The RLG conspectus down under: Report on an Australian seminar, “The RLG conspectus and collection evaluation”∗

Library Acquisitions:

Practice & Theory, Vol. 13, pp. 73-80,

1989

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

Copyright

THE RLG CONSPECTUS

0

0364-6408/89 $3.00 + .OO 1989 Pergamon Press plc

DOWN UNDER:

Report on an Australian Seminar, “The RLG Conspectus Collection Evaluation”*

and

JAMES HENRI School of Information

Studies

Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education P.O. Box 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia

On 29 August 1988 the National Acquisitions Section of the Library Association of Australia continued its tradition of hosting seminars. Its latest offering, held as a precursor to the IFLA/LAA Conference in Sydney, was entitled “The RLG Conspectus and Collection Evaluation”. The purpose of this seminar was to discuss the value and appropriate application of the RLG Conspectus to Australian research and academic libraries. Approximately 100 delegates attended a highly successful program. The keynote speaker was Dr. Paul Mosher, lately deputy director of libraries at Stanford University and more recently director of libraries of the University of Pennsylvania. Mosher has been associated with Conspectus from the very beginning and has written and lectured widely upon it, as well as on such related topics as cooperation in collection development, collection evaluation, and automation and collection development [l]. Two of Mosher’s papers published in 1983 are regarded as catalysts for the idea of a coordinated national approach to collection development in Australia [2]. The Conspectus system was developed by the Office of Management Studies (OMS) of the Association of Research Libraries and the Research Libraries Group (RLG) in 1983 as a method of measuring collection levels in libraries. This system facilitates the assessment of a library’s existing collections and current collecting policy by dividing the collection into subject groupings and indicates the coverage of each grouping on a scale of comprehensiveness ranging from zero to five; a separate set of indicators is used to indicate language coverage [Appendix 11. The word “conspectus” has been defined as a breakdown of subject fields in such a way as to allow distributed collection responsibilities for as many fields as possible [3].

*The author wishes to thank Derek Whitehead, Secretary of the LAA Acquisitions Section, for providing prepublication copies of a number of the seminar papers and Philip Kent, of the Information Services Unit of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, for assisting with this report.

73

74

.I. HENRI

Because the utilization of Conspectus manually would be a tiresome task, RLG has mounted data online to facilitate access and use. This interactive database, called the RLG Conspectus Online, can be searched at least by subject, class, collection level and institution. Mosher delivered two papers at the seminar, looking at two key questions: why evaluate? and how to evaluate. Mosher is both an informed and an articulate speaker, and his presentations were memorable. In many respects evaluation of any exercise seems almost selfevident, and one might be excused for thinking that talking about such topics is a bit like the pastor preaching salvation to the converted. Despite this Mosher managed to create rather a nice broth which included some well-known and well-used ingredients and some less so. He argued that collection development and collection evaluation should not be merely a local exercise; in approaching library collections a library should act locally but think nationally. Conspectus is a tool that enables a library to know the current state of the collection and opens up the future in terms of planning. Mosher provided a strong incentive for those who feared that completing the Conspectus exercise might do little for one’s future image: he stated that many of those who have completed it have become legendary figures for that library collection. Mosher argued that doing it was important, and not doing it in isolation was essential. Teams incorporating library staff, faculty and other local librarians are usually the most successful and often sow the seeds for future financial support. Conspectus by its nature focuses upon where a collection is going rather than upon where it has been. This has the side effect of providing useful information for course accreditation teams visiting an academic institution. Mosher indicated that the literature abounds with papers dealing with the history and use of Conspectus 141.Two recent papers which provide detailed analyses of the adoption of Conspectus by the National Library of Scotland and the British Library were suggested as essential reading [5],. Mosher was adamant that those librarians who do the work must have the leading role in deciding what the evaluation will be. In other words, those who are responsible for collection development must also be responsible for the evaluation of that collection. While Conspectus is contemplated and implemented, ordinary collection management work must continue. Conspectus work is likely to take many months to complete and will require the commitment of major funding. It is therefore sensible for a library to formalize contractual agreements with inside and outside staff prior to the commencement of the work. Only in this way is ownership of the process by the workers as well as the institution guaranteed. The contracts should cover a number of aspects including the time frame, who will be involved and who will fund the process. Trainees must be appropriately trained, and they in turn will train those who are responsible for the day-to-day Conspectus work. Experience indicates that a small training/ steering committee is usually identified with successful action. Mosher spoke of the need for “dynamic incrementalism” -taking on one small bit at a time. He also indicated that there are many techniques that can be used to evaluate a collection. These may be as straightforward as looking at the items on the shelves; they may also include shelf list measurement, analyzing the products from automated systems, evaluation by user and use surveys or citation analysis. The better evaluations are likely to result from a Process that involves at least two different measures; for example, a measure of periodical holdings by subject might be compared with the subject listings in Ulrich’s to test the adequacy of the holdings. What then are the appropriate criteria for assessing the well being of a library collection? Mosher referred to a number of elements:

The RLG Conspectus

chronological coverage-in

Down

Under

75

particular what range of years is critical for each subject area;

language coverage; principal authors; principal works; primary sources; criticisms, commentaries and interpretations; complete sets; periodical coverage; non-book coverage; number of volumes; circulation data. He emphasized the importance of the Notes field in the Conspectus work sheets as an access point, arguing that surprising things can be found through a search under this field. Finally Mosher answered two interesting questions: 1. Why put money into Conspectus when the result is bound to be a clamor for funds to support subject areas and staffing? Conspectus work provides the basis for funding allocation according to priorities and a known future path rather than according to other more subjective or political motives. 2. Of what value is Conspectus to library suppliers? Conspectus provides this segment of the industry with a clear picture of the market place as a whole as well as the constituent parts. Suppliers know what products to target for each library and the parameter of price is more readily identified. Eric Wainwright, Deputy Director General of the National Library of Australia (NLA) and a longtime supporter of the Conspectus approach, presented a paper with a rather predictable title, “Conspectus and the National Library of Australia” [6]. The early part of Wainwright’s paper provided an historical sketch of the debate within the profession that led in December 1987 to the NLA’s adoption of the RLG Conspectus approach as its standard methodology for the future and, in March 1988, to the State Librarians’ Council determination to endorse the approach for entering any data into a system for recording comparative collection information. The rate of change has been too slow, yet the involvement of the NLA is critical if a national approach is to be adopted. Wainwright stressed that any project that requires cooperation in capital investment and agreement about philosophy and costeffectiveness is bound to be difficult to achieve, and even now there is not wholehearted agreement about the usefulness of cooperative collection development or of the detailed application of the RLG Conspectus in Australia. (The range of views expressed throughout the seminar provided adequate proof of this point.) Wainwright argued that the NLA has a strong role to play in encouraging the coordination of collection development throughout Australia, and he believes that the NLA should provide national leadership in the area of cooperative collection development. In the current revision of its collection development policy the NLA is employing the RLG Conspectus

76

J. HENRI

model as the basis for description of its collection areas. Wainwright argued that the employment of Conspectus entails a small step beyond the requirements of a detailed collection development policy and should be viewed in this way rather than as a discrete instrument. If a national adoption of Conspectus is to occur, it is fundamental that a common source of Conspectus information be collected. A national approach to Conspectus entails: the availability of suitable software mounted through a network; the availability of trained staff in each member library; the Australianization

of some Conspectus areas and interpretations;

a formal cooperative agreement among major libraries to fund the project; NLA responsibility

for coordination,

a timetable for implementation

training, etc.;

and ongoing reviews.

Margaret Cameron, University Librarian and Pro-Vice-Chancellor at Deakin University, presented a lively paper on the topic, “Evaluation and Inter-institutional Cooperation in Collection Development”. She argued that, from the point of view of both a university librarian and a senior academic administrator, evaluation of academic library collections is part of an inevitable future way of life. The Australian federal government’s policy on higher education is full of statements about the new climate of accountability and flexibility. The government intends to develop funding arrangements that take into account a range of output, quality and performance measures. There will be a map of scholarly excellence in Australia. From the point of view of those responsible for the building of library collections this will provide an excellent basis for collection planning, which Australia has always lacked. The key statement in the government’s policy paper in this regard is the following: Concentration of resources and the development of educational profiles will enable institutions to identify and build on their particular strengths, with consequent benefits to students and staff. More flexible staffing arrangements will improve the status of the teaching role within highereducation,while rewarding excellence in both teaching and research. The quality of educational outcomes will also be assisted by measures to improve student progress, enhance institutional management and strengthen links with industry [7].

Thus there is good news for libraries in the paper; that is, the rationalization of subjects within academic institutions should make life easier for libraries. Instead of collections being driven by academics, the strength of these collections should be considered in the selection of academics to be employed or areas to be taught. Cameron believes that we have to get there from where we are. We have to prove that the library collection which provides the infrastructure for a particular scholarly activity is appropriate and excellent. Given that institutions will know more clearly the academic directions and strengths of others, it should be easier to negotiate among libraries for appropriate cooperative collection development strategies. Janine Schmidt of the State Library of New South Wales delivered a paper entitled “Collection Evaluation and the Conspectus: Chimeras in Library Cooperation?” She argued that library evaluation has already absorbed a great deal of librarians’ time and attention. Yet what traditionally has been done in the name of collection evaluation has often been collection measurement. Librarians are good at measurement, but the essential targets and baselines that are an integral part of any evaluation often do not exist or are unhelpful. Evaluation includes some notion of quality, some attempt to judge the value of a collection. Measurement, on

The RLG Conspectus

Down Under

77

the other hand, tells us what exists without further regard to value or use. Schmidt claimed that collection measurement was nonetheless a useful basis for cooperation, provided that there is a commitment to future directions in collecting by individual libraries and that the sharing of responsibility for collecting in peripheral areas is negotiated. She also pointed out that Conspectus focuses upon collection evaluation at the macro level. Librarians are essentially interested in macro data, yet she believes that library users are more interested in collections at the micro level. That is, the user is not interested so much in whether a library has a strong collection on Australian nineteenth century history but rather in where a particular book on the subject can be located [8]. Schmidt pointed to the strength of the Australian Bibliographic Network in providing the latter information, and argued that limited financial resources dictate that we should be working towards the inclusion of retrospective holdings on ABN rather than providing further description at the macro level. According to Schmidt, what is essential to effective cooperative collection development policies in major libraries is the existence of up-to-date, written collection development policies. These can be devised with the assistance of such excellent guides as Gorman and Howes’ Coflection Development for Australian Libraries or the ALA’s Guidelines for Collection Development [9]. Schmidt argued that libraries must always consider their own local clients first and foremost. This means concentrating on the development of core collections. It is outside this core, the so-called periphery, where agreement about cooperation must be obtained. She suggested that new approaches to collection evaluation were necessary so that individual libraries could determine the overall effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of their activities. These include focusing upon program objectives and outcomes, the determination of performance measures, standards and targets and an emphasis on program improvement as the prime purpose for evaluation. Successful cooperation depends on commitment. What we need if we are to achieve cooperative collection development in Australia is a greater sense of willingness to negotiate and to hold to agreements and a vision of what can be achieved. The solution entails four steps: 1. 2. 3. 4.

measure whatever can be easily measured; determine future directions; negotiate and cooperate with others; implement what has been decided, evaluate the outcomes and correct deficiencies.

Margaret Henty of the Australian National University (ANU) presented a paper entitled “Library Acquisitions Policy by Consultation out of Conspectus.” This was a reflection upon the ANU library’s decision in 1987 to prepare a comprehensive collection development policy which could be used to direct priorities in future collection building. The ANU chose the collection development policy of the University of California at Berkeley as a model. That policy was published in the early 1980s and was based upon the format of the RLG Conspectus [lo]. Henty indicated the many difficulties that were encountered during the evaluation process. The fact that ANU has a diversity of classification schemes created severe difficulties. Setting out the Library of Congress schedule to be used was laborious. The difficulties in using a Library of Congress schedule based upon a nineteenth century view of the world, particularly the scientific world, were many, and care had to be taken to ensure that some narrow research interests were not lost in a more general category. Henty indicated that despite the fact that the process was both costly and tedious, there is no evidence to suggest that the academics, who now control all ordering at ANU, have actually made use of the data. She stated that participation in a national Conspectus program can

J. HENRI

only be justified if there is a corresponding guarantee of a shared commitment to future collection building, not just a sharing of present resources. Derek Whitehead of the State Library of Victoria gave a very interesting concluding paper, “Catching up on Collection Evaluation.” He began with a description of Australian state libraries- rather peculiar beasts. State libraries are by origin hybrids, similar to national libraries and to large urban public libraries; yet often they have meagre funding. As Whitehead stated, one of the major problems is that it is almost impossible to identify the users; state libraries have no clearly defined clientele. If one cannot identify the characteristics of the users, how does one evaluate performance? The principal goal of the collection evaluation exercise at the State Library of Victoria was the production of a selection policy which would describe existing practices and policies, would bring coherence to them (if possible) and where necessary alter them [l I]. Four factors determine policy: 1. 2. 3. 4.

responsibility under legislation; the needs of present and future users; the collections of other institutions; the existing collection.

In the case of the State Library of Victoria this was to be completed on a collection of 1.5 million volumes after a century of development! Whitehead outlined the four main kinds of evaluation that had been employed: statistics, qualitative evaluation, use data, comparison with other collections. The major difficulties associated with these methods were outlined. The evaluation work influenced quite substantially the development of the collection development policy, but in the end very little of the detail was included in the published policy. The reasons for this decision were interesting: (1) the policy was already lengthy, and inclusion would have added time and length to the operation; (2) the work had not been done consistently and was incomplete; (3) some judgments were regarded as too subjective; (4) the major aim had been to use the data in the formation of the policy, not to incorporate them. Whitehead concluded with a number of salient points. First, the cooperative dimension of evaluation is essential. Strengths and weaknesses in the State Library of Victoria collection make sense only when they are judged against other collections. Second, measurement must be the starting point in any evaluation, but evaluation is a complex process, particularly in a complex and idiosyncratic collection. (For example, strengths must be explored for hidden weaknesses. In this case the collection is largely bereft of undergraduate texts.) This was a very interesting program and offered the audience a valuable view of Conspectus both from overseas and from home institutions. Fortunately, the seminar participants will not be the only ones to benefit, for selected papers are to be published in Australian Academic and Research Libraries, and the entire collection of papers is to be published as a monograph to be distributed in Australia by DA Book Pty Ltd, 11 Station Street, Mitcham, Vie. 3132.

NOTES 1. Some of Mosher’s more important publications include the following: Mosher, Paul. “A National Scheme for Collaboration in Collection Development: The RLG-NCIP,” in Coordinating Cooperative Collection Devekwment, Haworth Press, 1986, pp. 21~35; “Collection Development to Collection Management: Toward Stewardship

The RLG Conspectus Down Under

79

of Library Resources,” Collection Management, 4(4)(Winter 1982), 41-48; “Collection Evaluation in Research Libraries: The Search for Quality, Consistency, and System in Collection Development,” Library Resources and Technical Services, 23(1)(Winter 1979), 16-32; “Collection Evaluation or Analysis, ” in Collection Development in Libraries: A Treatise, ed. by R.D. Stueart and G.B. Miller, Vol. 10, Part A. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980; “The Nature and Uses of the RLG Verification Studies,” Co/lege and Research Libraries News, 46(7)(JuIyAugust 1985), 336-338; “Quality and Library Collections: New Directions in Research and Practice in Collection Evaluation,” Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 13, ed. by W. Simonton. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984, pp. 221-238. 2. Gwinn, Nancy E. and Mosher, Paul H. “Co-ordinating Collection Development: The RLG Conspectus,” CO/lege and Research Libraries, 44(2)(1983), 128-140; Mosher, Paul H. and Pankake, Marcia. “A guide to Coordinated and Co-operative Collection Development,” Library Resources and Technical Services, 27(6)(1983), 417-431. 3. Gwinn and Mosher, op. cit., 131. 4. Henige, David. “North American Collections Inventory Project,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 13(4)(September 1987), 209-213; Smethurst, J.M. “Resource Sharing and Conspectus in the British Library,” Library News Sheet, 21(1987), 26-30; Buckingham, J. “NCIP, Conspectus Methodology and Canadian Health Science Collections,” Bibliothico Medico Canadiana, 8(3)(1987), 136-139; Hagerlid, Jan. “The SVLF Project: A Step Towards a National Acquisition Plan ?” Biblioteksbladet, 70 (9)(1985), 198-199; Hagerlid, Jan. “Coordinated Accession Planning: Experience of a Swedish Experiment with an American Model,” DF-REVY, 9(12)(1986), 9-l 1; Stam, David H. “Collaborative Collection Development: Progress, Problems and Potential,” Cohection Building, 7(3)(1986), 3-8; Mendes, H. “Collection Development or Acquisition Policy?” Tidskrtft for Dokumentotion, 42(3)(1986), 61-67; Willet, Charles. “International Collaboration Among Acquisitions Librarians: Obstacles and Opportunities,” IFLA Journd, 11(4)(November 1985), 289-2%; Farrell, David: “The NCIP Option for Coordinated Collection Management,” Library Resources and Technical Services, 3O(l)(JanuaryMarch 1986), 47-56; Nisonger, Thomas, E. “Editing the RLG Conspectus to Analyse the OCLC Archival Types of Seventeen Texas Libraries,” Library Resources and Technical Services, 29(4)(0ctober/December 1985), 309327; Gwinn, Nancy E. “Cooperative Collection Development: National Trends and New Tools,” Art Documentation, 4(4)(Winter 1985), 143-147; Stam, David H. “Think Globally - Act Locally: Collection Development and Resource Sharing,” Collection Building, S(l)(Spring 1983), 18-21. 5. Hanger, Stephen. “Collection Development in the British Library: The Role of the RLG Conspectus,” Journal of Librarianship, 19(2)(1987), 89-107; Matheson, Ann. “The Planning and Implementation of Conspectus in Scotland,” Journal of Librarianship, 19(3)(1987). 141-151. 6. Wainwright, E.J. “Collection Adequacy: Meaningless Concept or Measurable Goal,” in Collection Management in Academic Libraries. Sydney: LA.4, 1984, pp. l-10. 7. Higher Education: A Policy Statement. Canberra: AGPS, 1988, p. 9. 8. In this she would appear to echo Thomas Bullard’s stimulating study, The Failure of Networking. Chicago, Ill.: American Library Association, 1987. 9. Connan, G.E. and Howes, B.R. Collection Development for Australian Libraries. Topics in Australasian Library and Information Studies, no. 1. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Library Studies, Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education, 1988; American Library Association. Collection Development Committee. Guidelines for CoNection Development, ed. David L. Perkins. Chicago, 111.:American Library Association, 1979. 10. Koenig, Dorothy A. “Rushmore at Berkeley: The Dynamics of Developing a Written Collection Development Policy Statement,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, 7(6)(1982), 344-350. 11. State Library of Victoria. State Library of Victoria Selection Policy. Melbourne: Library Council of Victoria, 1986. See also State Library of New South Wales. Draft Collection Development Policy. Sydney: State Library of New South Wales, 1988.

APPENDIX

I

RLG Conspectus Collection Levels and Language Codes Level 0: out of scope Level 1:

minimal level

Level 2:

basic information

level

80

J. HENRI

Level 3:

instructional

Level 4:

research level

Level 5:

comprehensive

E F W Y

support level

level

English language material selected foreign language wide selection of material material primarily in one

predominates material included, primarily European in all applicable languages foreign language

APPENDIX

II

Speakers

Margaret Cameron, University Librarian and Pro-Vice-Chancellor, long, Vie. 3220, Australia

Deakin University, Gee-

Margaret Henty, Research and Development Officer, Menzies Library, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia Paul Mosher, Director of Libraries, University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104, U.S.A.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Janine Schmidt, Director of Collection Services, State Library of New South Wales, Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia Derek Whitehead, Director of Technical Services, State Library of Victoria, 328 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Vie. 3000, Australia Eric Wainwright, Deputy Director General, National Library of Australia, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia