Weeding an Academic Library’s Reference Collection With iPads
An Early Experiment at New York University
Meredith Levin, New York University
Tablet Computers at New York University
The Research Planning and Review Committee of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) recently reported two trends that directly relate to mobile technology and tablet computers. They predicted that the prevalence of mobile devices such tablets and mobile applications will lead to new library services. As these technologies continue to evolve, so too will librarians’ required skills (ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, 2010, pp. 288–89). The 2011 NMC Horizon Report notes that current technologies, specifically tablets, are “increasingly cloud-based,” which in turn has altered users’ preferences for productivity suites, often making products such as Microsoft Office less desirable than products such as Google Drive (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011, p. 3). Half of the six key trends identified in the 2012 NMC Horizon Report also reflect the rising popularity of tablet computing and cloud-based technologies, including “browser-based software that is device independent” (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012, p. 4).
The 2012 NMC Horizon Report predicted that by 2013, tablet computing would “enhance learning experiences in ways simply not possible with other devices” because of tablets’ convenient portability and versatile mobile apps (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012, p. 7). A recent comScore study reports that iPads account for 46.8% of all mobile web traffic in the United States, demonstrating that tablets are fast becoming users’ preferred mobile technology (Johnson, Adams, & Cummins, 2012, p. 14). Tablets’ built-in digital readers for books, newspapers, and magazines make them excellent tools for students and faculty. They also have a slight advantage over e-book readers such as the Nook and the Kindle because tablets tend to have larger, more high-resolution screens.
In August 2011, amid increases in library and information science publications about the exciting possibilities for libraries afforded by tablets, and after observing the increased usage of iPads and other tablet computers by New York University (NYU) student and faculty library patrons, the head of NYU’s Bobst Library’s Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Center (SocHum) budgeted funds to purchase tablets for reference staff. The initial goal was to familiarize the librarians with this expanding technology and to experiment with the possibility of implementing tablet computers in the day-to-day work of the reference center. Of the 11 librarians in the department, 6 requested 3G 16 GB iPad 2 tablets without data plans, and 1 requested a Samsung Galaxy 10.1 Android tablet without a data plan, while the remaining 4 librarians opted to hold off on acquiring any sort of tablet for the time being. All 3 of the department’s reference associates—librarians without faculty appointments who are often still working toward their MA and/or MSLIS degrees—requested iPads. The tablets were purchased and distributed between August and September 2011. Each tablet was assigned to one user and synced with the individual’s personal iTunes account. iTunes gift cards were distributed to staff members for the purchase of relevant educational apps of their choosing. Each librarian was responsible for maintaining his or her own tablet, including charging the battery and safely transporting the tablet to and from the library when necessary. The department purchased Apple Smart Covers for screen protection and the AppleCare Protection Plan for every iPad (Apple, Inc., 2012a, 2012b).
We decided as a department to individually explore our tablets and post our observations on using them in various locations, technical difficulties we experienced, and intriguing apps we discovered onto a communal blog to which we all had writing and editing privileges. SocHum staff found the tablets to be particularly useful for collection maintenance purposes, as their compact size facilitated visiting the reference and main collections to compare catalog records to the physical items on the shelves and make selection decisions. The consensus was also that the iPads are excellent tools to add to the reference desk arsenal, providing mobility for librarians to venture away from the desk to assist users and demonstrating to users that the librarians are proficient with the same technologies they are currently utilizing for their research and entertainment needs. Our initial successful experiences with the tablets emboldened us to try employing our iPads in a pilot reference collection weeding project.
SocHum’s Reference Weeding Plan
Strategic goal 8 of the New York University Libraries’ Strategic Plan for 2007–2012 focused on streamlining users’ interactions with library resources and services (New York University Libraries, 2007). One way SocHum staff envisioned accomplishing this goal would be to weed an underused section of Bobst Library’s vast reference collection and shift it to make the entire collection more accessible to users. Weeding would clear shelf space for new additions and ensure that more heavily used titles would be up to date and easily found rather than collecting dust in a labyrinthine maze of uncurated stacks. Using a 2011 volume count of reference titles and yearly reshelving statistics, reference staff pinpointed which areas of the collection occupied the most shelf space and determined which areas were the least used. It was decided that because of increases in the use of reference titles in other areas, including business, science and technology, religion, and education, the Z call number range would be an appropriate section to begin weeding because of the large amount of shelf space it occupied and because of an obvious decline in the use of its titles.
All of SocHum’s previous reference weeding projects and the majority of those cited in published studies on reference weeding were conducted using more traditional forms of technology, such as barcode scanners, desktop computers, laptops, and were both costly and time consuming (Dubicki, 2008; Lee, 2009; Soma & Sjoberg, 2010; Truett, 1990; Tyckoson 2011; Welch, Cauble, & Little, 2000). We decided to conduct a pilot weeding project using the iPads to determine whether or not their versatility could extend to collection management and to see if tablets would help us reduce our costs for projects like this one. We constructed a set of guidelines, agreed on a time frame for completion of the project, and decided to document the process for future reference and for the benefit of other institutions that might employ tablets in similar weeding projects.
What Is Weeding and Why Did SocHum Do It?
Weeding in an academic library is the systematic deselection of library materials that no longer support the curriculum and/or research needs of university faculty and students or materials that are outdated or have been superseded by comparable print or electronic resources (Young &Belanger, 1983). Despite its importance in keeping collections current, many librarians consider weeding to be a “thankless” (Lee, 2009, p. 130), “time-consuming” (Soma & Sjoberg, 2010, p. 25) task that they try to avoid whenever possible (Dubicki, 2008). Each academic library has its own ideas about and policies governing the weeding process, usually depending on the size of the collection as well as the number of librarians and the breadth of their individual responsibilities. Weeding projects in academic libraries often adhere to the guidelines set forth by each institution’s collection development policy (Johnston, 2011). At NYU, the collection development policy emphasizes the libraries’ goal of building a strong collection that supports the university’s programs of teaching and research (New York University Libraries, 2008). Because space is preciously scarce in downtown New York City and because NYU is one of the nation’s largest research institutions, the collections are expanding exponentially faster than the available shelf space. The library has alleviated a large portion of the burden by acquiring an off-site storage facility, but some areas, especially the reference collection, still must be weeded to mitigate significant overcrowding.
Weeding With iPads: The Logistics
Since the subject librarians who compose SocHum are responsible for the collection development and maintenance of their respective disciplines, we knew that any reference weeding project would be a collective effort that could potentially involve overlapping decisions and some logistical headaches. In order to test the plausibility of using iPads in a larger-scale weeding project, we decided to first focus our efforts on five discrete, randomly selected sections of the Z call number range. The project began with a volume count of Bobst Library’s reference collection, conducted by one reference associate with the assistance of two undergraduate student workers. They found that nearly 32,000 volumes were occupying a very cramped 4,000 linear feet of shelving. The Z call number range alone accounted for nearly 12,500 volumes and occupied roughly 1,200 linear feet. The bibliographic record data collected from this volume count were entered, using iPads, into a Google Docs (now Drive) spreadsheet shared with all department members so that everyone could track the project’s progress.
We studied our reshelving statistics to see if there were any correlations between collection size and collection use. The statistics revealed that the number of books with Z call numbers reshelved during sampling weeks had dropped from 128 in 2009–10 to 75 in 2010–11. This represented a 41% decrease and is consistent with a steady decline in the use of reference titles with Z call numbers beginning in 2007–8. In other areas of the reference collection, such as business, religion, and science and technology, where shelf space is extraordinarily tight, the reshelving statistics exhibited significant yearly increases from 2007–8 to 2010–11. Thus we decided that by weeding portions of the Z range, we could open up enough shelf space to enable us to shift more crowded sections and create a more functional reference collection for our users.
After the volume count and brief statistical analysis, the next step was for the reference associate and student workers to do a shelf reading, comparing our list of Z reference titles, generated by our integrated library system (ILS), against the physical items on the shelves. NYU’s ILS, ALEPH 500, a product of Ex Libris, is capable of generating a wide range of reports, all of which can be exported as Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Because we wanted to use the iPads for this project, we simply uploaded the Excel spreadsheet of Z titles to Google Docs and made sure that all department members had access to it. Aside from its cloud-based accessibility, which makes it well suited to the iPad, Google Docs was our first choice for document sharing in this project because NYU migrated its e-mail, calendar, and productivity systems to Google in April 2011 and library staff already had NYU-Google accounts. The reference associate who was managing this project decided to create individual spreadsheets of titles with Z call numbers, divided by discipline, so that overlapping decisions would be prevented. Despite the length of the list, many of the Z titles in Bobst’s reference collection were large, multivolume sets, which meant that the actual number of titles was far less than the listed number of volumes.
Once the individual Google Docs spreadsheets were created, we allowed ourselves 2 weeks to review the spreadsheets and enter decisions for each title in a designated column of each spreadsheet. We set aside an additional 2 weeks to process any cataloging changes and item transfers necessitated by the weeding decisions. Because the decisions were being entered into Google Docs, catalog changes and item transfers could be completed as we went along, with the reference associate and student workers tracking the progress of each spreadsheet daily. Anyone who needed to access our ILS’s cataloging module did so via a laptop or desktop computer, since cataloging on a tablet was impossible at the time of the project. We agreed on a select list of decisions for the titles: retain in reference, withdraw, transfer to the main collection, transfer to the main collection and send off-site (which would enable users to electronically recall these items through their individual library accounts in our OPAC), or send off-site as a reference title. Off-site reference titles are customarily duplicates of main collection items or have electronic alternatives and cannot be recalled by users—only by staff members. For any titles on the list that were missing from the shelf, we could withdraw the missing title, request a reference replacement, or request that the replacement be sent directly to the main collection. We were also given permission to request, wherever available, an electronic replacement for any print reference title.
One huge benefit of using an iPad in a weeding project is that it makes comparing digital spreadsheets with the items on the shelf in the reference collection much faster and more efficient. Being able to access the spreadsheets anytime and anywhere is also a tremendous bonus. However, because the iPads do not have physical keyboards, basic data entry definitely takes longer than it would on a laptop or desktop computer. One solution would be to purchase one or more wireless keyboards for the iPads, but that is an expense that will not be considered until we have conducted a larger-scale departmental weeding project. Another issue that arose while using iPads for this project was the unreliability of the Wi-Fi signal in certain parts of the library. Our reference collection is often the victim of a weak Wi-Fi signal, which made it difficult and oftentimes exasperating to try to access the Google Docs spreadsheets from within the reference stacks. Unfortunately, this is an issue with laptops as well and is symptomatic of working in a 40-year-old building that was not originally designed to accommodate wireless computing.
Because the cataloging process was entirely desktop computer based, this chapter does not detail all our procedures and workflows. The cataloging work necessitated by this project was basic enough that it could be completed mostly by the project’s coordinating reference associate with the assistance of two student workers. Catalog changes for foreign-language titles (there were relatively few) were completed by full-time cataloging staff in our Technical Services Cataloging department. All the off-site transfers were coordinated and overseen by the off-site storage supervisor and her part-time staff. Because SocHum’s student workers did not have iPads of their own, whenever they were working on the Z weeding project, they were allowed to borrow the reference associates’ iPads. The Bobst Library Computer Center, which currently lends laptops and computer accessories to NYU students and faculty, does not yet have a collection of iPads or other tablets for use by researchers. There are plans in the near future to purchase a number of tablets for this purpose, and once they become available, SocHum’s student workers will be able to borrow the tablet of their choice to work on some of the basic collection management projects assigned to them.
Conclusion
At the conclusion of SocHum’s pilot weeding project with iPads, five sections of the Z call number range were trimmed by about 33%. The Z range had initially occupied 1,200 linear feet in the collection and was reduced to a more manageable 960 linear feet, enabling us to begin shifting more crowded sections of the collection and create a less imposing atmosphere for our users. While there were definitely some minor hitches along the way, the project has been an overall positive experience for SocHum and has been instrumental in our willingness to explore more digital technologies as collection maintenance aids as well as other workflows that might be improved by the use of iPads. We have immediate plans to begin a much more comprehensive weeding project of the rest of the reference collection using our iPads.
One of the biggest benefits of weeding our reference collection with iPads was a significant reduction in the consumption of resources. NYU has a long-standing commitment to sustainability, and we are always endeavoring to reduce the amount of paper we print on and the gallons of computer ink we use. Because of our cloud-based Google Docs spreadsheets, we did not need to retain more than one hard copy of all the lists and spreadsheets generated by this project. Version changes were recorded and managed directly in Google Docs, and there were never any concerns about losing the information needed to complete this project because it is so frequently backed up by Google. As an extra precaution, though, we did back up the Google Docs spreadsheets daily on the department’s external hard drive. Another benefit of weeding with the iPads was the facility of completing work as the project was progressing. After we move on to our larger weeding project, which will involve all the subject librarians and will encompass larger sections of the reference collection, the reference associates and student workers will be able to start processing changes to items for which the librarians have already entered their decisions while the subject librarians move through other parts of their spreadsheets. This will reduce the time required to complete the entire project and will break down the cataloging and off-site transfer work into manageable segments.
Communication will also be essential for the successful and efficient execution of a large-scale reference weeding project, which will involve so many people and so many books. Using Google Drive and our iPads will make all the decisions in this process transparent and will make communicating about questions or concerns much faster and simpler. We will (hopefully) not be mired in the back-and-forth e-mail chains that often accompany projects of this magnitude. Instead, we should be able to resolve most issues relating to this project within a few hours without lapsing into our previous tendencies to take several days or even weeks for all involved parties to discuss problems and come up with resolutions.
We have immediate plans to extend the use of our iPads to such collection management workflows as searching for missing books and making selection decisions using the electronic platforms newly implemented by many of our vendors. We will also begin bringing our iPads to instruction sessions as backup tools and hands-on resources for students without their own laptops or tablets. Our previous missing-book workflow hinged on paper copies of the bibliographic records of missing items being supplied to the reference associate and student workers who search for them. Now we have easily transferred all that paper-based information into a Google Drive spreadsheet that is accessible to the subject librarians, reference associates, student workers, and acquisitions staff who place the orders for replacement copies. Instead of having to write the call number down on a piece of paper that can be easily lost or carry a stack of bibliographic record printouts to search for missing items, the reference associates and student workers can simply grab an iPad and go searching in the reference and main collection stacks. They can also indicate when they have conducted a search in the Google Drive spreadsheet in order to keep track of how long a title has been missing and when the reordering process should commence.
Ultimately, NYU’s SocHum reference department has been very positively affected by the addition of iPads to our collection of information tools. They are lightweight, portable, and user-friendly for the less tech-savvy and for those who are more technologically advanced, and they can make many library-related tasks simpler and easier to complete. We specifically found the once laborious process of weeding a portion of our large reference collection to be less arduous and more straightforward with the help of the iPads at our disposal. Several librarians remarked that because this pilot weeding project had been such a radical improvement over the old method, we might consider making weeding a bigger priority for our department and schedule seasonal or yearly weeding projects. We consider ourselves fortunate to have a staff and budget large enough to accommodate innovative ideas and an organizational culture that is open to progress and making our library collection as accessible and functional for our users as possible. We would recommend the purchase of iPads to any academic reference department, regardless of their collection management policies or weeding workflows. Surely, as tablets become increasingly more popular and affordable, librarians will have to keep up with the trends in order to better serve their users, thus making iPads a sensible choice as the academic reference librarian’s tool of the future.
References
ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. (2010). 2010 top ten trends in academic libraries: A review of the current literature. College & Research Libraries News, 71(6), 286–292. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full/
Apple, Inc. (2012a). Apple—smart cover. Apple. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
Apple, Inc. (2012b). AppleCare Protection Plan for iPad. Retrieved from http://store.apple.com/us/product/S3791LL/A/
Dubicki, E. (2008). Weeding: Facing the fears. Collection Building, 27(4), 132–135. doi:10.1108/01604950810913689
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnston, A. (2011). A survey of weeding practices in New Zealand academic practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/1724/thesis.pdf?sequence=1/
Lee, M. (2009). Weeding is not just for gardeners: A case study on weeding a reference collection. Community & Junior College Libraries, 15(3), 129–135. doi:10.1080/02763910902979460
New York University Libraries. (2007). Creating the 21st century library for NYU: Our strategic plan 2007–2012. New York: New York University.
New York University Libraries. (2008). Collection development policies. Retrieved from http://library.nyu.edu/collections/policies/policy.html
Soma, A. K., & Sjoberg, L. M. (2010). More than just low-hanging fruit: A collaborative approach to weeding in academic libraries. Collection Management, 36(1), 17–28. doi:10.1080/01462679.2011.529241
Truett, C. (1990). Weeding and evaluating the reference collection. The Reference Librarian, 13(29), 53–68. doi:10.1300/J120v13n29_06
Tyckoson, D. A. (2011). Issues and trends in the management of reference services: A historical perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 51(3), 259–278. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.556936
Welch, J. M., Cauble, L. A., & Little, L. B. (2000). The evolution of technology in the management of noncirculating library collections. Technical Services Quarterly, 17(4), 1–11. doi:10.1300/J124v17n04_01
Young, H., & Belanger, T. (1983). The ALA glossary of library and information science. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.