1. Separating the Wheat from the Chaff:
Weeding the Collection is a Collaborative Affair
Gregory M. Nelson*, Meg F. Frost, Michael C. Goates, Elizabeth S. Hopkins,
Mark W. Jackson, Jed Johnston, David Pixton
Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, *Presenter
BACKGROUND
A large remodeling project required a significant portion of the Science & Engineering collection to be relocated or withdrawn
The entire Science & Engineering collection was evaluated for relevance, currency and use
Collection evaluation (weeding) project goals:
Reduce Science & Engineering collection footprint by 36%
Evaluate more than 360,000 items in 12 months
Discover collection areas that could be expanded and updated
Improve access to materials (needle in the haystack)
Key Indicators A. B. C.
Figure 4. Virtual Review Shelf
Patron view of item record.
Opportunity for post-selection review by faculty and staff. Arrow: vote to keep an item selected for withdraw.
Faculty and staff view after voting to keep an item. A report is generated for librarian review. containing information on all votes
Figure 2. Online Tracking and Accountability Sheet. SFU, Single Facing Unit
PROCESSES & ACCOUNTABILITY
Developed plan to achieve goals involving all library stakeholders:
Science & Engineering Department and teams from Collection Development, Information Technology, Physical Facilities, and Technical Services
Subject selectors developed workflows for material review, progress tracking, and post-selection review by professorial faculty
Progress was measured by number of Single Facing Units (SFU) reviewed A. B.
Proposed
Construction Site
Figure 3. Visual Map of Real Time Progress Evaluation
Top – All SFUs to be reviewed shown on floorplan. Web application using ArcGIS Online (by Mark Jackson, Geospatial Librarian) allows each librarian to enter their progress.
Bottom – Detail of SFU’s with LC class labels. Pink = SFUs not reviewed; Blue = SFUs reviewed; Green = SFUs are selected for attribute change. Right panels indicate the number of SFUs in the field of view and how many are Done or Not Done.
SFUs completed in the Full Map View
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
More than 170,000 items were reviewed and either kept, sent to on-site storage or withdrawn from the collection
Transparency, planning and proper resources with considerable hard work were vital
Accountability and collaboration with other departments in the library were key to the process
GreenGlass® data- Provided by Technical Services Division
GIS Map- Created by Geospatial Librarian
Virtual Review Shelf- Created by Library Information Technology personnel, especially Curtis Thacker
Tagging and removing material from shelves- Student employees and Shelving Manager
Selection criteria, materials review and updating accountability- Subject Librarians who reviewed 2,654 Single Facing Units
Review criteria such as check outs, publication date, last use, availability at other libraries, etc. was applied to GreenGlass® generated reports
Student shelvers tagged items from lists
Proposed items for withdrawal tagged with purple painters tape
Proposed items for on-site storage tagged with yellow strips from full pad Sticky Notes
Selectors reviewed each tagged item and marked daily progress with green and red sheets to indicate what items have been reviewed and can be removed from shelf
Reference paper for evaluating materials for deselection
Weeding the Collection: An Analysis of Motivations. Peter Zuber (Brigham Young University)
Presented at “Considerations for the Collection Conscious Librarian”, ASEE Conference June 2012
Figure 1. Review of tagged materials.