Search results

Collection development literature has burgeoned over the past decade, yet the complaint is still heard that college libraries are not engaged in meaningful collection development activities. College librarians often consider methods described in published research as too time‐consuming, technologically dependent, or statistically complex to apply to their own situations. How relevant is the literature to the practical needs of the collection developer? In addressing this question, a theoretical overview of collection development is presented, and recent publications reviewed, in terms of their relevance to collection planning, implementation, and evaluation in the small college library.

G. Edward Evans defines “collection development” as “the process of assessing the strengths and weaknesses in a collection, and then creating a plan to correct the weaknesses and maintain the strengths.” He goes on to describe the collection development policy as “the written statement of that plan.…” Many librarians have acknowledged a responsibility to provide documentation of this process in the libraries they serve, yet few have done so. When the flush days of the sixties' Great Society were followed by the information explosion, inflation, and an era of accountability for service‐oriented institutions, the need for collection development policies became more urgent than it had been for decades. While selection of library materials has been of vital professional concern during most of the history of modern librarianship, it is only in the past decade that the preparation of selection or acquisitions policies (the terms have commonly been used interchangeably) and of collection development policies has received concentrated attention in library literature.

Academic librarians are being bombarded with an accelerating stream of news: new services, new public relations, new information formats, new technologies and new catalogs have been introduced during the past 10 to 15 years. Innovations are not always successfully assimilated by large academic libraries and dislocations associated with change in one department often affect the entire library. Coping strategies have been envisioned and even implemented, but usually are grafted onto existing, traditional organizational structures. Therefore, collection development and management in academic libraries is most sensibly addressed in terms of the larger library organization.

Automation represents one of the greatest changes a library can undergo. An automation plan must not only produce an optimum system, but prepare the staff, institution and clientele for far‐reaching change. This change can be accommodated by a functional model consisting of three phases: 1) organization and overview, 2) project expansion, and 3) project consolidation and preparationof the system plan. An educational program is the centerpiece of the process.

Lawrence Clark Powell's words describe the premise of this article:

This research is a 6-year extension of Bernardi's (2005) initial ranking of the top ethics authors in accounting; it also represents a broadening of the scope of the original data into accounting's top-40 journals. While Bernardi only considered publications in business-ethics journals in his initial ranking, we developed a methodology to identify ethics articles in accounting's top-40 journals. The purpose of this research is to provide a more complete list of accounting's ethics authors for use by authors, administrators, and other stakeholders. In this study, 26 business-ethics and accounting's top-40 journals were analyzed for a 23-year period between 1986 through 2008. Our data indicate that 16.8 percent of the 4,680 colleagues with either a PhD or DBA who teach accounting at North American institutions had authored/coauthored one ethics article and only 6.3 percent had authored/coauthored more than one ethics article in the 66 journals we examined. Consequently, 83.2 percent of the PhDs and DBAs in accounting had not authored/coauthored even one ethics article.

Armstrong, a world famous cyclist, was charged with doping in 2012. Subsequent to this news, most of his endorsers terminated their contracts with him. Armstrong had started a foundation called Livestrong (formerly Louis Armstrong Foundation), to support cancer-survivors, which depended heavily on sponsorships received by Armstrong. Despite his resignation, the foundation was fast losing its sponsorships. Armstrong was trying to find a way to reduce negative publicity and save the foundation.