Op Ed-Random Ramblings: Is a Theory of Collection Development Possible?
Op Ed-Random Ramblings: Is a Theor Collection Development Possible? y of
Bob Holley 0
0 Wayne State University
-
l
a
i
Op Ed — Random Ramblings
Is a Theory of Collection Development Possible?
Column Editor: Bob Holley (Professor, Library & Information Science Program, Wayne State University,
Detroit, MI 48202; Phone: 248-547-0306; Fax: 313-577-7563) <>
Iwho doesn’t pay much attention to
r admit to being a very practical person
o theory in my daily life. The
inter
esting part is that I often come to the
t same conclusions as people who do.
i One of my favorite colleagues is Dr.
Dian Walster, who is my exact
opposite on this question but whose actions
d are similar. We often discuss effective
teaching. During one of our discussions,
I discovered that I practiced reflective
learning in a similar fashion to how
MonEsieur Jourdain in Molière’s Le Bourgeois
Gentilhomme learned to his amazement
that he spoke prose. She may have
learned about this technique from her
d interest in theoretical pedagogy, while I
implemented it from my thinking about
nhow to teach effectively, past experience
as a student, and trial and error.
a The role of theory in librarianship in
general is a tricky issue, as it is in the
social sciences in general. To me, the
s best proof of the difficulty of forming an
accurate, predictive theory is the stock
market. Anyone who could solve this
nproblem would get filthy rich. While
researchers can draw statistically valid
o conclusions about the present, their
results then modify future activities
i and undermine these very theories. In
addition, these theories depend upon
nassumptions that can change and upon
the researchers’ views of human nature,
i where irrationality is often more
im
portant than the traditionally assumed
p rationality of economic decisions. The
only valid permanent assumption may
be human greed. In the end, the best
minds grapple with this problem and
come up with different conclusions.
The stock market expert with a long
O
string of successes may suddenly have a
phenomenal failure. In the end, research
has shown that throwing darts at a list of
stocks often comes up with statistically
similar results to the picks of the most
—sophisticated stock market analysts.
(http://www.avidtrader.com/2013/01/
the-handoff/)
Furthermore, social science theory is
d most often a distillation of practice. The
researcher analyzes what happens and
then comes up with a theory to explain
the results. I frequently ask potential
Ehires how long they think that their
research will remain valid because theory
needs to change as often as practice does.
p I used to subscribe to an Internet bulletin
on Web design that recommended
constantly changing features and revising
the site after testing the current and the
proposed change simultaneously to see
O
which version produced more revenue.
This bulletin didn’t even attempt to
explain why some things worked better
than others beyond a certain number of
core principles. Instead, they advocated
continuous experimentation.
To focus specifically on
collection development, many of the key
assumptions of the past are no longer
true. Digital coexists with print. The
window of easy availability of materials
is no longer the brief time when they
were in-print and
sold by the
publisher. The library
is no longer
limited to providing
physical access.
An abundance of
information has
replaced scarcity
as the key issue
for users.
Digital information
resources are not
static. Libraries are no longer judged by
the size of their print collections but by
their ability to deliver quickly-needed
information to their user communities.
A small library can have access to vast
quantities of digital resources. I could
continue, but I’ll stop here.
All these changes, which have
happened in less than two decades, challenge
the former theories of collection
development from the print age. Libraries are
establishing new practices to deal with
the changing environments.
Patrondriven acquisitions has replaced buying
materials for future users. Libraries
are removing print materials on the
assumption of the reliability of digital
access. Collections no longer need to
be balanced if the libraries’ users don’t
value this balance. The role of the
collection development specialist has
been radically diminished. Libraries are
buying large quantities of materials as
packages for economies of scale. (This
change, however, resembles the purchase
of major microform sets where many of
the items were never used and where
some were almost useless for scholarly
research.)
I would contend that the full
implications of these changes are not yet known.
Many rely on the assumption that most
materials will remain accessible
somewhere either digitally or in print or that
those materials that disappear weren’t
worth saving, at least for today’s
scholars. Research is underway to study the
results of these changes, but conclusions
as firm as those about print collections
before the arr (...truncated)