Collection Development

COSELL's Collection Development for Academics Roundtable
SEAALL/SWALL Joint Meeting
Wednesday, April 18, 2001
5:00 - 6:00 p.m.

Summary of Meeting

Approximately 45 people attended the Roundtable.  Attendees included librarians from 
Technical Services, Public Services/Reference, and Administration 
(Directors and Associate Directors).  

The meeting began with everyone identifying themselves, their position and their 
institution, and commenting on how collection development was handled in their 
libraries.  While most libraries 
represented had a slightly different approach to collection development, there were 
some common themes.

Most of the libraries have a team approach to collection development and all of 
these include reference librarians in the process.  Some libraries also have a
technical services librarian on the team as well as the systems or electronic 
services librarian.  For some libraries, there is a distinction between the 
collection development team, addressing planning and policy issues, and the 
selection team, usually comprised of reference librarians.  One or two attendees 
indicated that their selection teams are limited to librarians with a JD.  Other 
models include directors or deputy directors being responsible for the 
collection development policy and process, including coordinating a team of selectors.

Working with subject specialists and consulting with faculty members during 
the selection process was also a common thread.  The question of weeding or 
deselection was discussed.  One library had the faculty look at materials in 
their subject specialty and recommend how to handle specific titles, including 
deselection and/or retention of superseded materials.  Faculty involvement was seen as 
important because of questions surrounding a law school library's archival mission.

Evaluation and selection of electronic resources was also discussed.  Increasing 
subscriptions to web or other online resources often means more interaction 
between public and technical services, including consultation with a systems or 
electronic services librarian.  A question was raised about whether colleagues 
have found new evaluation tools in the digital age, but there was no mention of 
a definitive source.  Librarians continue to use traditional resources as well as 
the LLRX web site, the Charleston Advisor, and other library catalogs.

Suggested topics for COSELL programs at future SEAALL meeting might 
include looking at the growing overlap of responsibilities between public and
 technical services and the impact that digital collections and access to remote 
databases has on the structure and work flow of our libraries.