Agencies which rely on superlatives as guiding models in the selection process show little understanding of collection development and offer no real guidance to selectors. The South Australian Department of Education and Children’s services defines selection in the broadest of terms as a process of choosing what is ‘considered to be the best, most appropriate and/ or must suitable for the particular learning activity’ (p.7). Advising librarians to select what is best is, perhaps, a safe stance for the State, but might leave librarians scratching their heads as they consider what politicians consider excellent resources.
The “Decision Making Model for Selecting Resources and Access Points That Support Learning” presented by Hughes-Hassell and Mancall (2005) and shared in the ETL 503 learning modules is part of their learner-centered collection policy. The idea of a decision tree (see below) for selection seems like it might be a great way to guide selection, but there is a paucity of idea and substance here. Asking if a resource addresses the information needs of a community does not, at this point in learning about collection policy development, seem immensely helpful. Certainly, it is not wrong. It is merely misleading. Are these questions which a librarian would and should ask themself? Absolutely. Does it seem helpful to work these into a flow chart? Not especially.
What might be encouraging from the use of superlatives as selection criteria is the trust it places in the librarian to make informed choices. If these criteria are to be interpreted as something which expand and become more intricate in the brain and heart of a librarian, they make more sense. The learner or user of the resources remain unindentified for obvious reasons. The selector, a teacher librarian or librarian, is the link between the generic question with unspecified user and the actual user.
In some cases, as in the case of the school library, the teacher librarian will know some of the user’s needs prior to the user due to curriculum and learning which the user has not yet encountered.
This blog post has dwindled from its intitial frustration with superlatives. This essay has become more of a conversation. Might one add to the flow chart above to make it more substantial, more subscribed, more tailored? Would adding these additional levels be appropriate to a flow chart for general use? No. It would make it more helpful for particular application by a particular library.
Hughes-Hassell, S. & Mancall, J. (2005). Collection management for youth: responding to the needs of learners [ALA Editions version]. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/lib/csuau/detail.action?docID=289075
Addendum
** Two days later and with much more reading under my belt: I will not delete this post as it serves as a strong (piquant even) reminder to read a lot before saying a little. Hughes-Hassel and Mancall offer so much more that this table I took out of context. I do not fully disagree with the start of this blog post, but I foolishly took this table and flow chart on its own and out of context which was extra special dumb in the context of the ideas presented in the whole chapter.
