Search results

The RLG (Research Libraries Group) conspectus was developed in 1980 by the Collection Management and Development Committee of the Research Libraries Group. The committee was comprised of one representative from each full and associate RLG member institution. David H. Stam served as Chairman of the committee and Paul Mosher served as Vice‐Chairman. Anticipating the challenges of acquisitions budgeting in a period of inflationary pricing for library materials, the committee worked to identify a methodology in which RLG member libraries could better coordinate the growth and management of their collections. The result was the development of the RLG conspectus.

Resource sharing or cooperative collection development among American libraries is not new; history reveals waves of cooperative spirit over many decades. Librarians in the United States—at least since librarianship became a serious professional enterprise around the turn of the century—have exhibited a democratic altruism about information and its distribution that has resulted in the world's richest and most extensive library collections and a tradition of library service unmatched anywhere else on the globe. Cooperative collection development in one guise or another has long been a part of both that spirit and that enterprise.

A prominent field of research in Library Science during the past thirty years has been collection assessment of college and university libraries. No other subject has received the attention in library literature as has the question of how to evaluate a collection to determine whether it adequately supports the goals, curriculum, and needs of the sponsoring organization. Collection assessment has also attracted more interest from scholars outside the library profession than any other aspect of librarianship. Research in this area should be of value to collection development personnel in all college and university libraries.

Among many unflattering characterizations of librarians is the one that accuses us of wishing to keep our collections neat, clean and in proper order on the shelves. That is, not being used. This is a half‐true, if exaggerated, statement. As rational professionals, librarians realize that if a collection is well used it is not always in order and available, or else the collection is not as good as it should be. Control—knowing where an item is, who has it—is the goal librarians strive to achieve, rather than maintaining every item in its place.

This essay is offered as advice to those who contemplate becoming or have recently become bibliographers. I begin with the admonition that neither users' studies, statistical analyses, nor approval plans compensate for a lack of knowledge of disciplinary research interests and bibliographic structure. In the final analysis, the best bibliographers are scholars. They keep current with a discipline's investigations and monitor its evolution. Even if they are unable to engage in detailed discourse on the more esoteric subjects its practitioners study, they understand its topography. That is, they possess a “feel” for what students in a given field find interesting, they understand its epistemology, know its publication trends and favored formats, and have a fine reference librarian's ability to use its bibliographic apparatus.

Collection development literature has burgeoned over the past decade, yet the complaint is still heard that college libraries are not engaged in meaningful collection development activities. College librarians often consider methods described in published research as too time‐consuming, technologically dependent, or statistically complex to apply to their own situations. How relevant is the literature to the practical needs of the collection developer? In addressing this question, a theoretical overview of collection development is presented, and recent publications reviewed, in terms of their relevance to collection planning, implementation, and evaluation in the small college library.

The one component of collection development most difficult for librarians is the evaluation of the collection. Various methods can be employed to evaluate the collection including statistical analysis, list checking, user opinions, direct observation, and applying standards. All of these methods have strengths and weaknesses, and numerous opinions exist on the value of each method. However, almost all experts agree that libraries need to invest a great deal of time, staff, and budget for any evaluation to be considered valuable. The process becomes even more complex when evaluating interdisciplinary areas such as women's studies. Collection development issues for women's studies has been well covered in the literature, but very little exists on the evaluation of women's studies collections. This article will discuss one method for collection evaluation, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) Conspectus, and outline the process of using the Conspectus to evaluate the women's studies collection at the Pennsylvania State University Libraries. Given the importance of information needs for diversity materials and the number of librarians who select women's studies materials among their many other responsibilities, this information will be valuable for all librarians engaged in interdisciplinary collection development in both public and academic libraries.

Since its inception in 1982, the tasks of the Alaska Collection Development project have changed as technology and our understanding of the process evolved and grew, but the goal has never varied. We strive to become more effective stewards of our limited library and information resources.