Search results

To identify the necessary components in the formulation of collection development policies.

The paper is based on both research about collection development policies and data compiled as a result of a survey of 16 centers of higher and technical education in Cuba.

Although the directors of university libraries and managers of collection development were aware of the process of collection development, few have collection development policies, and few have carried out user studies.

A model for a collection development policy for the system of university libraries is proposed.

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.

Library resources evolve daily with ongoing expansion of electronic offerings by publishers and vendors. Collection development policies have long been employed to guide decision making and inform stakeholders, but how are these policies serving libraries and their users as our collections continue to move online? This paper aims to discuss the role of collection development polices, past and present, and the challenge of collections moving to an electronic format.

The authors performed a content analysis to discover how academic libraries are addressing this change in collection development.

The paper finds that virtually all libraries do an excellent job of addressing the traditional elements of collection development. About half of the libraries mentioned electronic licensing issues in the policy, but most of those were general statements.

Although the library profession is well aware of the changes that electronic resources bring to libraries, there is not a lot of research on how collection development policies should guide electronic resource management. As shown in this research, it is often completely left out of the collection development policy process.

The main purpose of the study is to identify the current status of collection development organizational patterns and to make a comparative analysis of collection development organizational patterns of the four central university libraries of Uttar Pradesh (UP) i.e. Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Allahabad University (ALU) and Baba Bhim Rao Ambedkar University (BBRAU).

A well structured questionnaire was administered to the librarians and acquisitions librarians of the four central university libraries under study.

It has been found that there is a conspicuous difference between the two categories and that the newly centralized universities are lagging far behind the old centralized universities in collection development organizational patterns.

The present study consists only of collection development organizational patterns in central university libraries of UP. The scope of the study can be extended to some more centrally funded universities.

There are a number of studies on collection development organizational patterns in the world, but this is the first of its kind within Indian central universities.

The purpose of the study is to know the collection development and its organizational pattern of university libraries in India.

For the purpose of the study, three sets of questionnaire were prepared by the researcher and furnished to librarians and acquisition librarians (collection development in charge) of these referred libraries.

The survey reveals that the old centralized universities are better placed in terms of all the parameters of collection development. It is also being revealed that there is a difference between the two old centralized and newly centralized universities especially in Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, the de-novo centralized university. It has to do a lot in the sphere of information technology (IT) application and IT-enabled services to the users. Furthermore, there is a conspicuous difference between the two categories that the newly centralized universities are highly lagging behind the old centralized universities in organizational patter of collection development.

There are a number of studies on collection development in the world, but this is the first of its kind within Indian Universities.

The purpose of this study was to find out ways in which collection development practices in private university libraries in Kenya could be enhanced by the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs).

This paper is based on research that was carried out on the application of ICTs in collection development in selected private universities in Kenya. The study was done using a survey method. Three universities and a total of 72 respondents were purposively selected for the study. The respondents included librarians, faculty deans and postgraduate students from the three universities.

The findings indicated that ICTs were available in all the three selected universities but their application in collection development was not adequate in ensuring efficiency and in making sure that the library collections are effective in meeting the needs of the users.

With the changing information environment and users' information needs, libraries are being compelled to adopt ICTs in order to remain relevant and increase their value and meet the changing needs of the users. The paper recommends different ways of applying ICTs in all the processes of collection development to make the process more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of the users.

The author takes a comprehensive look at the accessibility of e-resources for all people, including those with disabilities, in the context of collection development (CD).

Employing a combination of research methodologies — policy analysis, content analysis, and phone survey—the author explores the extent to which the needs of people with disabilities are considered.

Several professional library organizations recommend accessibility-sensitive selection and procurement procedures. However, not all students enrolled in library school programs might learn about the issue. Few books on the subject cover the issue adequately. Nationwide, CD policies requiring conformance to accessibility standards are the exception; and when librarians meet to make decisions about the selection of specific e-resources, the needs of people with disabilities are rarely on their radar screens.

Researchers conducting similar surveys in the future might want to not only select a statistically more representative sample of academic libraries but also widen their focus and include both accessibility and usability in their investigations.

Textbook authors and course instructors in the area of CD need to address accessibility and usability. Librarians need to raise the issue with database and e-book vendors during license negotiations.

The acquisition of e-resources designed to be accessible and usable for all will enable people with disabilities to participate more fully in our information-driven society.

The data collected provide for a broad discussion of the extent to which the needs of people with disabilities are considered in connection with CD.

Discusses fundamental problems encountered at the Kenya Polytechnic Library in collection development, particularly the problems of inadequate funding, lack of collection development policy and those associated with foreign purchases. Highlights the various factors which librarians at the polytechnic ought to consider in order to realize brighter collection development prospects. These factors include the formulation of suitable collection development policy, the organization of gifts and exchange practices and participation in resource‐sharing programmes with other national polytechnics and universities. Suggests an introduction of library development levy and also the practice of collection weeding.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot of some major collections-related trends and issues in current academic libraries today. These include using collection development policies; demand-driven acquisition (DDA) models; big deals; using the collections budget; rationalizing legacy print collections; stewarding local digital collections; and demonstrating value.

A web survey was developed and sent to 20 academic librarians via e-mail during the summer of 2016, along with a statement on the purpose of the study.

The findings are as follows: the collections budget is used to fund many costs other than content (such as memberships and MARC records); most libraries are experimenting with DDA in one form or another; most libraries financially support open access investments; most libraries participate in at least one collaborative print rationalization project; and libraries have diverse methods of demonstrating value to their institutions.

This was a very selective survey of North American academic libraries. Therefore, these findings are not necessarily valid on a broader scale.

Within the limitations above, the results provide librarians and others with an overview of current practices and trends related to key issues affecting collection development and management in North America.

These results are quite current and will enable academic librarians engaged in collection development and management to compare their current policies and practices with what is presented here. The results provide a current snapshot of the ways in which selected libraries are coping with transformative challenges and a rapidly changing environment.

Reviews the established arguments for writing collection development policies, focusing on selection, planning, public relations and co‐operation. Identifies various practical and theoretical drawbacks, and illustrates these with examples from library literature. Concludes that a more flexible approach is needed in order to reflect the changing environments of publishing, library selection and acquisition.