Reading Response #2

Collection Developers – Past, Present and . . . Future?

Buckland’s, Lee’s and Sandler’s articles particularly caught my interest. A feeling of relief warmed my soul as I read the passionate predictions by the first two authors that the role of the collection developer will be enhanced, rather than eliminated by the increasing presence and sheer magnitude of the digital collection. When I reached Sandler’s contention in the reading that ‘it is potentially a world of disintermediation for libraries of all types’ (pg. 241), the warmth turned icy and the future became bleak. Thankfully, even Sandler eventually finds a use for collection developers, if not by name at least by task, in the area of special collections. So, is there a future for collection developers?

Each of the authors described in one way or another not only their contention that there is a future for this role, but also why they believe there is a future. Lee expressed it (pg. 1110) by quoting Taylor, saying that selectivity is ‘the value added when choices are made’ by developers on the merits of the information and its appropriateness for the community served. Sandler pins the survival of the local library collection on relevancy and continual recognition of trends and making the necessary changes. These, are changes, or choices, that must be made by human decision makers, or by another name, collection developers.

Buckland, I think states the case best, when he describes the classical book selection theory. Quoting a number of scholars on the subject, he portrays a sound business model based on meeting demand and delivering value. Because meeting demand can be a quantitative process, it will likely not be a distinguishing feature in the future, since computers will (may already have) take over that analysis and decision process. On the other hand, making the right choices on materials will be subjective tasks that require human cognitive capabilities. The better it is done, the more value to be found in the resulting collection, which is a distinction of note. Buckland quotes Lionel McColvin, an early contributor of the selection theory, to make the point that having the right materials in the collection is the most important aspect of the developer’s job. Buckland makes a strong case that an information professional will be needed to do that for the foreseeable future.

Creating value is obviously a key to survival. Providing services that are valued by patrons, beyond mere perceptions, will ensure a place for information workers of all kinds, including the collection developer. In fact, value creation is the underpinning of all employments in a capitalistic and democratic society. It is a law of economics that when a product or service no longer brings value to a consumer, that product or service will cease to exist. This is as true for collection developers as it is for carmakers.

Interestingly, in as much as these concepts parallel business so closely, comparisons are easily made between libraries and retailers. The tried and true retailing rule of delivering the right product at the right place at the right price is basically what collection development is all about. Buckland makes the case that the development decisions have brought value in the past and continue in the present to do so by giving access to the right materials that patrons are seeking. He claims that there is no reason for that value process to end in the future. In fact, he thinks the value of these decisions will be enhanced in the digital collection environment. The selection of sources into a collection will even more effectively guide the user to the desired information, in spite of the overwhelming amount of available data. Now that is value! And, value means there is a future!

Buckland, M. (1995). What will collection developers do? Information Technology and Libraries 14(3): 155-159.

Lee, H.-L. (2000). What is a collection? Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51(12): 1106-1113.
Sandler, M. (2006). Collection development in the [age] day of Google. Library Resources and Technical Services 50(4): 239-243.