22

WEEDING AS AFFECTIVE RESPONSE, OR “I JUST CAN’T THROW THIS OUT!”

Barbara Fiehn and Roxanne Myers Spencer

Barbara Fiehn: Years of weeding collections have honed my deselection skills. Recently I volunteered to assist in weeding a children’s collection in an academic library. My weeding partners were knowledgeable but angst-filled professionals. Finding a balance between our views on weeding has been an ongoing, enjoyable learning experience.

Roxanne Spencer: I wanted to explore this topic because I am a reluctant weeder. I am one of those librarians Diane Young challenged when she said, “Raise your hand if you can’t face weeding.”¹ I fit a few of the weeding personalities we jocularly identify below.

The debate to weed or not to weed can be traced to the 1890s in the controversy over the Quincy Plan for weeding the Crane Memorial Public Library in Quincy, Massachusetts.² The ensuing debate between the weeders and the preservationists continues today.

Every librarian knows the basics of weeding, but applying that knowledge can be difficult. The non-weeder and new weeder must understand and overcome any mental inhibitors. For some, withdrawing a book stimulates an emotional response similar to grieving. In “Crying Over Spilt Milk,” Gail Dickinson presents a concise overview for solo librarians and compares keeping outdated materials to keeping outdated milk. She also outlines a three-step weeding process that takes fifteen minutes per week for small libraries.³

The analysis and evaluation of any library collection requires time, planning, and the involvement of all staff. In public or academic settings, staff or student assistants should be trained to review and withdraw materials. School librarians often do not have additional staff. Utilizing and training teachers, students, and PTO volunteers involve the community and gives participants a sense of ownership.⁴

WEEDING MODELS

The CREW method, along with its MUSTIE (or MUSTY) relatives, is used in public or school libraries.⁵ In academic libraries, collection evaluation often follows the Research Libraries Group (RLG) or WLN Conspectus methods.⁶ Whichever guidelines are used, consideration must be given to what will be weeded, the extent of weeding, the weeding criteria, and quality control. Preparation and adherence to requirements are essential for training library staff to weed effectively. Without a clear understanding of the library’s collection needs, the weeding personalities we describe below can skew results.

WEEDING PERSONALITIES

The spectrum of librarians as weeders extends from those who see the process as a challenge, leading to a lean and marketable collection, to those who respond with horror to the thought of weeding. All librarians have a weeding personality. The following is a light-hearted look at some familiar types:

Weed-whacker. Goes through the collection like it’s hay-mowing time, leaving shelves as bare as a stubbled field.

One-in/one-out. Lean BMI (book mass index); small space, budget, collection.

Beauty contest weeder. Always judges a book by its cover.

Plays favorites. Weeds everything except their favorite authors, illustrators, titles, subjects.

Award-verification weeder. Keeps every award, honor, notable, starred-review title ever published.

Scientific weeder. Uses lengthy charts, tables, and citation analysis from multiple weeding studies.

Nostalgic weeder. Breakin’ up is hard to do.

Worrywart weeder. What if somebody wants …?

Subversive. Appears to weed but reshelves titles others have discarded.

Retriever/dumpster diver. Reclaims withdrawn titles in the name of “preservation” and fear of the public’s negative perception.

Packrat. Does not willingly weed anything, ever. Period.

NEGATIVE RESPONSES

Library staff may have issues about withdrawing library materials beyond those implied by the personalities above. Although the profession agrees on general standards for weeding, many librarians still question weeding their own collections. Common negative responses to the process include these:

• Someone may need this someday.
• The out-of-date stuff is minimal; there is still relevant information.
• Finding selection errors is demoralizing.
• No time: there are too many other things to do.
• If we weed everything that is out of date, we will not have anything on some subjects.
• Expensive items should not be weeded; it is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
• We cannot remove classic titles, even if no one has looked at them in forty years.
• Donations will be missed if weeded.
• The public will react negatively if they see too many discarded items.
• First editions may be valuable some day and must be retained.
• It sells for $____ on Alibris. We can’t throw it away!
• Processing and disposal of deselected material are cumbersome and time consuming.

Rules of thumb for severe weeding:

• If in doubt—throw it out!
• Not checked out—get it out!

ACTUALIZATION

Few librarians find the weeding process to be intrinsically reinforcing. Most acknowledge it as necessary and important. Many also exhibit strong avoidance behaviors in approaching weeding. Building reinforcements into the process assists forward movement (chocolate works). Targeted praise and encouragement build conscious commitment to the weeding project. A variety of different considerations are relevant to getting non-weeders to weed, and several different tactics help:

• Get the administrators to require action.
• Weed a little at a time to make the task less overwhelming.
• Weed the most obvious things first.
• Commit to a weeding schedule and be held accountable.
• Reward yourself and others with each incremental goal achieved.
• Set specific goals and parameters (e.g., circulation statistics, age, condition, outdated information) and use them.
• Use a buddy system for support.
• Get help from nonlibrarian subject specialists.
• Share the worst of the weeding projects. It sets the stage for some good laughs.

WEEDING AFFIRMATIONS

Sometimes a little “self-prepping” may be useful for librarians to take on the weeding challenge. Remind weeders of the long-term, positive outcomes of the process with encouraging thoughts, like these:

• “I am helping to make our library collection more user-friendly and usable.”
• “The shelves are much easier to browse when weeded.”
• “I’ll have more room to display new titles.”
• “I can’t believe this book was on the shelf. This section needed weeding.”
• “Patrons have noticed the ‘spruced-up’ look of the library.”
• “I did it!” “We did it!”
• “I’m glad it is done. It really wasn’t so bad.”

Help reluctant weeders with thoughtful planning, incentives, and adherence to professional standards. Some librarians still feel guilty about weeding, despite the theoretical knowledge and reinforcement that pruning a collection is good. These librarians, by disposition, should not weed. Recognize that converting non-weeders to the cause is neither likely nor the ultimate goal. The goal is to maintain a viable, vital, resilient collection for our patrons.

Notes

1. Diane J. Young, “Get to Effective Weeding,” Library Journal 134, no. 19 (2009): 36.

2. Juris Dilevko and Lisa Gottlieb, “Weed to Achieve: A Fundamental Part of the Public Library Mission?” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 27 (2003): 73–96.

3. Gail Dickinson, “Crying Over Spilt Milk,” Library Media Connection, April/May 2005, www.linworth.com/pdf/lmc/reviews_and_articles/featured_articles/Dickinson_April_May2005.pdf.

4. Brian Mathews, “Next Steps: Weeding Grows the Garden,” American Libraries, April 16, 2010, www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/columns/next-steps/weeding-grows-garden.

5. Texas State Library and Archives Commission, CREW: A Weeding Manual for Modern Libraries, 2008, www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/crew/crewmethod08.pdf.

6. Library of Congress, Cataloging and Acquisitions: Collecting Levels [RLG], www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/cpc.html. Georgine Olson, “WLN Conspectus: An Introduction,” Collection Building 13, nos. 2/3 (1994): 29.