Nice vs. Necessary: Reference Collections in ARL Member Libraries

Abstract

This study assesses the reference collection management practices and strategies used in the reference departments of academic members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Librarians who participate in the management of the humanities and social science reference collections within ARL member libraries responded to an online survey about collection development policies, acquisition processes, collection use, weeding, and marketing of their reference collections. The results of this survey suggest that a large percentage of academic ARL member libraries are weeding their collections regularly, measuring use of the print and electronic reference collection, and moving decidedly toward electronic reference materials.

Restricted: Increasing Access to the Reference Collection

“…Therefore, even in a collection where the books were not supposed to circulate, immediate access could not be guaranteed. This is consistent with King's [5] study of the ARL member libraries; 20 out of 44 libraries allowed reference items to be borrowed, 15 of which determined loan periods on a case-by-case basis. Another common practice at VGH and SOGH was to suggest that patrons photocopy reference materials instead of borrowing the items, but this was periodically problematic as the desired sections were often large and photocopying created copyright concerns.…”

“…In response, libraries have been evaluating and assessing their collections, and they report that print reference collections are underused [1Á7]. In King's [5] When evaluating use of print reference collections, the reshelving method, which involves recording use of books on a spreadsheet title list, is the most commonly reported [1Á3, 5Á7]. These studies of reference collections have often resulted in major weeding projects [5].…”

“…In King's [5] When evaluating use of print reference collections, the reshelving method, which involves recording use of books on a spreadsheet title list, is the most commonly reported [1Á3, 5Á7]. These studies of reference collections have often resulted in major weeding projects [5]. The University of Alberta Health Sciences Library assessed their reference collection and completed a deselection project in 2011, during which half the collection was merged with their circulating collection.…”

“…Librarians who have evaluated both their print and online reference collections have noted that the use of e-books was significantly higher than their print counterparts, which is another factor that has led some libraries to move most of their reference materials to their circulating collections [5,7]. These trends make print reference collection development increasingly problematic and possibly redundant.…”

The Influence of the Online Availability of USGS Topographic Maps on Weeding Decisions in Academic Libraries

“…The "Carnegie Classifications Data File" (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2012) provided information on the academic institution and Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data (Gorte et al 2012) provided information on a state's federal land ownership. Three published survey results on libraries' weeding of unique formats or materials were used as models for survey development: Abbott and Scherlen (2013) examined the deaccessioning of the NUC in mid-size academic libraries, King (2012) investigated weeding of reference collections in ARL academic libraries, and Keogh (2012) surveyed libraries regarding considerations when deciding to retain or discard microform collections. Building on these successful surveys and using Dillman's (2007) Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Method as a guide, questions were developed to address…”