An inductive evaluation of a public library GLBT collection

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the overall quality of the Louisville Free Public Library's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender collection. Design/methodology/approach -The study implements an inductive check-list method. Where other check-lists compare a list to the collection, ignoring the number of items which do not appear on the list, an inductive method takes a sample of the entire collection, and compares it with several evaluative lists, demonstrating what percentage of the collection is not considered "desirable" by common evaluative lists. Findings -The results found that 31.9 percent of the LFPL's GLBT collection can be found in the evaluative lists used. Previous inductive evaluations suggest that this number indicates a quality core GLBT collection. Research limitations/implications -A sample collection was chosen using GLBT-related subject headings; however, evidence shows that a portion of the actual GLBT collection (perhaps as much as 37.5 percent) lack appropriate subject access control. This results in a potentially flawed sample. Practical implications -This study provides public librarians with a standard by which they can evaluate their GLBT collections and their library's attempt to meet the needs of a frequently underrepresented minority. Originality/value -Very few inductive evaluations have been published, and almost none has been published studying GLBT collections. The paper attempts to fill that gap, and provide a deeper standard by which GLBT collections can be evaluated.

Diversity collection assessment in large academic libraries

“…One recent example of this type of assessment is Moss's (2008) evaluation of the collections at the Louisville Public Library in the area of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) studies. The assessment was conducted using an alternative means of comparison called the "inductive method".…”

La présence des femmes philosophes dans les collections monographiques des bibliothèques universitaires montréalaises.

“…Bolton (2009) Moss (2008) m'a inspirée à faire l'évaluation par liste, avec la réserve de leur caractère subjectif. Drott (1969), Dennison (2000) et Connaway et Radford (2017) …”

“…si une collection possède les livres séminaux pour les communautés LGBT avec Moss (2008)), soit par représentation sémantique (p. ex. analyse de vedettes-matière et thésaurus avec López-Huertas et de Torres Ramirez (2007)), mais rien n'est par genre.…”

LGBTQIA-R: Creating a Diverse and Inclusive Medical Collection at a Public Metropolitan University

“…University librarians are thought to have more leeway with their collections but they also risk protests from students, faculty, alumni, administrators, and community members. As seen in school and public libraries, librarians can risk backlash from parents, patrons, and administrators by including LGBTQIA-centered material in collections (Brand and Maasch 2017;Hughes-Hassell, Overberg, and Harris 2013;Moss 2008).…”