Op Ed-Random Ramblings: Is a Theory of Collection Development Possible?

Against the Grain, Oct 2016

By Bob Holley, Published on 10/20/16

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6415&context=atg

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)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6415&context=atg

Bob Holley. Op Ed-Random Ramblings: Is a Theory of Collection Development Possible?, Against the Grain, 2016, Volume 25, Issue 1,