Assessing our collection strengths Maureen Pinder COSEELIS Conference 28th June 2011

Why categorise collections? Need to develop a coherent strategic approach to collection management and development at a time when resources are limited Need to be able to prioritise the use of scarce resources

What are the drivers? Space / the pressure to weed Physical condition of stock and need for preservation and conservation Prioritisation for digitisation Budget pressures Aid decision making for collaborative collection management

And the scale of the problem? Space: Libraries are full, new store will give only a few years’ growth Leeds survey of open access collections: At least 55% are printed on acid paper 10% at immediate risk, many more slowly crumbling Poor quality of manufacture of many foreign publications Particularly acute for material published 1850-1970 Major research collections at risk almost in their entirety

We know about our collections, don’t we? We’ve always assumed we knew our ‘best bits’ But spread and pace of relegation and weeding has increased And staff have changed over the years So we decided we needed to take this seriously and act now

Group set up to concentrate on the issue First priority: to define ‘types’ of collection: Heritage: Significant and distinctive collections which continue to be developed Legacy: Significant and distinctive collections: historic strengths but no longer added to Self-renewing: Supporting current research & teaching Finite: No longer relevant - can be considered for withdrawal

Issues around describing collections A collection can be dispersed around various classmarks, and on both open and closed access, not just in one place It might contain material from Special Collections and the open shelves, for example Terminology confusing – collection, subject, sequence, classmark? All opinions are subjective Can the status change at a later stage?

The process Access database created to store findings/decisions Methodology and workflow worked out for information gathering Criteria established to judge collections against Used old Anderson returns as a rough guide to get us started Beginning to gather information from ‘experts’ – current and retired staff and academics Using pilot COPAC collection management tool to benchmark collections against other libraries Identified ILL data as another useful source Still looking for more data sources and methods of assessment

To sum up At the early stages of a long process Is essential and valuable work to direct our resources to the right areas Will raise our profile, define our distinctiveness, evidence our impact Might lead to bids for external funding, promotional activities Contribute to the University’s status and attract scholars