1 / 31

Data-informed collections management and GreenGlass in UCD Library 

Data-informed collections management and GreenGlass in UCD Library . Catherine Ryan Collections Support Librarian Collection Services. Background. Began life as the GreenGlass project in December 2017 Review and weed of print book collections. Why are we doing this?. Why are we doing this?.

michaelturner
Download Presentation

Data-informed collections management and GreenGlass in UCD Library 

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Data-informed collections management and GreenGlass in UCD Library  Catherine Ryan Collections Support Librarian Collection Services

  2. Background • Began life as the GreenGlass project in December 2017 • Review and weed of print book collections

  3. Why are we doing this?

  4. Why are we doing this?

  5. Why are we doing this? 70% of what our readers are actually using is less than 30 years old

  6. Curation and Management Curating, not weeding* *Held, T. (2018). Curating, not weeding. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 133–143.

  7. Curation and Management • Determining ‘value’ of our collections • To our user communities • To UCD Library, UCD • Revitalising and updating collections through weeding and purchasing of new resources • Defining a long-term, sustainable approach • Managing library spaces • Collection management policy and workflows • Evidence-based: user behaviour, user needs, collections • Usage analysis • Classed analyses of collections • Subject profiles

  8. Project Data Internal Data GreenGlass Collection analysis and decision support tool Ebook alternative, duplicates Authoritative lists (Choice) Comparison to holdings in other institutions in Ireland, UK, and Europe Availability in HathiTrust Possible duplicates, multi volume sets, multi-edition titles • Sierra LMS • Usage data • Acquisitions data • Sent to GreenGlass and available in application • InfoHub & UCD Website • Module data • Programme data • Staff research interests

  9. Our Approach • Define quantitative criteria for each School

  10. Criteria for Open Access • Used in the last 13 years. • Purchased in the last 6 years. • Age range – usage analysis of the relevant ranges • Material with open access requirements. • Reading list materials. • Selected titles or collections of important material to be determined on a school by school level. ‘Sliding window’ of up-to-date resources that are most likely to satisfy the current teaching and research needs of the communities.

  11. Our Approach • Define quantitative criteria for each School • Define discrete sections to prepare in advance of main review • Duplicates • Multi-editions • Separate locations – short loan, reference • Application of conservative quantitative criteria to the open shelves, on-site store. • Generate lists for defined projects, including candidates for withdrawal list. • Application of qualitative criteria to candidates for withdrawal

  12. Criteria for Long-Term Store • Materials to be retained over the long term • Seminal works • Irish academic publishers • Provenance • Many, many more! • Consideration of scarce materials • Legal deposit material.

  13. Criteria for Long-Term Store School profiles • Review of each School’s current teaching and research • Classed analysis of each collection area • Identification of gaps in the collections, areas no longer used, etc. • Report with librarian recommendations • Further inform both weeding criteria and selection of new materials

  14. Withdrawal Any title that does not meet the quantitative and qualitative criteria developed for each School Only retain a title where there is a reason to do so

  15. Project Timeline Stage 1: Project Set-Up • December 2017 • Data extraction from Sierra • Create Lists – Bib data, MARC format • SQL – Item data • Data cleaning by SCS • Access to the GreenGlass platform in February 2018 Complete

  16. Project Timeline Stage 2: Project Definition and Planning • Define our approach • Define project plan • Approval for approach and project plan in May 2018 Complete

  17. Project Timeline Stage 3: Communication • Summer 2018 • Development of communication documentation • Rationale for the project • Project methodology • FAQ • Libguide • Internal communication • Communications with University Management Team • End September - October 2018 • Libguide, social media, other outreach launch • Emails to Heads of School • First contact with five selected Schools (one for each collections librarian)

  18. Stage 4: Development of School Profiles and Criteria Stage 4: Development of School Profiles and Criteria • Summer 2018 • Collection evaluation • Development of draft profiles and criteria • Input from Client Services team • October – December 2018 • Discussions with School, in collaboration with Liaison Librarians Stage 4: Implementation • December 2018 – January 2019

  19. References Weeding • Ackerman, E., & DeLuca, L. (2018). Weed ’em and reap? Deselection of political science books. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.10.003 • Baba, K., Minami, T., & Nakatoh, T. (2016). Predicting Book Use in University Libraries by Synchronous Obsolescence. Procedia Computer Science, 96, 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.082 • Buckland, M. K. (1975). Book availability and the library user. New York: Pergamon Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/bookavailability00buck • DeMars, M., & Roll, A. (2016). Weeding out in the open: what will the neighbours think? In Where Do We Go from Here?: Charleston Conference Proceedings 2015. Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284316252 • Dubicki, E. (2008). Weeding: facing the fears. Collection Building, 27(4), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913689 • Fussler, H. H., & Simon, J. L. (1961). Patterns in the use of books in large research libraries. Chicago: University of Chicago Library. Retrieved from https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003908643 • Handis, M. W. (2007). Practical advice for weeding in a small library. Collection Building, 26(3), 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950710761643 • Held, T. (2018). Curating, not weeding. Technical Services Quarterly, 35(2), 133–143. • Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of collection development and management. (3rd ed.). London: Facet. • Joswick, K. E., & Stierman, J. P. (1994). Systematic reference weeding: A workable model. Collection Management, 18(1), 103–115. • Lugg, R. (2012). Data-driven deselection for monographs: a rules-based approach to weeding, storage, and shared print decisions. Insights, 25(2), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.25.2.198 • Lugg, R., & Fischer, R. (2008). Future tense--The disapproval plan: Rules-based weeding & storage decisions. Against the Grain, 20(6).

  20. References Weeding, cont’d • Lugg, R., & Fischer, R. (2013). Future tense--doing what’s obvious: Library space and the fat smoker. Against the Grain, 21(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.2530 • McHale, C., Egger-Sider, F., Fluk, L., & Ovadia, S. (2017). Weeding without walking: a mediated approach to list-based deselection. Collection Management, 42(2), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1318729 • McKee, P. (1981). Weeding the Forest Hill Branch of Toronto Public Library by the Slote Method: A Test Case. Library Research, 3(3), 283–301. • Metz, P., & Gray, C. (2005). Perspectives on public relations and library weeding. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(3), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.01.005 • Murphy, E. (2013). Assessing University Library Print Book Collections and Deselection: A Case Study at The National University of Ireland Maynooth. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(3), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.808252 • Oliva, V. T. (2016). Deselection of print monographs in the humanities and social sciences in the digital age. Collection Building, 35(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-02-2016-0002 • O’Neill, J. L. (2016). Weeding with ADDIE: developing training for deselection at an adacemic library. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 56(2), 108–115. • Osheroff, S. K., & Knittel, M. C. (1990). Team weeding in a university library. College & Research Libraries News, 51(8), 723–725. • Perrault, A. H., Madaus, R., Armbrister, A., Dixon, J., & Smith, R. (1999). The Effects of High Median Age on Currency of Resources in Community College Library Collections. College & Research Libraries, 60, 316–339. • Poller, M. (1976). Weeding Monographs in the Harrison Public Library. Collection Management, 1(1), 6–7. • Reed-Scott, J. (1985). Implementation and evaluation of a weeding program. Collection Management, 7(2), 59–67. • Slote, S. J. (1997). Weeding library collections : library weeding methods. (4th ed.). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

  21. References Weeding, cont’d • Snyder, C. E. (2014). Data-driven deselection: multiple point data using a decision support tool in an academic library. Collection Management, 39(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2013.866607 • Soma, A. K., & Sjoberg, L. M. (2010). More than just low-hanging fruit: A collaborative approach to weeding in academic libraries. Collection Management, 36(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2011.529241 • Trueswell, R. (1964). User behaviour patterns and requirements and their effect on the possible applications of data processing and computer techniques in a university library. (PhD). Northwestern University, Illinois. • Ward, S. M. (2015). Rightsizing the academic library collection. Chicago: ALA Editions. • Way, D., & Garrison, J. (2013). Developing and implementing a disapproval plan: One university library’s experience. College & Research Libraries News, 74(6). • White, B. (2017). Citations and circulation counts: data sources for monograph deselection in research library collections. College & Research Libraries, 78(1). https://doi.org/doi:10.5860/crl.78.1.53 • Williams, P. C., & Halvonik, Brent. (2004). Collection management: assessing and weeding the foreign language collection. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 11(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v11n02_09 • Zuber, P. (2012). Weeding the collection: an analysis of motivations, methods, and metrics. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education / Engineering Libraries Division Annual Conference, Texas.

  22. References Collection Evaluation and Development • Agee, J. (2005). Collection evaluation: a foundation for collection development. Collection Building, 24(3), 92–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01604950510608267 • Borin, J., & Yi, H. (2008). Indicators for collection evaluation: a new dimensional framework. Collection Building, 27(4), 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950810913698 • Bushing, M. C. (2001). The evolution of conspectus practice in libraries: the beginnings and the present applications. In CASLIN 2001: Popis a zpřístupněnídokumentů : novávýzva. Czech Republic: Czech and Slovak Library Information Network. Retrieved from http://klement.nkp.cz/Caslin/caslin01/sbornik/conspectus.html • Calvert, P. J. (1997). Collection development and performance measurement. In Collection Management for the 21st Century: A Handbook for Librarians (pp. 121–133). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. • Chipp, J. (2018). Developing a collections review framework at the University of Southampton. SCONUL Focus, 70. Retrieved from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/28.Developing%20a%20collections%20review.pdf • Rowley, G., & Black, W. K. (1996). Consequences of change: the evolution of collection development. Collection Building, 15(2), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604959610113879

  23. Thank you!

More Related