Electronic Resources
What influences did access to electronic resources have on the use of the print reference collection? The answer is simple to state definitively: none at all. The only reference tools that CIU subscribed to electronically were World Almanac, through FirstSearch, and Oxford Reference Online. Neither of these is substantive enough to have affected the dotting–or reshelving–statistics in any relevant way.
Philosophy
Library literature repeatedly affirms an almost constitutional aversion among librarians to weeding. Reasons postulated for this aversion include the nature of the librarian (fear of being considered a censor, fear of criticism from the outside), the practice of weeding itself (it is dusty, time-consuming, and frustrating), and even politics.23 Data that clearly identify large segments of reference collections receiving little or no use arguably should cause librarians to reflect on the function and focus of these segregated collections.
One can fairly well hear Christopher Nolan screaming as he reports the Biggs and Biggs survey’s estimate that in one year, nearly one-third of academic reference collections are unused.
What, then, are these materials doing in reference? Surely items used fewer than once per year do not need to occupy space in a collection selected precisely to provide quick, convenient access. The reference stacks themselves are a file, an organized set of volumes that lead to facts of citations. Cluttering this file with rarely or never used sources merely dilutes the effectiveness of the remaining useful sources.24
His question is the one that this study forced the CIU researchers to grapple with. What makes a book a reference book? What is the intended function of a reference collection? How does the academic reference librarian determine that a given book belongs in reference? Nolan describes the typical reference book formats as “pointers” (books that index or “point to” the circulating collection) and “fact books.”25 He speaks of the reference collection being authoritative, current, and providing unique coverage. Some institutions’ reference collections exist to provide equitable access to heavily used items. Many reference librarians include items because “this kind of book belongs in reference, regardless of whether or how much it will be used.” The CIU reference collection has been roughly maintained according to both of these standards. But, typically (using the literature as an indicator), the GAF’s reference section lacked a defined mission and collection management policy to guide selection and deselection. Addressing these lacks is the first charge of the reference staff. Before weeding, before deciding whether to discard or move individual books to the circulating collection, a mission and policy must be developed. Once developed, it is hoped that the more difficult part of the job–decision-making–will have been strongly aided, and the more tedious parts can be followed with greater confidence than otherwise.
Some Questions to Mull Over When Preparing Policies
Nolan’s quote raises two questions. Does “unused” necessarily equal “useless?” Does “used” imply “good,” “authoritative,” “best?”
Should use be the sole criterion for weeding? If, as Fussler demonstrates, the greatest predictor of future use is past use, should the librarian limit selection choices to areas where use is already heavy? Should unused or lesser used areas be weeded and no books added? How should new areas of knowledge be treated?
How responsible are the professional bibliographers for ensuring a balanced collection? Should they ever select items for subject areas because it is “right” rather than because it will be used?
Whereas weeding is one way to handle unused books, are there other viable options? Promotions? Displays? Guiding students to these resources? Creating assignment bibliographies that include lesser-known items? How much energy should academic librarians expend trying to sell the reference collection to our users?