Weeding Round-Up

WEEDING ROUND-UP
MEGAN LOWE & CHUCK HUGHES
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT MONROE

Communicate Cooperate Collaborate October 7-8, 2015
SESSION OVERVIEW
 The Digital Library Project
 The Deselection Project
 Faculty Involvement + Adjustments
 Challenges
 Moving Forward
 Recommendations/Best Practices
 Q & A

THE DIGITAL LIBRARY PROJECT
 In early 2014 the ULM University Library was approached by campus
administration with the idea of “converting” the Library to a more digital model.
 The idea was to bring the Library into the 21st century; the Library was opened
in 1999 and aside from expansion of the Computing Center-run computer lab,
the dismantling of the reference collection, and the addition of several
classrooms on the 3rd floor, the Library had not really changed.
 Owing to a variety of factors, the Library does not have sufficient study rooms,
collaborative spaces, or technology-equipped spaces to support the learning
and research processes.

THE DIGITAL LIBRARY PROJECT (CON’T.)
 The decision was made to reduce the current Stacks Collection, which
occupies four floors of the five floors of the Library, by half.
 The remaining collection will be moved to the 4th and 5th floors, while the 2nd
and 3rd floors will be renovated into a series of technology-equipped study
rooms, seminar rooms, classrooms, and collaborative spaces.
 These spaces are intended for both faculty/staff and students and meet an
exponentially growing demand for more such spaces on ULM’s campus.

The Library’s print collection – numbering at roughly 600,000 volumes – had not been thoroughly
and properly weeded in some 30-odd years. And we all know what an unweeded garden looks
like, right?

 In preparation for the project, the Dean of the Library Don Smith, Coordinator of
Technical Services Charles Hughes, and Coordinator of Public Services Megan Lowe
visited two digital-only libraries to get a feel for what the ULM Library might do with
its spaces.
 The group went to San Antonio on May 6, 2014, to visit the Engineering Library at
the University of Texas-San Antonio and the Bibliotech, Bexar County’s digital public
library.
 Both of these libraries were initially established as digital libraries, so they offered
little in the way of how to handle and reduce an existing print collection.

ENGINEERING LIBRARY AND
BIBLIOTECH

DIGITAL LIBRARY :DESELECTION PROJECT
 Clearly, a LOT of work lay ahead of the Library faculty and staff – 30+ years’
worth of weeding to be done…
IN TWO YEARS.
 Yes, TWO years – you read/heard that right. Campus administration wants
the renovations to begin in the summer of 2016.
 However, the Library faculty/staff had been itching to do a good weed and
took to the project with gusto in the summer of 2014.

THE DESELECTION PROJECT: POLICIES / PROCEDURES
 Though the librarians took to it with gusto, they did not do so without parameters.
 Chuck Hughes’s role as Head of Technical Services was to plan and implement the
deletion of withdrawn volumes from the Library’s Catalog.
 Several helpful ideas came from the reference librarians who, as liaisons, had good
ideas about the respective needs and concerns of their departments (such as
nursing’s accreditation requirements concerning the age of resources).
 The input from the librarians formed the core of the procedures that were developed
to guide the process.
 A list of weeding criteria was developed to help guide the librarians in assessing
titles.

DESELECTION CRITERIA
 Age – unfortunately, the average decade of publication in the ULM Collection falls in the 1980s.
 Dated – this is particularly critical in healthcare and STEM disciplines (which are very sensitive
regarding accreditation requirements).
 Lack of use – no circulation in the last decade.
 Poor condition – this can be tricky and requires careful physical assessment.
 Redundancy – this is also called duplication (like multiple editions of one title or multiple copies).
 No longer supporting curricula – for example, ULM no longer teaches religion courses, so the
sheer volume of religious titles was hard to justify in terms of retention.
A title need only meet one of these criterion to be considered for deselection.

DESELECTION PROCESS: POLICIES / PROCEDURES
 The greatest number of Library employees possible are involved, given the limited
number of Technical Services specialists.
 Roles in the process include deselectors (reference/liaison librarians and other
professionals) who are responsible for withdrawing titles from the Catalog using
WorkFlows.
 Circulation employees (including student workers) also serve an important role in
the process – they assist in the checking of deselected titles and in the physical
discarding of withdrawn titles.

DESELECTION: WITHDRAWAL & DISPOSAL
 The reference librarians do not typically use WorkFlows, so they received training on how to
use WorkFlows and its wizards to remove titles.
 Withdrawing from the Catalog is a two-step process:
 Deselectors first move a withdrawn volume to a shadowed location, then
 Technical Services permanently removes the volume after verification.
 In terms of disposing of withdrawn books, two options exist:
 Titles in relatively good condition are offered to the public on “The Free Kittens Table,”
 Books NOT in good condition are disposed of in the Library’s dumpster.

DESELECTION PROCESS: PROCEDURES
1. Deselectors assess their assigned areas (based on liaison designations) title-by-title;
2. Books to be withdrawn are removed using WorkFlows via the “Delete Title, Call Numbers or
Items” wizard.
3. Using a black marker, the deselector puts a W on the call number label.
4. Books determined to be of potential interest to the public are offered on the Free Kittens Table;
books in poor condition or determined to not be of interest to the public are placed on a shelf for
disposal in the dumpster by Technical Services (usually later in the day) or Circulation.
5. Books sent to the Free Kittens Table are stamped withdrawn, desensitized, and placed on a
circular table/kiosk. Due to ULM’s status as a public institution, the books cannot be sold by
the Library or offered to entities who would sell them.
6. The OCLC numbers are extracted by Chuck; the ULM holdings symbol is removed from those
titles in OCLC through batch-processing.

FACULTY PARTICIPATION / INPUT
 In all honesty, given the magnitude of the project, the Library determined that reaching out to the faculty
was not a great idea. In the early months of the project – which started during the summer of 2014 – the
librarians made great strides in deselecting.
 However, faculty got wind of the project, and through the Faculty Senate and the Library Committee (an
advisory committee comprised of non-library faculty) expressed an interest in participating.
 To that end, the Megan Lowe and Chuck Hughes developed a plan for incorporating faculty participation
which includes a secure area in the Library for faculty to physically review titles if they so desire; an
online listing of the titles for off-campus and online professors to use (though many on-campus faculty
use it, too); and a means for marking titles for retention (both physically and on the online list).
 Initially, the faculty resisted the plan and demanded more time for their review of the process. It took a
great deal of finagling to make them understand the time and resource limitations the Library was
already facing. Finally they accepted the mechanism, and a new method for conducting deselection
with faculty input began in October 2014.

FACULTY PARTICIPATION / INPUT
 Participation is voluntary – in the beginning, participation was a trickle. As of now, it’s less
than a trickle: only one faculty member (the most vocal and opposed to the project) continues
to consistently participate.
 Initially faculty were not required to justify their retention requests, but the sheer number of
titles being reinstated necessitated action; the Library instituted justifications for the retention
of titles.
 The librarians seldom “override” retention requests; if a retention request is made, it is
honored. The only time the librarians override requests is when a title is in worse shape
than initially assessed. Such titles are noted and submitted to Megan Lowe for tracking.

CHANGES TO PROCEDURES
 The addition of faculty input necessitated changes to the procedures. Now, deselectors weed like
before, but instead of being able to delete titles immediately and turning them over to Technical
Services for processing, there are a few more steps.
 The location of books that will be made available for review to the faculty is changed to LIMBO
using the “Global Item Modification” wizard.
 The books are then placed in a secure location (designated the LIMBO room) where faculty can
physically review books. A list of the books currently in the LIMBO room is made available online
in an Excel spreadsheet to account for off-campus and online faculty, as well as convenience for
on-campus faculty.
 Faculty have a week to review books – books in the room are marked with slips on which
faculty write justifications for retention; faculty using the lists simply highlight desired titles and
provide a justification in a column marked for that purpose.

CHANGES TO PROCEDURES
 Following the review period, titles will end up in one of three batches:
 Books marked for retention are placed on a shelf designated for reinstatement;
 Books in good condition are offered on the Free Kittens Table; and
 Books in poor condition are discarded to the dumpster.
 Technical Services continues to process these batches, a task which is made easier by the
use of LIMBO and modification dates in the Catalog records.
 Books that are reinstated are actually deleted from the Catalog – they are reloaded into the
Catalog using the newest updated bibliographic records from OCLC, and retention notes
are added by the cataloger.
 The reinstated books are taken to Circulation for reshelving.

JUST ONE MORE THING ABOUT DISCARDING…
 Luckily, we’re usually getting rid of more books than are coming back.
 But we’ve been so efficient that we soon overwhelmed the dumpster used by
the Library and the many departments which are currently housed in it.
 So we requested and received a dedicated construction dumpster to help us
keep up with the volume of discards.

THE VIEW FROM MEGAN’S WINDOW
Yes, people have discovered this dumpster and do come dig in it - though these represent the books in
the worst condition. O_o

CHALLENGES - GENERAL
 Even before the project started, the Library faced resource limitations, including human resources.
Layoffs, hiring freezes, and retirements have left the Library understaffed.
 Initially, faculty concern regarding the project translated into rampant rumors: the Library was getting rid
of the whole collection and dumping it straight into a dumpster; the books were going to be burned; the
half of the collection that was being discarded was just going to be dumped or burned.
 There was a lot of resistance to the project on the part of faculty. Anecdotally and historically on ULM’s
campus, things which the administration proposes and/or endorses seem to be opposed by faculty.
 A *single* faculty member has been particularly resistant and vocally opposed to the project and
*seems* to go out of her way to cause trouble for the Library faculty and staff, routinely accusing us
of lying about or outright making up data; lying in general; hiding material from her; or completely
disregarding her input (none of which is true in the least).

CHALLENGES – TECHNICAL SERVICES
 Keeping the three different batches orderly.
 The labor involved in hauling the books around and out every week – not to mention the health
hazards from mold and dust (we’ve had at least one staff member develop severe health problems
from the books).
 Ensuring that no volume is discarded without being properly removed from the Catalog.
 Ensuring that as many holding symbols as possible are removed from records in OCLC.
 Ensuring that books on the deselection list but requested for retention by faculty are not
duplicates, in poor condition, or available online.
 Responding to mistakes or problems in a timely and meaningful fashion (such as overlooked
items which should have been reinstated or discarded).

LESSONS LEARNED
 Expect resistance, unfortunately. And it may come from unexpected directions – one might think that
“older” faculty would be resistant, but it’s been “younger” faculty that have been the most problematic.
 For some people, collaboration means “do what I want you to do” instead of “let’s work together.” But
stick with the *actual* principle of collaboration – be as flexible as is reasonable.
 Transparency is critical. Though we have been accused of hiding or manufacturing data, the reality is
that we make as much information as is available to us available to our partners (such as the Library
Committee). And sometimes partners will ask for information that doesn’t exist; be patient.
 Have written policies and procedures outlined beforehand. This has helped us stand firm in many
situations where faculty made unreasonable demands. It has also helped in terms of unfamiliar
procedures (like working in WorkFlows).
 Identify allies and help them help you – engagement is key.

LESSONS LEARNED
 Do not underestimate the stress and demoralization of such a project. It has been hard on
everybody in the Library, from the Dean to the night supervisor, who in reality has very little to
do with the project – but he has faced hostility and animosity from discontent faculty and
students.
 Do not underestimate the benefits of communicating about (i.e., venting) about encountered
problems. Sharing these issues offers opportunities to identify solutions (at best) or simply
encourage and commiserate with one’s colleagues.
 Documentation, documentation, documentation. Keep emails, records, minutes – just keep it
all. We’ve been able to defend ourselves against accusations of misbehavior through our
careful (and let’s face it, obvious and inevitable) dedication to documentation.
 Every deselection project is different, and it is important to embrace that before
undertaking any weeding project. While the literature may be full of good ideas and
guidelines, you should also bear in mind the unique needs, considerations, and features
of your campus community.

MOVING FORWARD
 We’ve got another year (give or take) in the project, and according to the most recent reports,
we’re on track with our deselection numbers.
 We’ve had to take a more liberal interpretation of what damaged means (for better or worse)
in order to offset the retentions of the problematic faculty, but we have not allowed her to
derail the project (despite her best efforts).
 The problematic professor has gotten herself in trouble about her treatment of library faculty
and staff, and though this hasn’t slowed her down, we feel that it will impact her treatment of
us in the future in a positive way (fingers crossed).
 We continue to keep our eyes on the prize: a library that is up-to-date and meets not just the
information needs of campus community but also their technological needs. We will be able
to offer faculty better facilities and resources for teaching their students, and our students
will have better access to resources and tools that will help them prepare for the real world.

MOVING FORWARD – TECHNICAL SERVICES
 Bound periodicals are interfiled with monographs in the Library’s collection. They are currently being
weeded run-by-run according to their usefulness for current ULM curricula. They have already been
weeded according to their online availability.
 This is being accomplished using the WorkFlows “Delete Title” wizard either by item number or by call number for
large runs.

MOVING FORWARD
 Government documents may be weeded according to age and retention obligations.
 When completed, the entire Stacks collection will be shifted from four floors (2-5) to two floors
(4-5).
 At the end of the project, a physical inventory will be made of the collection.
 Following the inventory, our holdings will be reported to OCLC (for a fee), and the remaining
unidentified holdings will be removed for books we no longer own.
 The authority file will be rebuilt.
 Technical Services, the acquisitions librarian, and the reference/liaison librarians will
collaborate to assess and develop the Library’s digital collections.
 The Library’s current collection development policies are being reviewed and will be
updated.

RECOMMENDATIONS & BEST PRACTICES
 Though the impulse is to say “AVOID INVOLVING FACULTY” that’s not fair to the notion of library
collaboration and partnerships – what we would recommend is to encourage participation by
department, discipline, or committee rather than by individuals. But be warned: any participation
will slow the process.
 If involving faculty, offering more than one avenue of participation or feedback is good – flexibility
like this shows the Library’s acknowledgement of the many balls that faculty must juggle.
 Documentation, documentation, documentation – policies, procedures, interactions,
EVERYTHING.
 When establishing new spaces, make it clear what the spaces can be, could be, and/or should be
used for ahead of time (like through policies). Open houses with demonstrations of new
spaces and resources (including technology) can facilitate such understanding and promote use.
 Identify and engage with allies.

RECOMMENDATIONS & BEST PRACTICES
 Always consider the needs of all the users of your library. Our biggest frustration with the problematic
professor is that she wants to keep stuff “just in case” – material that has no obvious value to current
curricula (after all, what’s the point of keeping an Appalachian trail guide from 1970?). Be wary of that
idea – “just in case.” It may not serve the users of the library as well as they think.
 Be clear with users: most libraries are not libraries of record.
 Many non-library individuals will insist that discarded material should be digitized “like the Library of
Congress (and/or Google) is doing!” Make it clear that the LC/Google does not have the resources or
legal ability to do that – so certainly, your library cannot!
 Establish a web-based FAQ and add to/adjust it as needed.
 Manage such a project through a committee, but consider having one individual to be the point of
contact – this helps support consistency and avoiding mixed messages.
 Make it clear where the buck stops – who has authority and in what capacity.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (MAYBE LOL)

CLOSING THOUGHT
“If we don’t begin learning to throw some things away, in order to
concentrate on saving what is really needed, the central stacks of all
major libraries will soon be condemned as unsanitary landfill—the
world’s intellectual garbage dumps.”
Pamela Darling, Library Journal, 1976

LOUIS Users Conference 2015 October 7-8, 2015
THANKS FOR ATTENDING!
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT MEGAN OR CHUCK IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

Weeding Round-Up

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (11)

Ähnlich wie Weeding Round-Up

Ähnlich wie Weeding Round-Up (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Weeding Round-Up

Hinweis der Redaktion