ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY
CONCERNING WEEDING PROJECT
I
have been known to rant in previous MLS classes about the practice of
integrating juvenile and adult non-fiction, which is the norm in the libraries
I frequent. However, this assignment
awakened me to a strong reason for doing so.
A good number of items I found in the section I examined appeared to be
more appropriate to adult interest and reading levels. Is it the original cataloger or the
publishing companies that are determining their placement? The primary salient feature seems to be
length, not difficulty or even content.
My
thought was that many titles that were languishing on the children’s shelf
might actually get some use if adults or teens were browsing them. In the case
of intentional research, the books can obviously be located in a subject search
of the catalog, but in the Everett Library the patron is not given the location
of the item and must look in not only both adult and juvenile, but in a section
of YA non-fiction as well. How many are
that determined? In a world of copy
cataloging and cooperative systems, it doesn’t really seem possible or
desirable to re-catalog items at institution level, so perhaps integration of
reading level collections is the best solution
The
result is that I am more than ever committed to a plan outlined in my ILS 512
Children’s Collection Policy to integrate the non-fiction collections as a
whole, but include a rotating browsing non-fiction collection within the
children’s room.
Some
of the literature has suggested that well-weeded collections are better
utilized overall because patrons can find what they need and are not put off by
old or damaged or otherwise unappealing volumes. From my research in the two branches of the EPL, I would add that
the appeal of the space in which the items are found also has a strong
effect. Although the large main branch
has many beautiful spaces, the juvenile non-fiction section is not one of
them. It is separated from the rest of
the children’s room by an area of tables and is an unappealing, utilitarian
space. There are no windows, the
ceiling is low, the closely spaced shelving units are metal, and the lighting
is barely adequate. In other words, it
does not invite entry in the first place or lingering once there.
In
contrast, the smaller branch library has high ceilings and is filled with natural
light. The non-fiction juvenile shelves
are made of wood and are very much a part of the children’s room. They are actually the first thing that you
come to as you the enter the area. It should be noted that the books I chose to
weed, whether for condition, or lack of use, or too many copies were not in
this branch. The collection
appeared fresh and extremely orderly, inviting browsing in and of itself, much
aided by the appeal of the space as a whole.
Looking at circulation, it was easy to see that any particular title was
moving better from this location.
As
with other MLS assignments, one result of this one was to be impressed with the
daunting task facing today’s librarians.
No librarian facing current time constraints would have the time to put
into this assignment that I did. Granted most would have more experience that
would probably lead to greater efficiency.
They could certainly request needed reports in advance.
I
have new appreciation for the institutional offerings of my location in
addressing collection needs. I can
visit the Children’s Literature Department at the University of Washington’s
Suzallo Library to find all the needed bibliographic tools and book reviews in
one place. I can visit and/or request
individual titles from the extremely large collections of the two local public
systems in the area for personal examination.
However, I consider it unlikely that the EPL librarians can take
advantage of these things except on their own time.
The
problems I encountered in this assignment make me resolved to develop favorite
review sources and read them religiously, recording various possible collection
additions by Dewey classification with review attached or citation at
least included. (Professor Disbrow
told me that a new assignment developed after I took ILS 511 points to Kirkus
Reviews as a source to count on for consistently accurate reviews.) It has also made me more determined to weed
public collections of older, unused items, and as I noted earlier, to integrate
the juvenile and adult collections except for a rotating juvenile browsing
collection.
In
doing the type of collection review required by this assignment in a real
situation, I would not try to limit it to a 10 digit Dewey classification. Although it would take more time overall, I
think that efficiency would be better served by considering all ramifications
of a topic at the same time. In other
words, in this case, I would have gathered suggested titles, and examined the
current collection in all areas of building and architecture, which would have
included titles in different areas of the 700’s, some in the 600’s, plus some
biographies, picture books, and easy fiction.
This particular topic would not particularly warrant a fiction review,
but any historical one certainly would.
Unless
I missed some tools that are better suited to a more efficient examination of
children’s non-fiction classifications, it would appear that there would be a
market for a tool(s) better arranged by WorldCat’s cataloging choices, and for
indexes of reviews arranged in that way.