
accreditation in mind. The importance of this cannot be understated. As
institutions of higher education come under increasing pressure to be
accountable and profitable, only programs that are accredited will survive.
Develop an E-Collections CD Policy
We highly recommend developing a collection development
policy for e-collections. This can be part of your larger collection development
policy or a stand alone one. The key is to develop one that is in synch with
your institution's mission and goals. Developing this policy demonstrates that
the library is being proactive and also will serve to help the library justify
decisions to cancel a resource or not get something that is requested.
Get Input from All Stakeholders
It surprised us how few librarians engaged faculty and
students in the process. Students and faculty are the reason that we are
purchasing e-resources. Hence it makes sense to include them in the process. Our
suggestion is to determine priorities based on your collection development
policy then contact appropriate faculty with budget guidelines. In this way you
will not get hopes up for e-resources that are out of reach fiscally.
One library had an innovative way to involve students. They
had a student library committee that would evaluate databases on trial. The
students would meet in a library computer lab, use the resource, and submit
comments via an online evaluation form. This input was considered in the
decision making process.
Develop Criteria
Develop specific criteria for adding and cancelling
e-resources. For example, use your overlap analysis tool and develop a cut-off
(e.g. if over 50 percent overlap will not add or will unsubscribe). Make greater
use of usage statistics to justify decisions. In the current economic climate
libraries will be making difficult cancellation decisions. Having the data to
back-up your decision is vital. Do a thorough analysis of what your library is
currently subscribing to and what subject areas are covered. Most likely you
will find areas of overlap.
Conclusion
As the world of information continues its march towards the
electronic format, librarians need to be savvier in how we are handling our
e-collections. Librarians would never consider adding a significant collection
of printed books or journals without a thorough review process. Yet it appears
that we often add electronic content without a rigorous process. This will have
to change. Librarians need to treat e-content like printed content by developing
a set of standards to manage e-collections. The authors plan to expand our
survey by reaching out to a larger group of librarians and ultimately develop a
set of "best practices" as a template for librarians to effectively manage
e-collections.
Works Cited
Vignau, Barbara Susana Sanchez, and Reana Lourdes Presno
Quesada. "Collection Development in a Digital Environment: An Imperative for
Information Organizations in the Twenty-first Century." Collection Building 25.4
(Nov. 2006): 139-144.
Kovacs, Diane K. and Kara L. Robinson. The Kovacs Guide
to Electronic Library Collection Development: Essential Core Subject
Collections, Selection Criteria, and Guidelines. New York: Neal-Schuman
Publishers, 2004.
Gregory, Vicki L. Selecting and Managing Electronic
Resources: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians. New York: Neal-Schuman,
2006.
Robert K. Flatley
Electronic Resources and Periodicals Librarian
Krista Prock
Information Literacy Librarian
Rohrbach Library
Kutztown University
Copyright 2009 University of Idaho Library
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning
All rights reserved.