EVALUATING THE REFERENCE COLLECTION OF THE FLOWER MOUND PUBLIC LIBRARY
The final research project for this class, as well as being my practicum project, was to evaluate the reference collection of the Flower Mound Public Library. The required steps for this project included:
Flower Mound Public Library is a small to medium-sized library which serves a rapidly growing community of just over 40,000. According to the library director, city officials estimate that it is growing by four families a day. The library is housed temporarily in a 4,000 square foot leased space in the City Hall building. The town has recently held a bond election, and the citizens of the community passed a $1.3 million bond referendum to build a 25,000 square foot freestanding library. A committee is currently evaluating architects' proposals. The library director hopes to have the new facility built and occupied by December, 1998 or early 1999.
The reference collection contains approximately 800 titles. Since the current reference librarian has been there, almost three years, some gaps that were known to be in the collection have been filled; however, the collection as a whole has not been evaluated in that time. The main reason the staff at Flower Mound gave for wanting and needing their collection evaluated at this time was to save space and bring the collection more up-to-date and comprehensive to better serve the needs of their rapidly growing community.
The system used by Flower Mound Public Library for collection evaluation and weeding is The CREW Method: Expanded Guidelines for Collection Evaluation and Weeding for Small and Medium-Sized Public Libraries, published by Texas State Library. CREW is an acronym for Continuous Review, Evaluation, and Weeding. The CREW Method considers weeding to be a necessary part in the flow of the collection building process. This process is described as a continuous one going from selection and acquisition, to cataloging and processing, to circulation and reference, to CREW and back to selection in a never ending circle with each stage smoothly succeeding into the next. All stages, including weeding, are "a vital part of good library service" (Segal 1980:3).
CREW identifies six benefits of weeding - save space, save time, make the library more appealing, enhance the reputation of the collection, provide a continuous check, and provide continuous feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the collection. The CREW Method emphasizes that weeding needs to be included in the regular yearly work schedule.
The CREW Method was the first source handed to me when I began this project, and I found it to be most helpful in getting me started. I did know what evaluation and weeding were and the reasons for and benefits of weeding; otherwise, I did not have a clue as to where to begin. After completely reading through The CREW Method, due to the suggestions and guidelines for evaluation and weeding, I not only understood how to get started but also I had some idea of the expected results from this project once it was completed - a more up-to-date, attractive reference collection.
According to CREW, deselection or weeding should be part of the library's collection development policy (Boon, 1995). Therefore, the first item I checked was The Collection Development Policy of the Flower Mound Public Library to ensure that it did contain such a clause. The policy states that replacement and removal will be "on a systematic and continuous basis," and the guidelines for deselection will be the same as those used for selection. The primary problem with this statement is that systematic and continuous are not clearly defined, therefore, somewhat ambiguous. Since weeding has not been done regularly in a number of years, I feel as though it may be more beneficial to the library staff if systematic and continuous were more clearly defined.
One of the required steps for this project was to annotate reference guides/selection tools. The two reference guides which the library wanted annotated were Handbook of Reference Sources and Services for Small and Medium-Sized Libraries and Reference Sources for Small and Medium-Sized Libraries. Before I started the annotation process, I studied the reference collection as a whole to get some idea of what materials the collection currently held. This procedure was one of the steps suggested in The CREW Method. I then went through the collection title by title, annotating, by marking call numbers with a pencil in the margins of the selection guides, the titles which are currently held by the library. This process probably required the most time of any of the steps for the entire project. Since the guides are organized by type and subject of the reference source (i.e. encyclopedias, almanacs, literature, history, etc.), once the annotation process was completed, it was fairly easy to see if there were any subject areas of the collection lacking in either overall materials or specific titles.
The CREW Method has a weeding formula consisting of three parts: 1) The first figure refers to the years since the book's latest copyright date (age of material in the book); 2) the second figure refers to the maximum permissible time without usage (in terms of years since since its last recorded circulation); 3) the third refers to the presence of various negative factors, called MUSTIE factors (Boon, 1995:31). MUSTIE is an acronym for the negative factors which help identify materials to be weeded.
For example, in the formula 10/3/MUSTIE, a book is considered a candidate for deselection if its latest copyright date is more than 10 years ago; and/or it has not been circulated in more than 3 years; and/or it has any of the MUSTIE factors (Boon, 1995). The CREW Method gives guidelines by Dewey Classification number for weeding materials as to suggested years since copyright and circulation and what criteria should be considered when looking at the MUSTIE factors.
The reference collection of Flower Mound Public Library, as most reference collections, does not circulate so there are no records kept on usage of materials (other than those the reference librarian makes mentally on which sources are most often used); therefore, I only used copyright dates and MUSTIE factors as criteria for deciding which titles should be suggested for discard. I again went through the collection title by title noting copyright dates, condition of individual items in the collection, and which titles were included in either one of the selection tools. From these observations, I compiled a list of Titles That Should be Discarded. At this time I also noted titles that should be continued as part of the collection but needed to be updated by a more current edition. These titles made up the list of Titles that Should be Updated.
At this point, I was ready to start putting the lists into a presentable format which would be easy for the library to use. After conferring with the reference librarian as to what would work best for her needs, we decided that the titles should be alphabetically organized within Dewey Class for the suggested discard and update titles and alphabetically within subject area for the suggested titles to be added.
By this stage of the project, I was familiar enough with the collection to have a pretty good idea of what titles needed to be added. By using the selection tools as guidelines, reading reviews of the materials, and noting any areas of the collection which needed more depth, I was able to compile a list of Suggested Titles to be Added.
I found only one area in the reference collection which contained no titles at all on the subject. There are no books on photography. And although the collection had not been weeded in as long as anybody currently employed there can remember (over five years), the collection was not really in that bad of a condition. There were several titles which were outdated, and there were a few books in fairly bad physical condition; however, on the whole, the reference collection was in pretty good shape.
I now understand why nearly every librarian I have known feels there is not enough time to weed. However, I also see that there are advantages to evaluating and weeding a collection on a regular basis. First, the collection would become more familiar to the librarian - even more familiar than when working with it on a daily basis. After the initial evaluation, any subsequent evaluations should be easier and less time consuming simply because there would probably be less weeding that was needed. Also, I would think that as one became more experienced with the process, more efficiency would be acquired and shortcuts would be developed. I found myself making mental notes during the progression of the project such as, "The copyright on this science book will be too old next year, and the book will have to be replaced." These mental notes could be transferred into written notes to aid in the weeding process being conducted more efficiently, and perhaps less time consuming, in subsequent years.
Evaluating a reference collection and suggesting titles to be added, replaced, or discarded is not an easy task. I felt as though it would have been a little easier to complete had I been working with this reference collection on a regular daily basis and knew which titles were most often consulted for information by the library staff and its customers. However, it still would have been a difficult task primarily because it did take a great deal of time. Time to perform regular, continuous weeding tasks would have to be set aside out of a work day; because, I do not feel that this is a task that can be efficiently completed while also effectively carrying out regular daily duties.
Suggesting the titles to be added was the easiest step in the process. However, I did have to use both a great deal of will power and common sense because I found myself wanting to suggest that they add everything that even appeared to be remotely interesting rather than just the titles which were needed to round out the collection! Suggesting books to be discarded was much more difficult because I found myself falling into the trap, about which I have so often been warned, of thinking, "What if this book is needed tomorrow!" I also worried about what was going to happen to the books that were chosen for deselection.
According to The CREW Method, there are four ways to dispose of materials which have been selected for weeding. They can be destroyed, sold, recycled, or traded. Flower Mound Public Library is going to donate the deselected items to the Friends of the Library to be sold as a fundraiser, the proceeds of which will be used to purchase new items for the library.
The CREW Method concluded with an Epilogue for the Hesitant Weeder which listed rebuttals for the most commonly stated objections given by librarians for not weeding. This helped me to become a little more open-minded toward the weeding process than I had been at the onset of this project. Although I am still not totally and completely convinced that getting rid of library materials is necessarily a good thing, I am beginning to understand the benefits and advantages of weeding. Maybe sometime in the future I will completely agree with and the philosophy of The CREW Method, a Chinese proverb, which states "Less is more" (Segal 1980:5)! But, for the time being I feel satisfied with the strives I made in my first endeavor at evaluating and weeding a reference collection. The next time I am called upon to complete this task, I will not feel so overwhelmed; because, now I know that it is a task which can be accomplished.
Boon, Belinda. 1995. The CREW Method: Expanded Guildelines for Collection Evaluation and Weeding for Small and Medium-Sized Public Libraries, Austin: Texas State Library
Lang, Jovian P., editor. 1992. Reference Sources for Small and Medium-Sized Libraries, 5th edition. Chicago: American Library Association.
Nichols, Margaret Irby. 1994. Reference Sources for Small and Medium-Sized Libraries, 2nd edition. Austin: Texas State Library Development Division.
Segal, Joseph P. 1980. Evaluating and Weeding Collections in Small and Medium-Sized Public Libraries: The CREW Method. Chicago: American Library Association.
000 (General)
400 (Linguistics and Language)
500 (Pure Sciences)
600 (Applied Sciences)
900 (History and Geography)
000 (General)
300 (Social Sciences)
500 (Pure Sciences)
600 (Applied Sciences)
900 (History and Geography)
Bibliographies and General Sources
General Works
Biography and Related Areas
Philosophy, Religion, and Ethics
Language Dictionaries
Literature
Visual Arts
Applied Arts
Crafts and Hobbies
Performing Arts
Archaeology and History
Social Sciences
Sociology and Social Issues
Geography and Area Studies
Political Science and Law
Business and Economics
Science and Technology
Applied Sciences