Diversity collection assessment in large academic libraries

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to examine the methods of diversity-related collection assessment useful for large academic libraries. Design/methodology/approach -Several examples of diversity-related collection assessment (circulation and use statistics, WorldCat Collection Analysis, comparison to standard bibliographies, focus groups, patron interviews and surveys, stewardship letters, and a diversity collection development statement) are explored. Findings -Libraries wishing to assess a collection for diversity should have a clear definition of diversity in place before assessment. Many collection assessment methods useful for determining the diversity of a collection are not applicable for large libraries. Additional tools may need to be developed to facilitate this type of assessment in the future, especially at large libraries.Originality/value -The paper encourages librarians at larger academic libraries to rethink how the collections are assessed for diversity needs, and illustrates methods useful in performing this assessment in larger institutions.

National culture and trust in online health information

“…shown the importance of considering cultural factors in the information services of academic libraries to international students (cf. Ball & Mahony, 1987;Ciszek & Young, 2010). The current study categorizes the information sources use of individuals into clusters based on their cultural background.…”

African American Studies Collections and the American Season of Redemption

“…In "Diversity Collection Assessment in Large Academic Libraries," an article Young co-authored with Matthew P. Ciszek four years later, the topic is a great deal more complex. Specifically, they want to know how, in the context of "large multi-branch/multicampus academic library collections," the diversity of collections themselves is effectively assessed (Ciszek & Young, 2010).…”

Benchmarking mechanical engineering collections using the WorldCat Collection Analysis tool

“…A common criticism put forward by many researchers involves the rigid structure of the WCA's conspectus approach rather than the use of a more detailed Library of Congress Classification (e.g., Beals & Gilmour, 2007;Culbertson & Wilde, 2009;Negrucci, 2008;Orcutt & Powell, 2006). Another criticism is the difficulty associated with using WCA for interdisciplinary topics (Ciszek & Young, 2010;Culbertson & Wilde, 2009;Negrucci, 2008). The eight studies found in the literature utilizing WCA for collection analysis indicated that it was a useful resource despite its limitations and problems.…”

“…WCA has been utilized to examine shared holdings for cooperative collection management (Genoni & Wright, 2010), deselection (Ward & Aagard, 2008, and assessment of local collections (Ciszek & Young, 2010;Davis, Day, & Orcutt, 2008); however, it is the ability to compare one's local collection to peer institutions that has been the focus of most studies involving WCA. Spires (2006) utilized WCA to compare the size, age, overlap, and uniqueness of Bradley University's geometry monograph collection to nine peer libraries.…”