LRTS v 38, no. 4, October 1994

Crossing Subject Boundaries: Collection Management of Environmental Studies in a Multi-Library System

Barbara DeFelice and Constance Rinaldo

In a library system with many subject-oriented libraries, managing a collection for an interdisciplinary field such as environmental studies poses many challenges. Our principal approach has been to develop a detailed collection development policy that identifies primary library locations for broad subject categories. In this paper we describe the process of creating this collection development policy. Included is a discussion of the rationale for the policy, the process of developing a list of subject terms, and the creation of a format for the information. Ideas for handling a physically and intellectually dispersed collection of library materials are addressed.

Education for Collection Management: Results of a Survey of Educators and Practitioners

John M. Budd and Patricia L. Bril

Individuals who list collection development as a specialization in the directory of the Association for Library and Information Science Education were surveyed. A sample of members of either the RASD Collection Development and Evaluation Section or the ALCTS Collection Management and Development Section also were surveyed. Recipients of the questionnaire were asked to assess the importance of specific aspects of education for collection development (practitioners also were asked to assess their own educational experiences with regard to collection development). Further, respondents offered their opinions on where the locus of education for collection development should be and what journals they read in order to keep up with issues in collection development. Results from each group of respondents are presented, as well as comparisons between the two groups.

Manifestations and Near-Equivalents of Moving Image Works: A Research Project

Martha M. Yee

The frequency of occurrence of moving image versions, here called manifestations, on the types of differences that can occur from one moving image manifestation to another, and on the kinds of visible indicators, accessible to catalogers, that are associated with these differences was measured. It was found that continuity, i.e., intellectual and artistic content, varies frequently, 39% of the time; an additional 7% of works have added subsidiary matter, and an additional 12% of works have differences in language and sound track. In other words, a total of 58% of the works sampled had at least one instance of difference in intellectual and artistic content between two items. Only 8% of the works in the sample were mentioned as having manifestations in standard reference sources such as Maltin. Visible indicators and physical format of films are very unreliable indicators of actual difference in intellectual and artistic content; 48% of the time, visible indicators vary with no underlying difference in continuity; 23% of the time, continuity varies with no difference in visible indicators. Length differences of three minutes or more are the most reliable indicators of actual difference in intellectual and artistic content. Of the titles with difference in continuity, 72% of these manifestations were detectable by means of length difference. This corresponds to previous findings for books, which indicate paging is the most reliable indicator of true differences in manifestation.

Comparative Results of Two Current Periodical Use Studies

Maiken Naylor

When two current periodical use studies were conducted only four years apart in the Science and Engineering Library at the University at Buffalo, the opportunity arose to make a detailed comparison of results obtained by two different methodologies; one was a reshelving study, the other required users to self-report their use of materials. During the second study, there was concern that users would ignore instructions and either not report use or indicate repeated uses where none had taken place. Final tallies showed that high-use current science periodicals had 40% higher use when monitored by shelver pick-up than by user self-report; overall use in the physical sciences appeared to have dropped under the latter method for a group of 700-plus titles, while use in the life and environmental sciences increased, possibly due to new interdisciplinary programs. The entire collection of journals currently received during both studies had 18% less use when self-reported than when reshelved by library staff indicating that while over-reporting of favorite titles might take place, it cannot compensate for patron indifference to producing a record of a wide range of use both at the shelf and away. Use study researchers who are trying to identify low use journals need to be aware that this methodology, though cost-effective, might provide results where a considerable portion of use goes unrecorded.