A reflection on Johnson’s 2018 methods of collection analysis
Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management (Fourth Ed.) (Johnson, 2018) presents an apprised table (p. 288) that appears to contain a few updates including the consideration of e-resources.
The aim of a collection analysis is essentially to asses a collection’s value not the quality (Johnson, p. 281). It could be argued that whilst Johnson (2018, p. 288) presents quite an array of techniques covering use and user based to collection based, it is important that a TL begins the process with a clear purpose (Johnson, 2018, p. 282). The ongoing nature of collection analysis means that a TL must focus on selecting techniques that that are in no way time consuming or arduous. They must work effectively (and efficiently) for the school library, taking into account time constraints and the provision of any assistance.
An interesting addition to Johnson’s (2018, p. 288) ‘Methods of collection analysis’ table is E-resource use statistics. Although recognising the growth and proliferation in e-resources across many school libraries, Johnson (2018) acknowledge there may be a problem capturing true use statistics. Not all e-resources are classified and represented in a shelf list. Also, circulation terms may see limitations to the numbers of users who may simultaneously view them and as such the true circulation of these materials is not reflected in the library’s circulation system (Johnson, 2018, p. 290). Defaulting to and relying on data collection via the e-book supplier’s reports may be necessary but may skew the final figures. As increased funds are dedicated to e-resources, it is important that accurate usage patterns of the users in the school are captured to inform budgeting forecasts and future acquisitions.
Another interesting addition is ‘Comparisons between libraries or between different sections in the library’. This is perhaps a consideration for a number of large public libraries. Johnson (2018, p. 299) discusses the need for standards to be developed to provide a framework for comparing libraries of similar types. There are however a number of problems inherent in such a proposition. Some standards are very general and difficult to apply to specific collections. Also, these standards are the product of opinion and not everyone will agree with them. Due to the individual nature of each school library catering to its own user base it seems that if this analysis technique was to be used, one would be comparing apples to pears. There wouldn’t be any value in collection comparison as each school library is a reflection of its own community, the needs and provisions differ greatly.
Considering use and user-based analysis, circulation data can be used to understand how many items are checked out each month, the most popular areas and those sections of the collections that are that are underused. School library systems such as Oliver provide features to allow reports to be designed to analyse specific categories or collections dependent on the data to be gathered. User surveys can also be conducted (in different formats – verbally, via web-based instruments or as written questionnaires for example) and can range from short and simple to lengthy and complex. These surveys provide information to assess “quantitatively and qualitatively the effectiveness of the collections in meeting users’ needs, help solve specific problems, define the makeup of the actual community of library users, identify user groups that need to be better served, and provide feedback on successes as well as on deficiencies” (Johnson, 2018, p. 304). Whilst these surveys open effective communication channels between users and staff, unless forcibly imposed upon all users they rely heavily on user buy-in and are not guaranteed to provide a ‘big picture’ set of results. Focus groups however can be specifically scheduled as a space to allow comments, suggestions and concerns to be aired. Provided the results can be measured objectively, they would allow collaborative grouping for TLs and teachers to share ideas as well as giving student focus groups valuable space to voice their thoughts. Johnson (2018, p. 305) identifies user observation as a technique for better understanding how users interact with the library’s collections, thus informing selection decisions. It is important to remember when assessing the worth of qualitative analysis, one must be aware of its subjective nature with at times a heavy reliance on opinion as the focus is to evaluate the intrinsic worth of the collection (Johnson, 2018, p. 290).
Johnson (2018, p. 295) points out that collection mapping as a qualitative approach to collection analysis may also present quantitative data, such as materials available per year group and student. There is also the visual benefit of representing the data as a graphical representation of the collection. Johnson (2018, p. 296) continues with other methods of collection-based analysis such as collection profiling, list checking and direct collection analysis (or shelf scanning). These collection-based analyses could all find their place in a school library. Mapping, whilst time consuming has the benefit of necessitating a curriculum map to be created. This provides an excellent opportunity for collaboration between TL and classroom teachers and allows the TL to obtain a clear birds-eye-view of the teaching and learning across the school.
References:
Johnson, P. (2018). Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. 4th Edition. ALA Editions.