Potential Collection Development Bias: Some Evidence on a Controversial Topic in California

Right to Read: Asking Questions, Seeking Answers, Challenging Assumptions

“…Patterning this study's criteria after those of Harmeyer (1995), only a single copy of a book on the target list from any publisher and with any type binding had to be found in the OPAC of a library in the investigation for that library to be given credit for owning the book. Based on the standards established by Gies and Polhamus (1974) and Moon (1962), a library had to own at least 50 percent of the YA works on the list to avoid a self-censorship designation.…”

“…A number of studies have confirmed that self-censorship exists for various types of libraries in different regions of the country (Agler 1964;Dillon and Williams 1994;Fiske 1959;Harmeyer 1995;Jenkinson 1994;Kerns and Bly 1987;McClure 1995;McMillan 1987;Vrabel 1997;Woods and Salvatore 1981). However, not all investigations detected the presence of self-censorship (White 1988).…”

“…The Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) union catalog was used to investigate the OPAC contents of California academic and public libraries by Harmeyer (1995). His use of a union catalog to gather data on the collections of several libraries was the first known use of such a method.…”

“…His use of a union catalog to gather data on the collections of several libraries was the first known use of such a method. Following techniques patterned after Harmeyer's (1995) investigation, online searches via the TLC union catalog provided the data for this research. By examining the OPACs of the schools included in the study, it was possible to determine which books on the sample list each school owned.…”

“…Examples of this type of content would include profanity, sexuality (heterosexual, homosexual, and descriptions of sexual activity), religion/witchcraft, violence/horror, rebellion, racism/sexism, substance use/abuse, suicide/death, crime, crude behavior, and depressing/negative tone. Consideration of the number of reviews in criterion two was based on research that indicated that books receiving the greatest number of reviews were more likely to be purchased (Harmeyer 1995;Serebnick 1981). Criteria three, four, and five were relied upon because of the degree of visibility and probable quality each suggested for specific books.…”