Book Selection Boone County Public Library

Notes Concerning the Book Selection Process
Boone County Public Library

James Duvall, M. A.
Reference Department
30 August 2006

Introduction

A new selection process has come to my attention. I am not aware of exactly what the process is or how it was put in place, but I was asked for my approval of books on certain lists. This does not seem to me a satisfactory manner of deciding what books we do or do not place in the library. My impression is that there are no controls on what gets ordered, and there does not seem to be much input at the initial decision level. Since I am not aware of what the process actually is this is not intended as a criticism of the new system. I will start from scratch and say what I think a good system would be for our library. This is a general plan and can incorporate the ideas of anyone who is familiar with what is involved in acquisition of materials for the library. I also add that I am not interested in overseeing the process, but in contributing to discussion of how we can get the best collection possible for our goals.

Critique of Old System

The prior system was in use for a number of years and provided the library with many useful items. There were some problems with the system, but it worked well enough that it seems appropriate to critique that system and see if its best qualities can be incorporated, or at least duplicated by any new system adopted. My experience with the old system was more limited than it should be to provide a comprehensive evaluation, but I know enough to point out certain deficiencies, as well as good points of the system, and those who know more than I can remedy any defective analysis.

If I had one single criticism to make of the old system it would be that it concentrated on the acquisition of books to the exclusion of weeding or retiring them. There should be a planned withdrawal any time there is a massive scheme of acquisition, such as our yearly purchases of new materials.

Here are a few other problems:

There were too many selectors. Most selectors meet with the committee only once or twice a year, and most of the selecting activity (while taking place throughout the year) was concentrated in the month or so before the selection of their area.

There was an emphasis on the large number of books initially chosen by the selector rather than quality of fitness for the collection.

Most selectors had no particular expertise in their areas of selection, and they did not do it enough to build experience.

There was little outside input aside from recommendation forms, and possibly topic slips, which are actually generated within the system.

There was not always a broad enough diversity of materials to select from to get the best possible collection.

There was no specific co-ordinator of the process (aside from the duties exercised by Pat). These duties ideally should include training of selectors, and overseeing all selection policy, such as weeding and detecting weaknesses (gaps) in the current collection.
The old system ended up with too many duplicate items with extremely low circulation. Weeding of low circulation duplicates was a “catch as catch can” method which had little or nothing to do with acquisition.
Different areas of the library: fiction, non-fiction, audiovisual materials, databases, etc., seem to have been selected by different methods.

There was no method of retaining items of particular value that we wished to retain in the system, especially low circulating items, as Kentucky books, and literary classics that should be available to students and others even if the demand is low.


Good Points about the Old System

I think one of the best points of the old system was that the branch managers formed the selection committee. They are very in touch with what their public wants and requests on a regular basis. This is a strength that should be retained and capitalized on.

Also:

There were a large number of people involved in the selection process. I said that there were too many selectors, but that is not such a weakness as not having enough people involved in the process.
Many people took a real interest in their assigned categories and worked to make the best possible selection.

The division of categories meant that is was likely that someone you work with regularly had a hand in the selection and could offer help if someone needed a book in that area. In other words there was a kind of diffusion of knowledge about the materials in that area.

The system was economical because it used only a few vendors. We got a lot of good books. The complaints from the public about what we have is (to my knowledge) minimal, though perhaps we don’t always know exactly what they think. As our collection grows larger this is going to become more of a factor: Largeness brings higher expectations.

There are probably others I have overlooked.


What Do We Need?

Our critique of the old system suggests what we should be looking for in the new. Here is a summary of the main points:

There should be people in touch with the needs of the public who make the actual selections.

Selectors should have expertise in their areas of selection, and should be able to develop experience selecting in their areas. They should have an interest in the areas for which they select over a period of time. They should be involved in selection four or five times a year, or even more often, and their duties should involve “special projects”.
There should be a large number of people involved in the process, though not all of them should be selectors.

Emphasis should be on quality and appropriateness for our collection.
There should be built into the system a method by which the item would be evaluated at a scheduled time.

In addition attention should be paid to the collection as a whole. There should be a “barebones” or core collection of books of permanent value, which may be replaced, but only by materials of similar content and value.


Elements of a Possible System

There are several elements I consider necessary for a system which will lead to the best results.

The Acquisitions Librarian - This may not seem necessary since the old system did not have one. I think that this is a very necessary part of the system. The person should be very knowledgeable about books and what the public wants and needs. The librarian should guide the process, set policy, encourage participation, provide training, and (most important of all, perhaps) be responsible for the results. I think this is the only way to insure that the new process is really new and stays on track

The Selectors - This was an important aspect in the old system, and should be even more important in the new. I think the number of selectors should be limited to about six people. These people should be reference people who are well acquainted with books, and should have a good sense of what the public wants and needs, as well as deficiencies in our current collection. The reason for holding down the number of selectors is so that they can become better trained, gain more experience, and become a focus of diffusion of knowledge about the collection to the rest of the staff. I would suggest that selectors be rigorously selected themselves. I think they should take a test, take training, receive a subscription to a literary type of journal (each of the six receiving a different journal and sharing), and perhaps a small increase in pay when actually doing selection, to emphasize its importance. Perhaps replacement selectors could be added by vote of the current participants in the task force, once it is certain the qualifications have been met.

The Selection Committee - This we identified as one of the strongest features of the old system, and I think it should be left in place. It should be composed of perhaps six people. The branch managers should all be included, perhaps on a rotating basis as our number of branches grows. I think at least one Selector should be on the Committee, in addition to the presenting Selector, so that at least two of the Selectors would be present at every actual selection meeting. This Committee probably should not grow too large, as that is extra expense to the library, and little is to be gained by having a large Committee if the initial lists for presentation are done right.

Additional Input - Every effort should be made to get the input of the public and of educators. I would suggest offering a questionnaire to anyone who is routinely interested in certain kinds of books (see example of questionnaire below). Teachers of honors classes in particular should be solicited to find out the types of books they are discussing, and what they think would enhance their programs. Offer discussion groups on certain topics and use that as a means to generate suggestions. Send selectors to bookstores and other libraries, or do-it-yourself stores, to discuss what is selling or being checked out there, and what kinds of questions people are asking.


The Problem of Withdrawing Materials

The area that should be of greatest concern to an Acquisitions Librarian is that of weeding and withdrawing materials that have been superseded, outdated, or in bad condition. The current system until recently has been to pull old editions of books as new ones came in, and to withdraw certain dated materials, and items with broken bindings. This has been successful overall, but additional volumes of new materials that will come with continued growth are going to make this an overwhelming problem. The solution is to build a schedule for evaluating materials into the selection process.

Public libraries turn over their collections at a much greater rate than research libraries, and specialized collections, that buy most of their books for their permanent value to the collection. They often retain old editions for their research potential, and rebind items that are coming apart. For a public library most of the copies of a best seller may be dead within six months. Even items of substantial content can date quickly, and books that appear new to most eyes are often replaced yearly.

Anyone informed enough to select a book is likely to have an idea of the length of time it is likely to be of value to most of our customers. Because of the knowledge our Selectors have about the books and the collection it would be wise to capitalize on this knowledge and have them, as part of the process, to assign a number that would correspond to its value in terms of years of value. Many of our books have a life expectancy of no more than five years. Each book could be assigned a value between 1 and 5, corresponding to the number of years the selector thinks the item is likely to have value to our collection, which would also be discussed and approved by the Selection Committee. A list of these books could be generated by the computer according to the life value assigned; the person making the decision would not be starting afresh in making the decision what to keep or discard, but would have an indication of what the original Selectors and Committee thought its lifespan might be. This should make the decision easier as there is already the beginning of an “information history” for that particular title.

Books thought to have permanent value to the library, could be assigned the status Permanent Value (PV). This would include our local history books, books by local authors, as well as various classics, and items, like dictionaries and such, that people expect us to have. These items would all be reviewed from time to time, but would not be an automatic part of the continual review process inherent in the year number system.


What is a Core Collection? Building the Bones

There are certain books in our literary tradition that should be part of every large public collection of books. These are books that are likely to be asked for “out of the blue”, as “Do you have a copy of Plato’s Republic?” The answer should always be “Yes.” For example, I was recently asked by a series of half a dozen honors students for the Republic and a dozen or so other classics, including Dante, Milton, and other books which are considered a traditional part of honors (and college prep) work. It was difficult to fill most of the requests, and most of the students had to be put on reserve lists for the few items in the system.

There are other books and materials in this category either by right of what they are, or who we are — that is, the repository of knowledge about Boone County and Kentucky for our area, that we ought to have. In addition, there are other books that will allow us to cover important fields about which we may be asked, that is, there should not be major gaps in important fields, e.g., we should have a fair selection of books about ancient Egypt, psychology, anthropology, etc., in fact in any area that we may be called on to provide authoritative answers.


The Question of Permanent Value

Permanent value is relative to a collection, and is a subjective judgment. There should be some guidelines concerning what would be a candidate for this part of the collection. Using the 1-5 scale this would be the relative scale of value:

1 - 2 Popular topical materials
3 - 4 Strong Content
5 - PV Core Collection

All local history materials would be automatically PV books. Other materials deemed of permanent value to our collection would also receive this category distinction. A five year book with strong content that circulated well might become a candidate for this category, as well as any other book that seems to defy the originally designated category or reach classic status.

A factor that can be put to use in this regard (whether intended or not) is built into the Dewey Decimal Classification system.

000-200 Religion, Philosophy, etc. More classics, high content
300-700 Sciences, Domestic Arts, etc. More recent and topical books, revised and updated editions
800-900 History, Literature More classics, high content

From the diagram it appears that the red, or upper half should have a higher concentration of permanent value materials just by the nature of their content. This includes classics of history, philosophy, and literature. Standard editions of great poets, writers, literary criticism, religious classics, editions and translations of the Bible and other sacred works. Works of high content that may not be PV books, would likely receive 5, as most historical subjects are not completely rewritten every five years, and may last much longer, even if newer works come out. There is a great deal of religious and self-help ephemera, which might receive relatively low year numbers, but even that tends to be asked for again eventually.

In the green, or lower hemisphere we find that the largest half of the collection consists of many areas that are highly topical, require new and often updated editions of standard works, and is very research oriented. Medicine would receive many ones and twos. Most of the sciences, which change rapidly, would receive ones through threes. The domestic arts are filled with many books that might be expected to have a life expectancy of two to four years. This is signified by the blue circle, which should be much larger in the green hemisphere than the red, which is why it is shown off-center. The social sciences contain many materials that might be discarded in a year or two, issues like smoking and violence change nuances often, but there are some classics. If this expectancy were built into the system it would save a great deal of time deciding when to review a section, what to pull, and speed up the process of deciding whether or not to keep items, and when to review items again. In short, with this system, we would not only have a kind of built in weeding guide, we would also know where to expect most of these materials to be.

It would not be too much to suggest that the Selectors would probably become the team that re-evaluates the books, when they are ordered pulled by the Acquisitions Librarian. They could either approve the librarian’s decisions, or make suggestions.


Generating Lists and the Selection Meeting

Lists of books to buy should be generated by the Selectors. They should actively seek guidance and suggestions from the public, other library workers, and by talking to booksellers, librarians at other institutions, the use of questionnaires, and perhaps other means not mentioned here. The titles can come from catalogues, reviews (including the journals to which they subscribe), and products like I-page. They should be aware of the collection as a whole (a weakness of the old system, in my opinion), and particularly of “holes” or gaps in our collection. Their primary business should be to actively engage in establishing the core collection and insuring that there is a uniform quality of current topical and popular books along with a solid core of sound factual and high content classics that provide balance to the collection. Because weeding can cause unfortunate gaps (if it is not done in conjunction with acquisition) it would seem reasonable for the Selectors to use the lists which are produced for withdrawals as an aid in making new selections.

The lists of titles chosen for consideration by the Selectors should be provided to the Selection Committee before the actual meeting. No objectivity is gained by springing items on them at the last moment. On the contrary, if members of the Committee have questions they can look up individual items and be intelligently prepared to ask questions about the value of that item for the collection. In fact great care should be made not just to purchase interesting books, but that the item add to the collection as a whole. For example, if an interesting new topical book is selected and approved for purchase, rather than ordering, say, four or five additional copies for all the branches, why not order two or perhaps three additional copies, and choose a complimentary book or two in the same subject area which will enhance our offerings. In addition, it is less likely that all the copies will go dead at the same time.

There should be a real exchange between the Selector and the Committee (one of whom will be a Selector), and the aim will be to get us the best possible collection to fulfill our mission. I recently mentioned to a lady I met at Kroger that I worked at the library. She said: “I don’t go there. They never have what I want.” Selectors should be talking to people like this. If they found things they wanted they would mention it to their friends (who often share similar tastes) and circulation would increase; it would also likely benefit the collection by including more diverse tastes.


Our Relation to Other Institutions

The use of the library by students in honors classes has been mentioned. I think such students could be better served by having the teachers submit book request forms for their classes. We cannot expect the teachers to initiate this. We need to realize that part of our mission is to support other institutions in the community. They often cannot provide all of the materials they need for their programs and depend on us to do so for them. This obviously includes schools, the single most significant institution in this regard is probably Ryle High School; but also included is home schooling, for which such support is often even more crucial; but the material needs for these two are complimentary in many ways. I think we should make a particular point to have our Selectors interview teachers of honors classes to find out what they need.

We also provide important support to local colleges, even those with large resources, since students often wish to avoid traveling too far. Particularly close are Gateway and Beckfield. I have had the same question from nursing students at Beckfield College probably a score or more of times: “Do you have anything on nursing theorists!” This must be a standard question asked in a certain class. The answer we have to give is: “No. That is much too specialized for our scope.” But is it? If we were proactive in this regard one of our Selectors would find out the source of this question, approach that professor, and find out the one or two books that would allow his or her students to answer that question satisfactorily. That would not be beyond our scope. We buy books all the time we are uncertain anyone will use. Here we would have a definite target audience for the volumes, we would support another institution that has a public function in our community. The students would be happy (and try us again the next time they have a question, instead of assuming we probably do not have what they want), and we would still be well within our scope. It would not be the same as purchasing hundreds, or even dozens, of technical nursing books. The scope would be quite limited and the service greatly appreciated.

We also serve to support other government and public agencies. We have public documents from the airport, garbage and sewer services, environmental issues, and county planning issues, perhaps issues of terrorism in the future. We need to determine what information the public needs to complement the reports of public agencies. We also serve as a source of materials for those who are studying for tests by private and public agencies: GED, ACT, SAT, and citizenship application tests. This are services that are important to the public, and cannot be simply measured by circulation statistics. The chief value is that they support education and citizenship by providing materials that people might not otherwise be able to afford in their efforts to better themselves. Such materials important in fulfilling our responsibility to other institutions.


A System of Qualitative Measurement

Probably the most significant factor we take into consideration in deciding to withdraw an item is the circulation statistics. They are very important in this regard, and I do not discount them. It is obvious in many cases, however, that the book should not be withdrawn even though the book has had virtually no use. In other words this criteria is often no use at all since we go against it. The problem lies in the Circle of Categories outlined above. It is unreasonable beyond a doubt to think that the entire collection will have the same level of use, but this does not mean that less use signifies less importance. In fact, the contrary seems to be more likely to be the case. We need a system of qualitative measurement rather than the sheer quantity of usage.

With the introduction of the number of years of projected value we have already introduced a principle by which we can pass to a qualitative measurement that is not wholly arbitrary. Since we do not expect the red hemisphere — philosophy, religion, and the like, to have as high circulation as the green hemisphere — sciences, domestic, sports, etc. — it seems reasonable to count uses of those materials at a different value. There are several ways this could be done to arrive at qualitative use. Books that fall in the category Permanent Value could receive a higher score than books we think will only be on the shelves a year or so. These books, used by students and researchers, such as genealogists, an important factor in our long-term plan, support the community in ways that other books, such as cookbooks (usually a personal or family consideration), or others may not do.

In our chart above the Permanent Value books (say up to 25% of the collection) is represented by the yellow core, are closely allied in value with the books we intend to keep at least five years. Let us give each use of these books a value of 4. The books in the blue circle (say 50% of the collection) we plan to keep two or three years. They get a value of 2. The topical and popular books we may only keep one or two years. Let us give them a value of 1.

1 to 2 years value 1
3 to 4 years value 2
5 or PV books value 4

This would be no more trouble than keeping our current circulation statistics. For one and two year books the value would simply be the circulation number. For the materials in the other categories we would simply increase the value for books by the value number, so that Plato’s Republic would receive a qualitative score of four, while the twenty-ninth edition of How to Purchase Insurance without Getting Beat (maybe that’s a real title), would receive a value of one per use, and be gone the next year. We still have the quantities measure for each book for any use we need it. The system would apply to in-house uses as well, so that uses of local history or other reference materials would be much greater in quality. This would greatly reduce the problem of justifying expensive materials that do not get a large number of uses. It would also account for books that get horrible circulation statistics, like dictionaries, that everyone expects us to have. Of course they often sneak them back on the shelves before we can scan them and get the statistic, but that won’t matter so much in the new system.

This qualitative system of valuation would be helpful in our quest to provide support for the activities of other institutions that are patronized by our customers, rather than merely relying on actual number counts, and use of such a system should be considered for this reason. While some PV books may go several years without much use qualitative use of materials in the various areas is more significant. This system of valuation will be valuable in showing how each area of the collection adds value to the whole, rather than focusing on the particular value of any one book.

Donated Books

Since this plan is intended to be comprehensive I will mention the place of donated books in the system. The vast majority of donated books go to the book sale. This is a good thing, but there might be better ways to use some of the items we do not add to the collection. I find that among the books, particularly paperbacks, that show up at the sale, there are classics and other volumes that are on the required reading lists that students are waiting for (sometimes in long queues), and yet we are selling them for ten cents at the book sale five or six months later. I think some system of getting these books into the hands of those who need them should be considered.

Many of the people in our area own at least a few books of local interest. These do not always appear to be of value on the surface. As an example, I once found a small paper bound volume that was a history of the Masonic lodge in Erlanger. This rather non-descript item would normally have been thrown away or sent (without much prospect of finding a purchaser) to the book sale. On inspection it turned out that a number of the members listed, with their affiliations, were from Florence, and the item was promptly added to the local history collection. Our original method of handling donated books accounted for the fact that though some people call attention to the value of the local history items they have donated others either expect us to know their value, or (perhaps discarding someone else’s no longer needed items), are not aware of their value. Since these items can only be spotted by someone knowledgeable in local history, lore and literature, we may lose items of local significance if this step is dropped. At any rate these books should be used to enhance our programs in any way possible before being sent to the book sale.






A Time Table for Implementation

Not everything can be done immediately. If this system is implemented, and it is a system, not merely a method of acquisition, it would be some time before we would see the full benefits. We have just completed a massive weeding project, and that is no longer pressing, nevertheless, we should plan to evaluate the entire collection within five years. This could be done first in the areas where we identified the largest number of books likely to be one or two year books and then expanded each year. Any book kept in the system would be assigned a year expectancy number, as would every new item, so that within five years the entire collection would be on the new system. Because of their importance we could assign a team to begin classifying PV books as soon as possible. There might be ways to speed up this time table, but it is always good to begin with a target.

This plan is general enough and includes enough flexibility that we could modify it as we learn to use it. We would surely make changes and introduce definitions such as “What is the criteria for a three year book?” Such rules of thumb are necessary and can only be devised by experience.


James Duvall, M.A.
Big Bone University
Nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem.

Sample Library Questionnaire

What types of books do you mostly read?
Do you usually find the materials you want in our library?
Do you use our computers regularly?
Are you familiar with our website?
Do you attend programs?
Do you think we should improve our selection of books, music, music, DVDs? How?
What is the last book you read?
Would you be willing to suggest a list of five to ten important books in your favorite subject area?
Do you prefer digital books, audio books, etc.
Would you like to talk to one of our book selectors about our collection and your areas of interest?
Do you think we should have more popular books or books of more enduring value in your subject area?
What can we do to make your visits to the library more profitable and enjoyable?
What are we doing right?
Anything else?

A similar but different questionnaire should be made for teachers.