Collection Development
Assignment #1 for LIS522
Julia Kelso
For this paper, I chose to examine the collection policies of a school library, a public library and an academic library. I was unable to find URLs for the collection development policies, so the policies have been attached with this paper and their addresses are listed in the works cited section. I will begin with University of Montana’s Law Library as it had the most clear and complete policy – expected of a law library – but due to its specialization, also differed in certain specifics from the other two organizations.
I was very taken with the way this policy was laid out. I feel the clear breakdown of each section was very useful, both in stating its function and as a referential tool. I suspect this is probably the most effective of the three policies as well. The community it serves is very clearly laid out in the first paragraph, in apparent order of precedence:
The primary purpose of the University of Montana Law Library is to support the study, teaching and research needs of the Law School Community. The Law Library also serves the practicing bar, students in the legal assistant program at the College of Technology, non-law University of Montana students and the public at large.
It then goes on to note specifics of those communities, such as sufficient materials to support the JD program, faculty research, a First Nations law program and others.
My personal favorite aspect of the collection description is the point where it lays out levels at which it provides support (1):
I think this an excellent descriptive aspect, again functioning to make the policy not only clear, but also defensible in a case where the holdings or level of some works were challenged.
The policy moves on to iterate the various selection aids and lays out quite specifically the types of primary, secondary, tertiary, etc., sources and what percentage of each it carries. I suspect this is quite vital for the functioning of an academic and especially a law library.
Given this level of thoroughness in all other areas, I was a little surprised at its weeding policy, quoted below in its entirety (11):
I felt this section was somewhat vague and open to far more interpretation and therefore potential problems than other areas.
The second library policy I looked at was that of the Lockwood Middle School Library in Billings, Montana. The policy itself was fairly thorough, though not as detailed as that of the previous selection. My judgment places it as second most effective
It too lays out the target user group and its primary purpose, which is that of “providing a wide range of library materials on all levels of difficulty, with diversity of appeal and the presentation of different points of view.” (1)
Something I found very interesting in the policy of a school library is that as well as expressing its user group as the Lockwood school district staff and students as well as the occasional parent or guardian under specific circumstances, it also noted that school library would not act in loco parentis, due to widely varying values and standards. What I have seen and heard of other school policies is that there is generally a greater tendency to act in loco, as that is generally part of the school’s job. My belief is that the specifics of the collection policy laid out on page two was partially an effort to balance this need, though I feel it has some contradictory aspects:
Selection Criteria
•Pertinent to the curriculum and the objectives of the instructional program
•Appropriate format to effectively teach the curriculum
•Acceptable in literary style and technical quality
•Accurate in terms of content
•Reflective of a global society
•Free of bias and stereotype
•Representative of differing viewpoints on controversial subjects
•Appropriate for recommended levels
•Recent copyright date as appropriate to the subject
•Appropriate for students with special needs
•Cost effective in terms of use
I have italicized the segments that I feel are potentially self-contradictory and most open to challenge. I understand that no policy is perfect, but it seems to me that the language here leaves room for controversy. Additionally, I felt their weeding policy left something to be desired: “The librarians will follow standard guidelines for deselection of materials” (3).
The policy around challenges at Lockwood had a feature I have not seen before, which is that of limiting the challenges to any given book to once a year. Especially in a school library with the potential for nuisance challenges, I feel that this is an excellent policy, as is that of responding to challenges within 15 days. I feel that in both cases this can help limit the controversy that can arise as a result of a challenge, in that there is a clear-cut statement regarding the ability to repeatedly challenge a book, as well as an assurance that any issues raised will be dealt with promptly. To my mind, this provides reassurance on both sides of the issue.
Finally is the Albany, OR Public Library. This was the most idiosyncratic in terms of phrasing of its purpose and selection process. It made me want to do an in-depth sociological study of the community to see how the statements made reflected that community. It was outside the scope of this assignment, but I feel it would have been an edifying exercise nonetheless. It was very complete, but the clarity was somewhat limited by the unique wording, which in my opinion, would also impact it effectiveness.
The basics of the policy and its philosophy are fairly standard, if perhaps more detailed than some. It provides a definition of selection, including criteria such as familiarity with the subject matter and the needs of the community, such as has been discussed in this class. The Philosophy that follows has rather more interesting language (1-2):
The Albany Public Library, as a public services institution, exists to provide materials that …will assist them to:
Educate themselves continually.
…Become better citizens of home, community, and country.
…Use leisure time to promote personal and social well being.
…Develop their creative and spiritual capacities.
Become aware of the variety of perspectives and views of all subjects and interests.
There are several statements such as this scattered throughout the policy. Such as in the criteria for books, where “sincerity” is mentioned. At the same time, the Albany library, like the Lockwood library, notes the ALA Bill of Rights and intellectual freedom polices as coloring its own policies and selection criteria.
The policies regarding gifts and weeding are very clear cut, and possibly more effective than the other two libraries, although again the idiosyncratic language creeps in, declaring that books that are “unattractive” are to be weeded (5).
It is, of course, easier to be critical of a policy when one is not in the throes of writing it oneself, and looking at several all at once helps to point out the lacks in others. One thing I noticed – in part because I was looking for it to due to comments from the U of M that they were revising their policy to include internet issues – was that none of these policies had any references to on-line material. The closest any came was a reference in the Albany policy to “non-paper” materials. All of the policies had been written within the last several years, so I find that absence to be rather glaring, and would certainly put it up as the main change I would make in any of them. Incorporating a complete and coherent policy that covers all the aspects of internet use and accessibility – filters, costs, unblocking of sites – as well as what documents, journals, and other materials is of paramount importance to any library today. I know it is possible that some libraries may not consider things such as sites to be part of their collection, and that that definition is not likely to be fully clarified any time soon, but as collection policies deal directly with materials that may be challenged, I have to argue for putting all functions internet serves in a library under that policy.
Also, I would clarify their weeding policies to be more specific. Finally, I noted that the U of M policy had nothing relating to gifts. I do not know how often University Law Libraries receive book donations, but I would guess it was at least a possibility and in so thorough a document, should be covered.
I also noted that the Law Library did not make mention of the ALA in its policies. Again, it is more specific and there is hardly likely to be complaints about showing too many sides of an issue, or the language used in a verbatim court transcript. At the same time, it did give me pause to wonder what types of challenges a law library might face to its content.
I am also aware that, being a law library, the U of M policy architects had it easier in constructing the specifics of what they carried than a more general academic or public library would, but I felt that the section where they discussed levels of coverage from comprehensive to basic was incredibly helpful and would be of great use if it could be adapted to other policies. It would take some work, but in being aware of the community it serves and its needs as we have discussed in class and in the readings, it might well be possible to craft something like this for use in more general libraries.
Another aspect of the U of M Law Library that struck me was that it has a section on First Nations’ Law. Considering the First Nations’ Population in Montana, this is not actually surprising, but having listened to discussions and presentations regarding issues of inaccessibility to immigrant and native populations, it occurred to me that policies regarding access for those might lack standard IDs, addresses or support systems might be a good addition to the policies. That is not technically part of collection development, but as making sure all reading materials were generally equally accessible, it may be a logical extension. To make it specific to collections would be to incorporate materials that serve the lesser-noticed members of a community.
Works Cited
Albany Public Library Collection Development Policy
2450 14th Avenue SE
Albany, OR
Lockwood Middle School Collection Development Policy
1932 Hwy 87 E.
Billings, MT
University of Montana Law Library Collection Development Policy
Missoula, MT
