"At Gene Brown Elementary in Hendersonville [TN], the average library book is 36, older than some of the school's teachers and many parents. ... In Metro [Nashville] high schools, the average age of a library book is 25. ... Across the Midstate, teachers are assigning term papers using library books that were on the shelves before the end of the Vietnam War, were printed before President Richard Nixon resigned and were circualte before humans walked on the moon. " ~ Dorren Klausnitzer
"A commencement speaker at Stanford University reported that the 'half-life' of science information is about four years."
"My personal philosophy of weeding is that when a patron comes to the library for information, by virtue of an item residing on the library shelf, the patron will believe it is the best information available."
"Donating used books is like sending worn clothes to GoodWill. If it isn't good enough for this library, it probably isn't good enough for another library! I personally hate seeing our outdated material with inaccurate information being bought by families doing home schooling."
"I think that public libraries are in direct competition with the national bookstore chains like Barnes and Noble. The public has come to expect shelves stocked with fresh, new clean books whether they are in their local library or in a bookstore."
"Useless information obscures better, more useful information. Useless information competes for our limited time and attention. ... Its maintenance and eventual deletion also takes time."
"What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence, a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it." ~ Herbert Simon
This song is the perfect way to begin your weeding project. It was written by Carla Tibboel of the Des Moines, Iowa Public Library and uses the tune from "Rawhide."
Keep weedin', weedin', weedin,
It's more space we're needin'
Keep at them books a-weedin', DISCARD!
Thru dust and webs and leather
In all kinds of weather
Wishin' my section was all done.
All the things we're pitchin',
Both fiction and nonfiction,
May haunt us but it sure has been fun.
Chorus:
Pull 'em down, dust 'em off,
Dust 'em off, pull 'em down,
Pull 'em down, dust 'em off, DISCARD!
Cart'em out, stamp 'em up,
Stamp 'em up, Cart 'em out,
Cart 'em out, stamp 'em up, DISCARD!
Keep choosin', choosin', choosin',
Books we must be loosin',
Can't be no refusin', DISCARD!
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just pick and pull and stamp 'em,
Soon we'll have shelvin' we can use.
Our Head's calculatin'
The target we'll be makin'
Be makin' or we'll be singin' the blues
As Dewey observed, "the choosing of books, and other items to be added to a collection, whether for the first time to add them to the collection, or whether we later confirm their continued utility, is never-ending work." In an ideal world, collection management would involve continued "reselection" of each item added to the collection to insure that it remains used, useful and usable. Thus, items in an older collection might have been reselected several times. Reselection is a natural part of the selection process.
Charles Eliot, Harvard President, said that "All books are either living [used] or dead [not used within 2 years]. He believed that only living items should be in the immediate collection. The dead items should be stored in a storage facility (perhaps off-campus). Again, reselection separates the collection into two portions: that in active use and that which is inactive. Inactive items are to be weeded.
Daniel Gore, somewhat famous for being an advocate of the zero growth collection, concluded that "weeding at significant levels occurs only through theft, which unfortunately removes precisely, and only, those volumes that should not be weeded." There is considerable truth to this statement, especially for hard copy collections without adequate security measures. For example, there are many "ghost" items in most research library collections which have long since disappeared, but are still listed in the catalog. Typically, only small collections verify their inventory on a periodic basis. It is difficult to reselect an item which is not there.
With rapid change in information techonology, a reselection or retentiondecision creates new questions. Can this content be easily and reliably found elsewhere? What will be the most appropriate format? How long should we keep it?
Weeding decisions usually have political consequences. In particular,they may impact funding. If weeding if felt to be an admission of poor selection practice or if weeded items are felt to be of some quality or utility, community members may view the collection manager as incompetent. Before beginning any weeding initiative, the collection developer needs to secure the political environment. Begin with those who work in the information agency. The Director is crucial. Without his or her enthusiastic support, weeding initiatives are not likely to be successful.
Each staff member, especially those who deal with the public, should know why and how weeding is done. It is important that the benefits of weeding be emphasized and that the process be seen as equitable, professional, and with an opportunity to review decisions. Without staff understanding and support, "sniping" and leaks to local media or citizen groups may lead to unwelcome publicity. Many of those who work in information agencies are "pack rats" and would like to keep everything forever. Often, even professionals are suspicious of weeding, especially weeding for discard. Staff should understand and help create appropriate policies and procedures. They should also have opportunity to express concerns and suggest better ways to make weeding successful.
It is absolutely essential that the collection manager inform and persuade the community of the benefits of weeding. Many lay people do not understand why an inadequate collection should be weeded. Often, the assumption seems to be that "something is better than nothing." For example, it is better to have obsolete material, "some day man will travel into space," than an empty shelf. Be able to counter this notion. Since much weeding is objective, focusing on obsolescence and physical condition, it should be easy to demonstrate that weeding is based upon demonstrated criteria and not some whim of the information professional. Illuminating examples of inaccurate, dated information or show and tell examples of worn out items are usually helpful.
Someone will react negatively to weeding, especially of hard copy collections. Some community members will believe that anything old must be valuable or of historical interest. You need to be able to demonstrate that this is not the case. Assume that there will be a complaint and be prepared. Weeding is not evidence of poor collection development, but of normal wear and tear and the inevitable obsolescence of information. A few libraries have received terrible media and political attention because of poorly executed weeding programs. Both San Francisco and the Philadelphia public libraries have, according to critics, placed useful materials in the dumpster without proper review. The Librarian at the Lonesome Pine Regional Library (VA) was fired when critics convinced the Board that "Valuable books" had been discarded. No weeding had been done in 25 years, but a retired history professor led the way in claiming that older items were inherently valuable.
Disposition of weeds will interest many in the community. Weeding is more likely to be approved when weeded items find a "good home." Know where weeds will go and why. Be aware of any legal considerations associated with disposition of surplus government property.
It is important to be able to demonstrate that weeding is needed if
the agency is to achieve its mission, goals, and objectives. Keeping
the collection useful and usable ought to be at the heart of any
mission statement. It is important the library have a thoughtful and
clearly articulated weeding policy statement with accompanying
procedures.
Current information about wants and needs provides
evidence needed for effective weeding. As community interest in certain
topics declines, the collections need to be weeded to accommodate other
topics and to insure that the remaining collection is a solid one.
The policy should clearly indicate current priorities re: subjects, formats, and audiences.
It is useful to complete a quick, informal review of recent
collection development decisons. Although weeds are rarely the result
of poor selection decisions, weeding does provide an opportunity to
gather feedback on the quality of selection decisions. Items with
little or no use offer guidance to the selector in making future
selections. Paper editions soon worn and torn may suggest more hard
copy selection in the future. Little use of periodical back files may
suggest substitution of full-test data bases.
It is important to access current and recent past use statistics for
items in the collection and relate these to particular audiences. This
would include ILL statistics. Usage statistics suggest topics and items
for further investigation. Decisions are not made without further study.
Environmental quality has an immediate impact on the life of items in the collection. Temperature, humidity, clean air, protection from light, and the like can inhibit or facilitate the life of items in the collection. Poorly designed or manufactured shelves, book trucks, and book drops can substantially reduce the life of books. While some special collections will have substantial environmental and housekeeping requirements, most collections will benefit from better housekeeping and working with staff to insure that materials are well handled.
We have weeds because material is not used. Lack of use may be due to inadequate intellectual access or inadequate physical access. The item selected may be obsolete and ready for retirement. In a few cases, the item should not have been selected in the first place. The community may have changed so that formerly used items are no longer wanted or needed.
We have weeds because material is not useful. In a few cases, the selection may have been in error, but more likely it has become obsolete with the passage of time.
We have weeds because material is not usable. Normal wear and tear will create items that are no longer attractive or usable. Pages fall from books, computer files become corrupt, audio files develop noise, and videos develop spots, lines and other visual static. In a few cases, items are no longer usable because of mistreatment or abuse.
The most common rationale for weeding is currency. Most people want current information or recreational material. Even when asking about the past, people typically want the newest information about the past. Collections should be accurate, current, relevant.
Scarce space is another common reason for weeding. When collections lack space to house new additions, weeding is necessary. As a byproduct, physical and intellectual access is improved when dead wood is removed from the collection. For the same reason, weeded collections tend to be more heavily used since they are more attractive and easier to use. Weeding worn/torn items also encourages users to handle materials more carefully and prolongs the life of material in the collection.
One of the best reasons for weeding is to provide the selector with
feedback. Weeding provides considerable information about which items
are used, useful, and usable. Often, this information will modify
selection behavior. Weeding may also alert selectors to useful items
that are being under used and need promotion.
The community changes so the collection must change. This change
will create weeds. New information constantly replaces older
information. This too creates weeds, especially in those disciplines
and professions associated with science, technology, and medicine.
Here is a brief list of common reasons:
These are the leading rationales for not weeding from a recent
public library study:
When in doubt, throw it out is the philosophy of the enthusiastic weeder, especially when weeding for storage. Here the focus is on retaining only those items clearly in demand. If discarding, this philosophy can lead to trouble. There have been cases of valuable collections of rare pamphlet material discarded because they were not used and the collection manager did not recognize their value.
You can never tell when... is the conservative philosophy that suggests it is better to keep an item because it may be needed in the future. Related to this viewpoint is the collection manager's lack of knowledge of best copy and last copy status. If your copy might be the best copy remaining or even the last copy remaining, it would be better to retain it.
Some is better than none suggests that one should not weed unless a replacement is in hand. Thus, it is better to retain the obsolete item than to weed it and have a gap. The weeder would counter that the gap would encourage replacement, but that may be debatable.
Costs of weeding?
Costs of not weeding?
What do we know about last copy availability?
About best last copy availability?
Most information professionals prefer weeding to storage since it is safer. Storage may be in the same building, on the same site, or at a remote site. Storage space may be wholly owner or owned in partnership with others. Weeding to storage requires provision for physical and intellectual access as well as moving materials.
As campus, whether academic or business, space becomes more expensive and more difficult to find, off-campus storage will become more attractive. For research libraries, cooperative storage arrangements may be most cost-effective. Columbia University, New York Public Library and Princeton University are opening a new storage building off campus in New Jersey. The building will hold about seven million volumes at first and ultimately will hold 30 million. Books and periodicals will be shelved by size and shape (high density storage).
The Center for Research Libraries and Library Dynamics Company hope to create the "Weeder's Insurance Network." This is a backup collection of titles weeded from libraries. LDC creates "Weedlist" programs that include titles of widely held books are now prime candidates for weeding from academic libraries. Eventually, this might take care of the last copy, best copy problem.
Another relatively safe option is to replace the weeded item with the same intellectual content in a different format. For example, periodicals may be weeded to be replaced by micro formats or full-text data bases. Micro formats are not popular with most users and format may result in minimal use.
Weeding for discard is the final option. Here, the key ingredient is the actual disposition of the weed. Weeds may be sold, given away, or destroyed.
Because of the likely controversy associated with weeding, an adopted policy is especially important. A clear rationale statement is at the heart of the policy. Responsibility and authority must be clearly stated. Policies focus on the why while supporting procedures focus on the how. Weeding criteria and disposition need to receive particular attention.
Cost, especially the time and effort involved is the major obstacle. When done properly, weeding is labor-intensive.
Many librarians experience intellectual and psychological discomfort when weeding, especially if it involves discarding. Librarians generally do much better when selecting items for retention or for storage.
Standards are usually based on size so weeding is a very real threat since it may reduce collection size and make the collection look "bad."
Lack of knowledge about in-house use can be a problem for items likely to be used but not removed from the collection. Bound periodicals, when photo duplication is quick and inexpensive is an example.
Weeding involves risk. Many collection managers are risk avoiders.
Until better last and best copy information is widely available,
weeding research collections will involve some risk.
In libraries without good housekeeping, books and shelves may be
dusty or dirty. Ideally, the shelves and books would be cleaned on a
regular basis.
Intermittent weeding is most common. The collection manager
examines part of the collection when there is a complaint or a lack of
space or some other problem becomes visible. Continuous weeding is
better but is more costly and requires some planning and discipline. An
example of continuous weeding is the old public library standard that
five percent of the collection should be replaced each year. Given
limited staff and time, weeding might involve a few shelves each week.
As mentioned above, objective criteria is best because they are easier to work with and are more convincing to outsiders. Some examples of objective criteria:
Subjective criteria can be made more objective if operational definitions are constructed. Some examples of subjective criteria:
Examples of categories where weeding is relatively easy:
Examples of categories where weeding is usually inappropriate:
Normally, clerks and para-professionals pull items from the shelf
and find items on printouts or in other resources so that they may be
categorized. Weeding involves a substantial amount of human effort and
time. The professional ordinarily makes the final decision. Most
librarians involved in weeding have "saved" an item or more than
otherwise would have been weeded. Professional and detailed knowledge
of the collection and current users is required.
Especially with the competition for the big box book sellers,
libraries want collections to be "vital, vibrant, and current." Weeding
older, unused items helps to do that. Circulation [as a proxy for
use] is the most common variable used in weeding collections.
First, adopt a time frame for measuring use. For example, an item must be used once in a two year period for smaller public libraries, five years for medium-sized public libraries and 10 years for large public libraries.
Then decide on the minimum number of uses within the time period for retention.
Then identify a data base or some other source of evidence of use. If transaction logs are unavailable, consider some sort of tagging scheme applied to items when they leave the collection. For example, a red dot placed on the top of the date due slip.
Pull those items that fall below the retention threshold. These will be examined and may be checked against standard "best lists." Items that are useful may be sent to another location where use is more likely or returned to the collection with some consideration of how the item might be made more visible to prospective users. If under use might be related to access, that will need to be examined.
Serial publications, especially periodicals, are challenging because they are often limited to in-house use and evidence about that use may not be available or may be unreliable. Generally, it is good to "reselect" at the end of the first year before renewing, whenever the title changes, and when the price increases more than fifteen percent. Ideally, you would create a retention schedule for each serial title based upon likely future use. For example, some periodicals may be weeded at the end of the volume year, others at the end of three years, and a few should be retained forever.
Librarians have several reasons for weeding, but the need to insure the accuracy of the non-fiction collection seems to be the most important. Physical condition is the second most common reason for weeding. Typically, the non-fiction collection receives more weeding attention that the fiction collection.
Because it is so difficult to characterize quality of intellectual content or utility, collection managers usually use proxies. The two most often used are the copyright date and the issuing date. The copyright date is a better indication of current intellectual content, although sometimes a recent copyright date reflects only a small change in the front matter. We need to be careful in weeding using date criteria. Do consider if the information in the item being weeded is really inaccurate or simply not current or complete. In the former case, the item should be weeded. In the latter case, the book may be retained if complemented with more recent material.
In subjects where obsolescence is a problem, five to ten years is a reasonable life before an item is weeded. Some public libraries weed popular fiction on a five year life too. Hard copy newspapers are rarely kept more than one or two years. Once these dates are adopted, weeding becomes relatively easy and automatic.
In collections, such as in the humanities and much of the social sciences, where information and knowledge does not cumulate, copyright or issuing date is not a reasonable criterion. Here, items are weeded based upon whether or not they appear on a well-received "best list." The more selective the list, the more likely that it will identify items that should be kept because of their value. Subject experts may also be asked to review items for utility and quality. Sometimes, however, they do not agree.
The major problem here is the time and effort required to identify
items that are no longer usable because of some format problem. It is
not likely that agency staff will be able to do this in a comprehensive
manner. We must do a better job of encouraging users to identify items
that are no longer usable. We must also encourage collection staff to
identify items that are no longer usable.
Here are some examples of typical hard copy book weeds. Weed books
with:
After unusable items are identified, they are placed in an area where they may be reviewed or evaluated. Usually, we divide these weeds into 3 classes:
In some environments, where there is more wear and tear than expected, it may be necessary to educate staff and users on how to properly handle items in the collection. In other cases, environmental or disaster planning may be an appropriate remedy. In a few cases, hardware, furniture, or other equipment (book drops might be a good example) may need to be fixed or replaced.
If your collection is in a publicly funded institution, you should investigate the legal implications of disposing of surplus government property. In some cases, this will not apply. In others, weeded library materials may be in the same category as weeded computers or office furniture with particular policies and procedures.
Likely disposition options include:
Each of these options has assets and liabilities. You need to consider those carefully before adopting a particular option. It is likely that some one will react negatively, so prepare a positive response before hand. Sales via friends or other book sales are the most populoar disposition method. The Anoka County Library (Minneapolis) has been selling some of its weeded items on eBay and done quite nicely.
Be most careful when discarding items. The Gwinnett County Public
Library (Georgia) was embroiled in a most difficult controversy when a
resident retrieved 24 bags of discarded library books from a dumpster
outside of a branch.
The Library
at the University of Buffalo has a website devoted to donation
programs fro books, journals, and media.
Select an information agency of your choice. Be able to discuss the political environment--staff, immediate community, and larger community, how it might impact weeding, and what might be done to minimize problems.
Identify and be able to defend your own philosophy of weeding. Are you more likely to "throw it out," or hold and wait for possible future use? Why?
Select an information agency of your choice. You have a ratty, dated collection on space exploration. Would you weed, create a gap, and use that gap to mobilize funding? Would you retain these items until replacements are available in house? Is something better than nothing?
Select an information agency and a collection. Identify and be able to discuss those criteria most helpful in weeding the collection. Be able to discuss the assets and liabilities associated with objective and subjective criteria.
Select an information agency. Discuss how you would measure use, utility, and usability of a particular collection.
Select an information agency with hard copy collections. Discuss disposition options and select one or two that seems best. Why are these best? Community reaction?
