Search results

The most widely used method of qualitatively evaluating a library's collections is the list‐checking method, a process in which the library's holdings are compared with one or more lists of selected titles. The types of lists commonly used are published, standardized lists representing core or basic collections, catalogs of other libraries, or specialized subject bibliographies. The literature on this method of collection evaluation is extensive, dating back to the 1930s; covering the types of lists used for evaluations, the advantages and disadvantages of using such a method, and the various ways of implementing this type of evaluation.

A survey was conducted among academic and special libraries to determine the extent to which these libraries have discontinued subscriptions to printed abstracting and indexing services as a result of the accessibility of equivalent databases online. Significant levels of cancellation were reported by libraries of all types. However, decisions to discontinue were only partly influenced by online access in some libraries and not at all influenced by online access in some others. It appears that online access has so far had only a relatively small effect on cancellation decisions. Some barriers to a more widespread migration to online access are identified. A noteworthy finding is that new libraries tend to move directly into electronic access on demand without ever going through the print on paper phase. A great accelerated level of migration is predicted for the next five to ten years.

Staff training is an important function in many libraries because it can increase staff competence, effectiveness and morale. For a variety of reasons, including government encouragement, desire to maximise the use of staff resources, and to enable coverage of areas of expertise not available in all libraries, some groups of librarians have found it profitable to undertake training co‐operatively. A number of schemes were set up in the 1970s. As with many co‐operative ventures, there have been successes and disappointments but it has nevertheless been possible to attain a better general standard of training at less cost per trainee.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the overall quality of the Louisville Free Public Library's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender collection.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.