Literature+Review


 * Bostic, M.J. (1988). A written collection development policy: To have and have not. //Collection Management//, //10//(3-4), 89-103.**
 * focused on academic libraries
 * argues that written collection development policies are "fundamentally important"
 * purpose of policy:
 * assigns responsibility for collecting function and provides guidelines
 * helps collection conform to goals, objectives of library & university
 * translates those goals & objectives into specific guidelines for subject areas and material types
 * assigns responsibilities of relationships with consortium, other cooperating groups of libraries
 * means of communicating collection plan to administrators, users
 * problems with even the best policy statement
 * may not reflect day-to-day procedures
 * too ideal for actual use
 * difficult to create
 * lots of work goes into something that then just gets filed away, not consulted
 * administrator forces statement on library
 * many librarians fail to see the need
 * when no policy exists, decisions are often made on whim
 * policies focus staff, inform stakeholders, set quality standards, minimize personal bias. assure continuity, provide a means for evaluation


 * Snow, R. (1996). Wasted words: The written collection development policy and the academic library. //The Journal of Academic Librarianship//, //22//, 191-4.**
 * necessity of written collection development policy is part of the "creed of librarianship" and has gone unchallenged
 * policies quickly become irrelevant and outdated
 * Snow's literature review found only 2 articles critical of collection development policies
 * written policies are inflexible - "The more aloof from practice the policy becomes, the more meaningless and wasteful become all the time, energy and money that went into producing it."
 * policies are an intellectual guide to selection, rather than a practical method -- therefore they are open to interpretation, and objectivity falls by the wayside
 * unless policies are continuously updated, they lose all but "archival value"


 * The relevance of collection development policies: definition, necessity, and applications.(1993). //RQ, 33//(1), 65.**
 * continual examination of priorites, goals, objectives is necessary because of "fiscal realities"
 * CDPs help promote balance and consistency in selection
 * serves as a communication instrument
 * why keep an updated CDP? CENSORSHIP - policies provide rational, legal basis for selection of materials, can be used to "explain, legitimize, or validate the acquisition of particular sources for the community of users "
 * CDPs should be reviewed and revised regularly
 * CDPs need to evolve - no longer based solely on ownership of materials
 * prices going up, space concerns, new technology -- leads to cooperative programs and commercial services that need to be addressed in CDPs
 * CDPs are "essentially political documents"


 * Spohrer, J. H. (2003). The end of an American (library) dream: The rise and decline of the collection development policy statement at Berkeley. In D. Mack (Ed.), //Collection Development Policies// (pp. 33-47). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.**
 * UC Berkeley case study
 * Published 1st CDPS in 1980 - included general policies, detailed analysis by LC class, appendices for other types of materials, indexes to analysis by subject & academic department
 * No revision was ever carried out
 * Changes in collection development practices because of cost of building "deep, rich" academic library resources, serials cancellations, resources being redirected to serial and monographic publications, growth of electronic resources
 * CDPS was regarded as an irrelevance, required "enormous physical labor" for revision that could not be accommodated because library lost 37% of librarians w/out replacement between 1989 and 1999
 * As budgets being rebuilt, revisitation of the CDPS seems like a "prudent planning strategy"
 * Must commit to the effort required to create statement and maintain it at a level of accuracy and timeliness so it serves a useful purpose
 * Library should develop a "parallel planning track" to describe & monitor digital collections. Policy statement for print collections should be continually compared to digital collections policy statement to make sure both types of collections are developed "in rational and mutually enhancing ways"
 * Arguments for a comprehensive CDPS:
 * Tool for budget planning
 * Help integrate faculty and campus administrative concerns into library planning
 * Gives the collection program credibility w/local clientele and potential institutional partners
 * "Collections planning must be viewed as an ongoing, organic activity which is as crucial to overall institutional health as any other aspect of library operations." p. 46


 * Anjejo, R. (2006). Collection development policies for small libraries. //PNLA Quarterly//, //70//(2), 12-16.**
 * CDP is a written statement of library's intentions for its collection
 * Problems in libraries that don't have CDPs:
 * when confronted about why certain items are purchased or rejected, there's no way to rationalize it
 * collection developed rapidly in areas because of pushy faculty or staff, but was neglected in other areas
 * CDPs are even more important because of the complexity in dealing with electronic resources
 * Important planning document, training tool for selectors, protection against unethical or unreasonable pressures (can justify non-acceptance of gifts, weeding)


 * Vogel, K.D. (1996). Integrating electronic resources into collection development policies. //Collection Management//, //21//(2), 65-76.**
 * Incorporating electronic resources into a CDP helps resources be more supportive of libraries goals; without one, haphazard groupings of resources that may or may not support the library's mission
 * Electronic resources fill gaps in the collection - when they are included in a CDP, the selector can see this, otherwise might purchase redundant materials because of a perceived gap
 * CDP that includes "prescriptive information" for e-resources on review sources, comparable collections and guidelines to consult can be helpful for selectors who are not familiar with e-resources
 * Integrating e-resources into CDP gives selectors & administrators a basis for their actions if challenged by constituencies resistant to allocating funds for e-resources


 * Disher, W. (2007). //Crash Course in Collection Development.// Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. **
 * CDPs state in clear and logical terms what collections do and do not contain, and how and why libraries make decisions about their collections
 * Downsides - if CDP is too specific, it can "pigeonhole" selector; if too vague, it's useless
 * Policies should be regularly updated, taking into account new material formats, community demand, collection priorities, collection limitations
 * Some small libraries have an "unwritten" policy - creates potential for many problems, i.e. conflicting collection goals, continuation of bad selection decisions


 * Evans, G.E. & Saponaro, M.Z. (2005). //Developing Library and Information Center Collections.// Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.**
 * "Electronic resources create new challenges that cannot be left to chance." (p. 51)
 * CDPs ensure continuity and consistency in collecting despite changes in staff and funding
 * CDPs give everyone a reference point so that working agreements are possible
 * Concern about the value of policies that are hundreds of pages long and seldom consulted -- but there must be SOME plan in place


 * Flatley, R.K. & Prock, K. (2009). E-resource collection development: A survey of current practices in academic libraries. //Library Philosophy and Practice//, //October 2009.// Retrieved from http://www.libraryworks.com/LW_Best%20Practices/BP_E-Resource_Collection_Development_0210.aspx.**
 * According to survey, most librarians used only an informal process for selecting/deselecting e-resource materials
 * Most decisions made in reaction to offers or suggestions
 * Authors "highly recommend developing a collection development policy for e-collections" -- will demonstrate that the library is being proactive, and will help justify decisions


 * White, G.W. &Crawford, G.A. (1997.) Developing an electronic information resources collection development policy. //Collection Building, 16//(2), 53-57.**
 * Justifying purchasing decisions has become increasingly important -- unlike books, e-resources have no physical presence
 * Selecting e-resources is inherently more complex than print -- issues of equipment, space, vendors, technical support
 * Policy helps guide acquisition of resources -- supporting mission of library, directing use of limited library resources, guiding selectors in choosing specific resources