Generating Knowledge: The Power of Academic Libraries

Starts May 9 at 4 p.m. and ends May 10 at 4 p.m.

WHAT IS NEW and special about preconferences this year? First, your $35 registration fee enables you to go to as many preconferences as you wish. That ís right-- $35 covers registration for one, two, or even three sessions! Second, enjoy a special catered dinner Thursday night with other attendees in a relaxed and intimate dining setting at Asilomar. Third, enjoy Thursday nightís special audience-participation theater performance produced by Dave Tyckoson (CSU Fresno), "Reference Desk Live!"

THURSDAY 4-7 pm

Collection Analysis in an E-World
Location: Nautilus
Sponsored by the Collection Development Interest Group

HOW DO YOU select, deselect and evaluate electronic resources ? How do you assess the use of electronic journals and books by your patrons? How do you build an e-book collection? How do you update your collection development policies to reflect the new digital environment? This pre-conference program will address all these issues and more. In the first part of the program, Cecily Johns, UCSB, will report on the Collection Management Initiative, a UC-wide research project studying the use of electronic journals by scholars and exploring how libraries can integrate collections of journals in both print and digital formats. The second part of the program will be a panel discussion on the theme "Building an E-Book Collection". Our three panelists are Locke Morrisey, USF, representative of the SCELC Consortium; Dave Tyckoson, CSU Fresno, Chair of the SCU E-Book Program, and Roberto Esteves, San Francisco Public Library. There will be ample time for questions and answers after each part of the program.

Speakers:
Cecily Johns, UC Santa Barbara
Locke Morrisey, University of San Francisco
Dave Tyckoson, CSU Fresno
Roberto Esteves, San Francisco Public Library

Moderator: Lorrita Ford, Diablo Valley College

SUMMARY


THIS PRE-CONFERENCE program sponsored by the CARL Collection Development Interest Group North (Helene Lafrance, Santa Clara University, Chair) was well attended. The first half of the Program dealt with electronic serials while the second half dealt with electronic monographs.
In the first half of the program, Cecily Johns, Associate University Librarian, UC Santa Barbara, presented an overview of the UC system-wide "Collection Management Initiative," details of which can be found at: http://www.ucop.edu/cmi. This twelve-month collection development project, sponsored by the institutions Mellon Foundation, is looking at the effect on usage, costs and user attitudes / behavior of relying solely on electronic access to periodicals. Although they are many months from completing this study, which involves 300 periodical titles, Cecily indicated that, depending on the results, in the future print periodicals may not be available at each UC campus but almost certainly a print collection will be maintained at one or more locations to serve as a backup to the electronic collection. Watch for forthcoming articles on this very important study.
The second half of the Pre-Conference, "Building an E-Book Collection,² dealt with the collection development of electronic monographs. The format was a panel discussion followed by questions and answers. The three person panel consisted of Librarians heading- up collection development programs heavily involved in the acquisition of e-books: Locke Morrisey, Head of Collections, Reference and Research Services, Gleeson Library / Geschke Center, University of San Francisco; Dave Tyckoson, Head, Reference Department, Henry Madden Library, CSU Fresno, and; Roberto Esteves, Chief of Information Resources, San Francisco Public Library. Locke described in considerable detail the process of building the SCELC (Southern California Electronic Library Consortium) e-book collection and developing policies for pricing, selection, access and weeding of e-books. Dave described the e-book collection development efforts at CSU Fresno and presented a very useful e-book cost analysis. Roberto described the e-book collection development efforts of the Golden Gateway Library Network ­ a mainly San Francisco Bay Area consortium of mainly public libraries - and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of e-books versus print on paper books. All three panelists agreed that entering MARC records for e-books into the catalog was a critical factor in e-book usage ­ usage was much higher when cataloging records for e-books are available in the OPAC. There were many questions put to the panelists during the question and answer period following the panel discussion and a number of participants commented that they were disappointed that there was not more time for questions and answers. Overall, the conference was given an extremely positive evaluation.
A very useful handout of "Web Sites of Guidelines, Criteria, and Principles for Selection of Electronic Resources² was given out at the pre-conference and all of the web sites on this list are given below:

International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC)
http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement.html
http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/webstats.html
http://www.calstate.edu/seir/principles.shtml
http://www.calstate.edu/SEIR/ccCoreColl.shtml


Santa Rosa Junior College
http://www.santarosa.edu/~kathy/ccl-ear/eval.shtml

University of California
http://sunsite.Berkeley.EDU/Info/principles.html
http://sunsite.Berkeley.EDU/Admin/collection.html

University of Arizona
http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/library/teams/iat/ elecpub.htm

National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage
http://www.ninch.org/programs/practice/index.html

Association of Research Libraries
http://www.arl.org/scomm/licensing/principles.html

Anthony Raymond, Santa Clara U





Tutorial on Tutorials - How to Navigate the Treacherous Waters of Online Tutorial Development
Location:Triton
Sponsored by the Academic Business Librarians Exchange (ABLE) Interest Group North and South

WE'VE ALL SEEN the need for more effective tutorials to assist our users, but many of us have managed to restrain our immediate desire to dive in. In this session you will explore the development of tutorials from the ground up and all of the implications that they hold for your organization. This practical approach to tutorials on all topics will give you the confidence to begin that project you've been putting off and will provide you will the information you need to make the case for your project within your organization. From that inspirational idea, through the development process and finally the roll-out of your tutorial, you will gain welcome insights and contacts at this special preconference session.

Speakers:
Patrick Sullivan - Instruction Coordinator, San Diego State University (moderator/speaker)
Paul Adalian - Incoming Library Director of CSU Channel Islands and Assistant Dean for Information & Instruction, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Susan Tschabrun - Reference & Instruction Librarian, CSU Fullerton

SUMMARY


PATRICK SULLIVAN (San Diego Satate) recommended that one first define the problem that the tutorial is meant to explain. Checking out alternative solutions and examining similar projects should follow. After the tutorial is developed, it will need to be evaluated to verify its effectiveness. He suggested checking out the "Data Game" site at Colorado State (http://manta.library. colostate.edu/datagame/) and TILT, the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial, at http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu/. He also recommends Nancy Dewald's article "Web-based library instruction: What is good pedagogy?", in Information Technology And Libraries, 18 no. 1 (March 1999):26-31.
Paul Adalian reviewed concepts that underlie the development of online tutorials. His entertaining presentation noted how challenging it can be to develop instructional materials when students' perceptions of assignments and their subsequent interpretation of the type of research needed may vary widely.
Susan Tschabrun (CSU Fullerton) cited "The Historian's Toolbox," www.lib.csusb.edu/history/, as an interesting example of online tutorials. She asked the audience to consider, what is active learning, and whether web tutorials meet the criteria for active learning. She also recommends: recycle to leverage your investment in interactivity; think modular; match the skill or competency to the appropriate learning modality; maximize human connectivity whenever possible; The library can't do it all; connect to the department you're working with if possible, to be part of the big picture.

Cynthia Jahns, UC Santa Cruz California State University

FRIDAY Morning 9 am - 12 noon

Meeting the Challenge: Implementing Information Competency as a Requirement
Location: Nautilus
Sponsored by the Community College Interest Group (CCIG) North

(9am-11:45am: Program; 11:45-12pm: CCIG North Business Meeting)

INFORMATION COMPETENCY is on the fast track to becoming a requirement at community colleges throughout California. Since the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recommended to the Board of Governors that information competency be a locally designed graduation requirement for degree and Chancellor's Office approved certificate programs (April 2001), librarians, in concert with classroom faculty and college administrators, have begun earnestly to plan for implementation of IC requirement at their campuses. At this program you'll learn about:

  • the proposed changes to the Education Code (Title V) which would mandate information competency requirement at every community college statewide
  • implementation models: how colleges are implementing an IC requirement (course-integrated library IC classes/workshops; integration of IC into GE curriculum; stand alone library courses, etc.)
  • assessing information competency: regional collaboration

Speakers include:
Micca Gray, Santa Rosa Junior College
Andy Kivel, Diablo Valley College
Bonnie Gratch Lindauer, City College of San Francisco
Topsy Smalley, Cabrillo College

Moderator: Brian Lym, City College of San Francisco

SUMMARY


INFORMATION COMPETENCY (IC) may soon be a requirement for an associate degree in the community college system. A proposal to mandate IC will be presented to the Chancellor's Office Board of Governors for approval this summer. An update on the proposed changes to the California Code of Regulations, implementation models, and a new assessment tool were discussed at the pre-conference session organized by the Community College Interest Group North and moderated by Brian Lym of City College of San Francisco.
The process to establish IC as a graduation and certificate requirement has been underway since 1996. The proposal would insert new language into Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations which would define information competency, amend the community college general education philosophy to include IC, and add it to the minimum requirements for the associate degree and certificate of achievement. The method by which colleges implement the new requirements would be determined locally, or by the curriculum committees at each of the 108 community colleges. A statewide Academic Senate taskforce is preparing a best practices paper on implementation models to help guide colleges in developing IC programs. Methods being discussed include stand-alone courses or co-requisites, integration across the curriculum, and course-related library/IC classes or workshops.
Andy Kivel, Diablo Valley College, reviewed the latest developments occurring at the state level. In April the Chancellor's Office Consultation Council recommended that information competency be required for completion of an associate degree. However, the clause which required information competency for completion of certificate programs was tabled for additional review. The recommendation will be presented to the Board of Governors for action this July. For more information, see the April 2, 2002, Consultation Digest "Title 5 Regulations on Information Competency" which details the issue's background and proposed changes to the education code. (check http://www.topsy.org for a link)
Kivel and Micca Gray, Santa Rosa Junior College, spoke about campus-wide planning efforts that led to a 1-unit IC graduation requirement at their respective institutions. Issues they discussed included: creating a campus taskforce to define IC and describe learning outcomes; preparing the catalog statement; Board of Trustee approval; developing model courses and how libraries can generate FTE; and the need for an assessment tool and challenge mechanism for students to "test-out."
Topsy Smalley, Cabrillo College, discussed course-related instruction as a means of integrating information age skills across the curriculum. In this model, librarians partner with faculty to create assignments which incorporate library, technology and critical thinking skills. Library assignments use electronic message boards, evaluate web sources, use print and/or online resources, and require critical thinking, writing skills, and MLA formatting. Sample assignments are available at Topsy's website (http://www.topsy.org).
Bonnie Gratch Lindauer, City College of San Francisco, described the development and field-testing of an IC proficiency exam designed for adaptation and use by community colleges. The exam will be a valuable resource as an assessment tool or challenge-out test. It combines cognitive and performance-based questions which were developed using the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) IC standards, performance indicators and outcomes. The project is a collaborative effort by Bay Area community college librarians and is the recipient of a CARL Research Award.

Leslie Huiner, Victor Community College





Finding Statistical Data: From '101' to Ph.D.
Location: Scripps
Sponsored by the Government Information and Publications Interest Group (GIGIP) South

JOIN US FOR this broad overview of finding statistics. This preconference will survey the range of available data, with a focus on data gathered or compiled by governments, which are the world's largest statistical publishers. We will include an overview of strategies and sources for finding published statistics. We'll review strategies for the both the librarian with little previous experience in finding statistical data, and the librarian working with limited resources (perhaps only an Internet connection). We'll also discuss advanced resources and techniques, including a survey of key collections, indexes, and databases for statistical data. Included will be discussion of working with 'raw', unpublished data, as well as a demonstration of "Counting California," the new, online compendium of California-themed data.

Speakers:
Patricia Cruse, Manager of Government Information Initiatives, California Digital Library
Eric Forte, Social Sciences Librarian, University of California, Santa Barbara
Jim Jacobs, Data Services Librarian, University of California, San Diego

SUMMARY


ERIC FORTE opened this lively and informative preconference with "Statistics 101" by providing the audience with the history and context of social, political and economic statistical information in the United States. With an understanding of major statistics gathering efforts of governments, organizations, and independent researchers, Forte explained, librarians would be in a better position to conduct good statistical reference interviews. Reviewing the utility of basic sources such as the Statistical Abstract of the United States, as well as freely available and commercial web products such as FEDSTATS and Statistical Universe, Forte also highlighted key federal statistical agencies and provided examples of questions various products and services would address. Finally, Forte surveyed sources and agencies for California and international statistics. His extensive selected bibliography offered participants a wealth of additional sources of published statistics, both print and online, from general finding aids to subject specific sources in business and economics, crime, health, education and the environment.
Next, Patricia Cruse wowed the audience with an update of Counting California, the California Digital Library's electronic solution to stable, comprehensive and easy to access statistical information about California. Cruse explained that the objectives of Counting California are to "provide flexible, predictable, user-friendly access; to guarantee persistent access and to use digital content to create tools and services to meet our community needs." Counting California integrates data from both state and federal agencies, and provides the user with multiple entry points into the information, including topic, geography, title, agency and full-text search. The data delivery is also "user-focused," Cruse explained, with a standard, uniform display. Extensive user testing and surveys helped to inform the design of the Counting California homepage, which is neither "scary" nor overly academic in look and feel. From the opening screen, users have access to the full functionality of the product. Cruse also showed examples of search and browse output, demonstrating how the information can be manipulated and understood by users, and featured forthcoming functionality to a highly receptive audience, including new geography (zip codes, congressional districts and census tracts). Educational materials for Counting California, including PowerPoint presentations and sample questions, are available from Patricia Cruse, patricia.cruse@ucop.edu.
Finally, Jim Jacobs wrapped up with a presentation on finding statistical data. When user needs are not met through a published statistical source, librarians might need to find social science data, which Jacobs defined as the "raw material out of which social and economic statistics are produced." Like Forte, Jacobs framed his opening remarks around the reference interview, presenting a flow chart to show the potential paths of a statistical question. Does the patron want one number? Are they pursuing a fact or figure? Can the question be resolved by a published print or online ready reference source? If not, the patron likely needs computer-readable data. Jacobs showed slides of computer-readable data, from its originally collected format (answers to survey questions) through the process of making responses anonymous and converting text to numeric codes. In order to work with data, researchers will need the datafile (raw numbers), a codebook to understand where the numbers are and what they mean, and statistical software for reading and analyzing the data. In contrast to a spreadsheet program, which handles small files and has a cell orientation, statistical software reads large numerical files and has a row and column orientation. With the proper software, users describe the data layout and write commands to analyze the data. Jacobs discussed the importance of establishing a service model for reference regarding data. Librarians can help patrons locate data, but will not get involved in its analysis. Successfully locating data will depend on the outcome of the reference interview by defining the unit of analysis, time period, geographic coverage, etc. librarians can help identify possible sources, be they government, private or individual researcher. Jacobs concluded by reviewing sources for finding data, including standard statistical sources ("where there's there's data?"), specialized guides, government agencies, and data libraries and archives on the web.

Judy Ruttenberg, UC Irvine

FRIDAY Afternoon 1 -4 pm

The Myths and Realities of Virtual Reference Services in Academic and Research Libraries
Location: Nautilus
Sponsored by the California Academic Reference Librarians Discussion Interest Group (CARLDIG) South

DOES YOUR library offer "virtual" or "electronic" reference? Or are you planning to offer it, but wonder how to start? Or maybe you're offering an email-based service and want to expand it? Now what?? Speakers will give presentations and lead discussions about the current state of virtual reference services in California academic libraries. Topics include: how librarians are implementing services, policies, and standards; staffing and training issues; marketing; integrating virtual services into existing electronic reference service models; and the use of virtual reference as an instructional tool for both individualized and group instruction.

Speakers:
Charity B. Hope, San Jose State University
Alice Kawakami, University of California, Los Angeles
Lynn Lampert, CSU Northridge
Susan McGlamery, Metropolitan Cooperative Library System, Los Angeles County
Christina A. Peterson, San Jose State University
Heather Tunender, UC Irvine

SUMMARY


ORGANIZED BY CARLDIG-South. Virtual Reference (VR), in particular, Live Chat Reference (LCR), is a hot topic. If you're a librarian and haven't heard of VR, I suspect you're one of those catalogers Will Manley is so fond of lampooning. VR is so hot, in fact, that as I write this CARL pre-conference program summary I'm multitasking by staffing my own library's chat reference service (although the librarian sitting next to me at this program pointed out that technically you're not multitasking if you're only working on one thing at a time. So I guess maybe I'm multi-windowing?) Many of us, including myself and my new pre-conference friend I'll call "Bob² (that was his name), are fairly familiar with this topic; however, we must be craving more information, because along with over 50 other participants, we attended a 3-hour session on VR organized by CARLDIG-South featuring five guest speakers. You have to remember that this was on a gorgeous, sunny day just yards from the beaches of Monterey Bay, so you can see how dedicated we were.
Dedicated or not, CARLDIG-S most likely anticipated our potential for distraction at Asilomar, and this may account for their choice of fluorescent green for the detailed and up-to-date list of suggested readings they prepared for us. I say up-to-date because one of the cited articles, "Digital discomfort? 'Get over it,'" says McLure is from the May 2002 American Libraries, which I received on the Monday following the conference! The reading list includes citations to 53 articles, many written by the "biggies" in VR, such as Susan McGlamery (one of our pre-conference speakers), Bernie Sloan, Steve Coffman and Diane Kresh. Copies can most likely be obtained by contacting Lynn Lampert of CSU Northridge who chaired the organizing committee for this program.
Bob and I settled as best we could into our folding chairs, eager to learn more about the "myths and realities" of VR related to the focus of the program, applicability and feasibility of VR in academe. Our kick off speaker, however, was Susan McGlamery, project director of the 24/7 Reference Project and Coordinator for Reference Services for the MCLS consortia in southern California, which is primarily composed of public libraries. Using a snazzy Flash piece, she demonstrated the 24/7 software used by the MCLS consortia, highlighting some of its main features. McGlamery's JD degree came in handy as she anticipated debate from the audience that such a "question and answer" service could not possibly have any relevance to academic libraries. She asserted that the 24/7 software has instructional potential appropriate to the mission of academic libraries. She also cited that between the hours of 12-5 am, her chat service receives a high number of questions from academic students, demonstrating a need for such a service in higher education. Addressing a potential myth of LCR, McGlamery stressed the consortial benefits of this service by stating that "no one library can expect to provide 24/7 service. As a cooperative, however, this is possible.² She addressed another myth when she commented on librarians' expectations that all questions can be answered using LCR. According to her estimates, "95% of our patrons are willing to wait for an answer later. The thing that's important is that there is someone there to actually take the question in the first place." She added that 35% of their questions have some sort of off-line follow-up.
The second speaker, Alice Kawakami from UCLA, focused on the realities of chat reference in an academic setting by summarizing the 2002 winter quarter statistics of the UCLA chat reference initiative. She revealed that their service received 120 questions, 38% of which were "library technical." Server hits on their web icon show that the 4:00 pm hour was the most heavily hit hour, and Wednesdays were the most heavily hit day, regardless of whether the service was open or not. On average, most of the questions were received during normal working hours, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. 70% of their questions originated from their central library web site. Kawakami segued this last statistic into a discussion of the icon used to advertise their service. Her statistics suggest a correlation between the visibilities of the icon, citing that when the library redesigned their web page, the chat reference icon was removed and chat statistics subsequently went down. When the icon was reinstated, the stats went up. Advertising and visibility appear to be keys to increasing use of the service. An innovative approach they have employed is distributing zipper pulls with the URL for the service. (The zipper pulls can be attached to backpacks and jackets.) Speaking to some of the librarian fears regarding chat reference, Kawakami mirrored one of McGlamery's comments by concurring that "It's ok to refer questions. We do this [all the time] at the reference desk."
A welcome break ensued, giving Bob and I time to recirculate the blood back to our posteriors as well as chat about what we'd just heard. We both agreed that McGlamery glossed over the issue of co-browsing proprietary databases when she stated that it's simply a matter of a patron typing in their user ID. We use IP authentication on both of our campuses, which in theory is great, but in reality can present problems. Bob also commented that he had tested chat reference as a patron and found the librarian's response to his question to be less than friendly. This brings up issues of best reference practices and training.
Our post-break speaker, Heather Tunender from UCI, must have been reading our minds as her PowerPoint presentation addressed four main themes: 1) training 2) the history of electronic reference services at UCI, 3) LCR pilot project statistics during the fall, winter and spring 2001-2202 quarters, and 4) marketing of the service. Several tidbits of information stood out in her presentation. For example, four years worth of data revealed that 10 am to 6 pm was the busiest time frame for receiving reference e-mail questions. E-mail reference questions increased during each of those 4-years, but increased significantly the final year when the LCR project was initiated. (780 e-mail questions were received in 2000- 2001, compared to 1047 questions for 2001-2002 through April.) The day UCI instituted a new, animated icon of a man tapping his foot their service received and increase in calls. Their LCR service receives a much higher percentage of questions from affiliated users than their e-mail service, 90% vs. 68%. Successful marketing has included the icon as well as word of mouth at the reference desk. Less successful efforts were posters, ads in the student newspaper, and dedicated hours geared towards a specific user base (graduate school of management.) Tunender stressed that it is important to establish guidelines for service, including service levels. They will answer questions from anyone, but depending on the patron's affiliation, they will get a different level of service. (This is pretty much standard reference desk policy at most academic libraries.) They train their librarians to first answer e-mail reference questions, and then move them to the chat service. Tunender concluded by addressing a fear common among librarians--the added workload involving LCR. It is her belief the LCR does not need to be an extra burden, and in fact can be used to ease a librarians workload.
Sufficient time was not available for Tunender to expand on the workload issue. However, workload seemed to be one of several issues thoughtfully considered by the final speakers of the program. Charity Hope and Tina Peterson tag teamed us with a PowerPoint presentation heavily weighted in theory and preparation for a LCR service rather than actual application of such a service. They do not offer a LCR service at CSU San Jose, although several of their librarians participate in the Bay Area's Q&A Cafe chat reference service, which is open to the public. At San Jose State, they intend to focus on using chat software to meet the needs of instruction rather than reference. Their presentation focused on issues they have considered in relation to implementation, such as how the software can meet instructional needs including those of active learning, the learning environment created by the software, how various learning styles can be accommodated, theoretical instructional issues, their objectives for student outcomes, and workload issues. While not as engaging as the previous presentations, their focus on instruction as opposed to reference posed unique ideas for instruction librarians to consider, and presents a niche for this service that has not often been discussed in the literature or at conferences. Their future plans include implementing instruction by appointment during the summer of 2002, and integration of group virtual instruction and instruction by appoint into distance Occupation Therapy masters programs and other selected courses in the fall 2002 semester.

Kris Johnson, CSU Chico





Collection Refinement: The Ultimate Euphemism
Location: Scripps
Sponsored by the California State University Librarians (CSUL) Interest Group North and South

NEW TECHNOLOGY has yet to save us from the need for the old-time task formerly known as weeding. Join us as we take a practical, nuts-and-bolts look at how it is done. We will explore policies, planning, goal-setting, decision-making, getting faculty agreement/participation/involvement, using collective cataloging arrangements, using the OPAC to generate lists of candidates for weeding, de-cataloging, and the disposition of weeded materials.

Speakers:
Scott Breivold, Media Services Librarian, California State University, Los Angeles
Kelly Janousek, Librarian, California State University, Long Beach
Myoung-ja Lee Kwon, University Librarian, California State University, Hayward
Jennifer Laherty, Instructional and Interpretive Services Librarian, California State University, Hayward
Andrew Schroyer, Serials Specialist at CSU-LA, California State University, Los Angeles
Diana Wu, Reference Librarian, San Jose State University

Moderator: Barbara Quarton, Reference Librarian, CSU, San Bernardino

SUMMARY


EACH OF THE libraries represented has recently undertaken one or more weeding projects. Their specific steps differed, but the issues raised were universal. Here are the main issues with bulleted points on strategies different libraries used to address these issues:

Perception of weeding as tedious and unrewarding must be overcome. Examples of how different libraries dealt with this: by holding workshops for librarians, disseminating information on the necessity of weeding and distributing guidelines formulated by the Collection Development and Management Committee of the Library; by creating a Calendar which ensured that tasks were performed in the correct order; by sending information out from the Library to the entire Campus to create "buy-in² for the process; by establishing career development incentives. Librarians knew that the criteria for evaluation / retention / promotion would reward time spent weeding; providing informal "fun² rewards which kept morale high. These included pizza parties when landmark goals were met. Entry was granted to those who had filled a booktruck with materials to weed. At these parties librarians shared information about "treasures from the stacks² (interesting books found while weeding).

Technology is our friend. If it is possible for librarians to use the OPAC to run lists of materials that match a given criteria, providing training workshops in what data is available and the mechanics of how to run a list will be useful; Circulation statistics by LC class are helpful; A fairly effective first pass through the collection can be done by having the system identify duplicate copies with low circulation.

Not all weeding decisions are based on usage statistics. Other candidates for deselection include:
publications containing outdated or superseded information or information which is no longer accurate

items which would require extensive preservation efforts and which are not deemed unique enough to warrant such efforts

materials in an outdated format. (Example: Beta videorecordings of a production could be weeded or replaced with DVDs of the same production)

materials duplicated in other stable formats. (JSTOR was generally regarded as a stable journals database)

earlier editions which are not historically significant

items originally purchased to support discontinued programs. These must be evaluated in terms of historical research value, interest to researchers in current programs, and the basic informational needs of the community

short runs of serials

serials with runs that have many gaps; serials with no usable index. (Watch out, bibliographic records are not accurate in listing where a serial is indexed)

biased materials. Note: When weeding media collections one must be especially sensitive to issues of bias because of the strong emotional impact of media.

Involvement of campus instructional faculty is necessary.
Library Administration or individual librarians should keep faculty informed of the purpose, scope and even the weeding criteria.

If faculty will not participate they should at least be consulted in the process. Some steps in which librarians can ask for participation: 1. affirmation of a written deselection policy, 2. creation of criteria for running a list, 3. review of a list of titles that meet deselection criteria (pre-librarian evaluation of the list), 4. review of a list of titles the librarian has chosen for possible deselection, 5. review of collection in the stacks (with faculty given flags to identify books for deselection), 6. review of flagged collection (where faculty can annotate existing flags with recommendations), 7. final review of books about to be deaccessioned.

Goals (i.e. reasons) for weeding need to be clearly articulated. Some listed by the panelists were: 1. To provide space for new acquisitions. 2. To protect collection integrity. 3. To maintain curricular focus. 4. To improve effectiveness of browsing the collection. 5. To discard materials that are obsolete and that are no longer valid. 6. To alleviate the problem of stack space encroaching on user space, (Note: technology increases the required space per user.) 7. To have a positive impact on the quality, strength and utility of the collection.

Administrative support is essential.
At one university a central Collection Management and Development Committee provided each bibliographer with an outline to facilitate the task of preparing a short (1-2 pg.) document on the weeding principles for each individual subject area.

Weeding is labor intensive and some of that labor can be relatively unskilled. Student workers can pull items from shelves, fill out paperwork, etc.

Coordination with the Technical Services Dept.. is necessary so that records for weeded materials are removed from the catalog, holdings stripped from OCLC, union catalogs updated, etc. expeditiously;

Presenting a resolution to the Academic Senate (Faculty Governance of University) which was then proposed and passed kept faculty informed of the project and of the necessity of weeding the collection. This, coupled with the broad dissemination of information on the necessity of weeding helped curb faculty concerns over "getting rid of books²

Before you begin make sure that you are adequately staffed for the project.

You'll be surprised at some of what you find (and don't find) in your stacks.
Real gems were found in the stacks and in some cases, moved to Special Collections.

Much of what had not circulated for five years was missing.

Other:
Consider "pruning instead of weeding.² Re-examine any plan that brings in materials without individual orders, such as item selection profiles for government documents or approval plans, and reduce the volume of incoming materials by altering the selection profile

Think about how you would help a patron who needs to use the discarded material. Could it be Interlibrary Loaned? Would access have to be purchased? Who is responsible for retaining the "last copy² of a work so that it remains possible to access it?

The Process:
California State University, Long Beach
Collection Development and Management committee defined policy and wrote guidelines.

Librarians (subject bibliographers) attended workshops.

OPAC used to generate lists of format duplications and non-circulating titles.

Students pulled items from those lists (and wrote up cards for those not found on shelves) and librarians evaluated them from carts at the Reference Desk.

San Jose State University
The University Library Board created a profile form which listed the criteria to identify candidates for deselection.

The profile form was distributed to Academic Deans to be reviewed, signed, and returned (there was a deadline).

Criteria from the profile form was used to generate a list of titles, which was then sent to the appropriate academic department(s).


Liaisons and others in department reviewed the list, writing "keep² next to titles to be retained.

List sent on to each academic department with a stake in that LC class.


Library Head of Collections last to review list. € Weeding team pulled books not designated as "keep.² € Books placed on discard shelves for four weeks. Faculty may review and pull books to request titles be retained.

Books offered first to other libraries as appropriate, remainder offered for free to students, faculty, and staff. What was leftover from the give-away was discarded.

California State University, Hayward
Sent memo to faculty explaining necessity and asking for faculty assistance.

Went to department meetings to reiterate message. Explained that it's an ongoing process and that it is essential to begin now to avoid emergency situation.

Gave faculty opportunity to review their areas.

Set parameters for computer generated lists by subject.

Ran files based on parameters for each LC class.

Transmitted files to faculty, who generally returned them in one quarter marked with recommendations for retention / deselection.

Pasted the bibliographic records to flagging slips and flagged books for deselection.

Emailed invitation to faculty to come and review their areas of interest. (Books with flags were on the shelves so that they could see what else was available on each subject.)

Flagged items available for review for twelve weeks. Faculty and patrons can annotate the slips with "withdraw," "don't withdraw," "withdraw only if can purchase newer edition," etc. (Faculty / patron review.)

Reviewed the flagged items and made final decisions. (Librarian review.)

Changed item record status in catalog to "2B Withdrawn.² Then deprocessed as time permitted.

Purchased new materials for weeded collections. (Money had been set aside specifically to enhance weeded collections with new materials. This was seen as a necessary part of the collection refinement process.)

California State University, Los Angeles
Serials weeding project (was a review of non-current subscriptions, would use ratio of usage to cost to work on current subscriptions)

Developed criteria, but found that there was no substitute for professional judgment and ended up giving bibliographers significant latitude in deselection /retention decisions. (Example: ceased or canceled title runs of seven volumes or less.)

Released refined weeding list to campus with carefully thought out rationale for the project, emphasized the careful use of reasonable criteria.

Posted list(s) of titles proposed for deselection. (If more than one list will have to include multidisciplinary titles in many lists and will need to distribute widely.)

Gave one quarter for responses. Had facts on each title available for response to faculty questions.

Media Weeding Project
Other criteria apply as for print, but there is more emphasis on usability. Format should be usable on existing equipment and materials must be in usable condition. Media specialists need to stay aware of new formats and of campus equipment and make decisions on when it is time to acquire materials in a new format.

Retention criteria for 16mm film collection was developed and posted on the web.

Faculty were asked to review lists of films and make recommendations on what should be purchased in videotape. They were given a 12 week deadline.

If a requested title was not available in videotape, permission was sought from copyright holder to make a copy on VHS videotape.

If copyright holder could not be found or if for some other reason a new copy could not be made or purchased, the original 16mm film was retained or offered to the department that had requested it be kept.

Deselected materials were offered to other libraries in the system.

Jill Vassilakos Long, CSU San Bernardino

FRIDAY All Day 9 - 4

CONSER SCCTP Serial Holdings Workshop
Location: Triton

THIS DAY-LONG serials cataloging workshop will teach the basic principles of creating holdings records and publication patterns, including an introduction to the development of holdings standards. This CONSER SCCTP (Serials Cataloging Cooperative Training Program) workshop is designed for those who are new to the MARC Holdings Format and those who want to know more about the format and its applications. All materials are based on the MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data (2000) and on the ANSI/NISO Z39.71 (1999) holdings standard. The coding instructions and exercises are system-neutral but the course will include time for discussion of local system implementation. Workshop presenters are certified CONSER SCCTP trainers. For more information about CONSER and the SCCTP program, see www.loc.gov/acq/conser/.
A special workbook will be provided to preregistrants only. Please indicate attendance on the ìMeeting Room Availability Check-Listî sheet included in your registration packet.

Presenters:
Catherine Nelson, Head, Serials Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
Julie Su, Digital Resource/Serials Librarian, San Diego State University.

SUMMARY


THE WORKSHOP provided the basic principles of creating accurate holdings records and describing publication patterns. All materials are based on the MARC 21 Format for Holdings Data (MFHD) and ANSI/NISO Z39.71‹1999. The course included background information on why holdings are important, with a brief description of the development of the standards and instructions. Workshop exercises accompanied each session and gave participants practice on creating formatted and free text holdings and publication patterns. The sixteen people attending the workshop received a copy of the Library of Congress' Serial Holdings Workshop Trainee Manual and a certificate of completion. The attendees met the following goals: (1) be able to create a simple holdings record, (2) be able to interpret staff and public holdings displays for content, layout/punctuation, structure/coding (3) be aware of basic holdings documentation, and (4) be aware of quality control and data sharing issues.

Marcia Henry, CSU Northridge



2002 CARL Conference Home