Issue Paper #2

LIS 748 99 Spring 2013

Laurel Schilling

The question of whether library collections are becoming more generic or more personalized is a complex one, for it depends on the type of library being discussed. As patrons become more particular and demanding, especially at the academic level, the trend towards personalization seems clear. However, when it comes to public school libraries, I believe that collections are becoming more standardized and uniform. Let me begin by discussing what I know best, which is the public school library. Since adoption of Common Core State Standards in 45 states, public schools are realigning their curriculums to satisfy the non-fiction component of the reading standards. This is a challenge for school librarians, who must learn how to create Common Core units and assessments, identify complex texts for instructional purposes, build strategic collections that meet the increased rigor of student assignments and projects, and help them develop the skill sets necessary for reading and digesting informational text (Jacobs-Israel). Since the Common Core is designed to standardize curriculums throughout the United States, an unintended consequence may be that school library collections become more uniform. Many school librarians are confused about how to align their collections with Common Core State Standards. In response, vendors like Follett Titlewave, one of the most popular platforms for school librarians, now offer professionally-selected book packages on a subscription basis that are aligned to state standards (TitleEZ Subscriptions). The obvious problem is that although convenient, book packages might tend to make school library collections the same. In fact, some critics of the Common Core argue that the controlled approach to education results in a one size fits all system that allows for little flexibility in curriculum. Diane Ravitch, a Research Professor of Education at New York University who maintains an education blog, quotes a teacher who is worried that the amount of detail [in the
1

Issue Paper #2

LIS 748 99 Spring 2013

Laurel Schilling

Common Core] reduces flexibility, ownership, and increases dependency on publishers and corporation produced curriculum and assessment (Ravitch). One problem with the Common Core is Appendix B, which list examples of language art texts but is not supposed to be a definitive list. Unfortunately, many educators are treating Appendix B as a national reading list (Springen). According to Ravitch, the likelihood is that most states are going to adhere to whats actually in the printed booklet, and publishers are taking full advantage of this tendency by encouraging clients to purchase these texts (Springen). Publishing companies like Random House and Scholastic have launched teacher/librarian web links like rhteacherslibrarians.com and On the Record with core-linked materials (Springen). The end result may be a great similarity in school library collections, at least in the early stages of Common Core implementation. In contrast to school libraries, which are (in my opinion) becoming more standardized just like school curriculums, I believe that academic and public libraries will continue to innovate and become more responsive to patron needs. There are some trends that might lead to generic collections, such as comprehensive vendor services that provide one-stop shopping, including selection assistance and pre-order searching (Evans and Saponaro 114). However, other trends like floating collections, Print On Demand services, self-publishing and nonprofessional recommender websites point to more flexibility in collections. One of the more interesting developments is the floating collection, in which materials are not attached to a single branch, but rather move among the facilities. The result is that materials pool where the demand for them is highest. According to Wendy Bartlett, Collection Development Manager of the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Public Library, the funand the most

Issue Paper #2

LIS 748 99 Spring 2013

Laurel Schilling

important successof floating collections is that the patrons really do drive what lands where to a degree collection development staff can only dream of (Bartlett). In this system, the more frequently used branches have to weed aggressively to free up space for the pooling of materials, with the result that collections reflect patron preferences (Bartlett). Andrea Ginsky, Manager Public Services for the Sarasota County Library System, reported that by floating her collection, [c]irculation has increased and patrons have a more varied selection, especially in the smaller branches (Ginsky). Nann Blaine Hilyard, Director of the Zion-Benton Public Library, is equally enthusiastic about floating collections. She asserts that [b]y matching materials to readers efficiently and effectively, physical structures do not have to expand their shelf space and can instead expand their programs and resources (Hilyard). Another trend pointing towards greater personalization of collections is Publishing or Printing on Demand. Academic libraries and research centers depend heavily on electronic resources that are current, accurate and quickly accessible, despite the fact that publishers have often fought as hard as they could to be treated like print-only publications in an age where no one really accesses academic journals in print form (unless you buy the PDF online, and then print it yourself) (Jones). Patrons often need print resources quickly as well, and some large university libraries like those at the Universities of Michigan and Utah have experimented with Espresso Book Machines (EBMs). Terri Geitguy states that one benefit of an EBM machine is the ability to get a book into a patrons hands when no copy may exist in the physical collection, and to provide that copy quickly and inexpensively (Geitgey). He also found that EBM machines are useful for professors who publish their own textbooks and need to update them frequently and inexpensively. Another advantage of POD is the ability to obtain titles that wouldnt be economical to produce in large quantities. Evans and Saponaro state that on3

Issue Paper #2

LIS 748 99 Spring 2013

Laurel Schilling

demand initiativescan conceivably allow publishers to produce single copies of a wider variety of titles at an affordable cost (Evans and Saponaro). Self-publishing is yet another trend that points towards greater diversity in library collections, even though self-published materials are generally not accepted in the educational field because they have not been vetted by a third party (Evans and Saponaro). However, in this new information age filled with bloggers and laymen commentaries, there may be a niche for the self-published author. As one such author states: This is the future of publishing: your story, an easy-to-use platform, and direct access to an audience that may be willing to pay (Ulanoff). If this trend catches on,[t]heres good reason to believe that most new book titles will be selfpublished or micropublished in the futureindeed, that may already be the case (Crawford). Finally, the Internet has transformed the way readers connect with books. With the advent of social networks like Goodreads and LibraryThing, readers can post and/or review book recommendations made by friends and other users. The net effect is that a wider range of materials are examined, since professional reviewers are only able to cover a small fraction of total publications. As Otis Chandler, founder of Goodreads, asserts: You can now find reviews of books that interest you that the professional reviewers just don't have the bandwidth to cover" (Herther). In turn, [p]ublishers and authors have embraced social media as a new channel for reaching readers. Facebook and Twitter are now considered essential for book promotion, connecting with readers, and catching trends and interests as they develop (Herther). In conclusion, I believe that the future of public and academic libraries is increased personalization of collections due to the trends described above, with the exception of school

Issue Paper #2

LIS 748 99 Spring 2013

Laurel Schilling

libraries, which I predict will be more standardized and controlled due to the current top down approach to education.

Works Cited
Bartlett, Wendy. "Floating Down the Cuyahoga." Public Libraries May/June 2012: 15. Web. 18 February 2013. Crawford, Walt. "Should You Care About POD?" Online. Information Today Inc., May/June 2011. Web. Evans, G. Edward and Margaret Zarnosky Saponaro. Collection Management Basics. 6. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited, 2012. Print. Follett Library Resources, Inc. Follett: Personalized Focus. 2013. Web. 18 February 2013. Follett Shelf: Curriculum-aligned e-book bundles. 2013. Web. 18 February 2013. Geitgey, Terri. "The University of Michigan Library Expresso Book Machine Experience." Library Hi Tech 29.1 (2011): 51-61. Web. 21 February 2013. Ginsky, Andrea. "Jumping in and Learning to Float." Public Libraries 51.3 (2012). Herther, Nancy K. "From Book Reviewing to Crowdsourcing." Searcher. Vols. 20, Issue 5. June 2012. Web. Hilyard, Nann Blaine. "Take the Plunge!" May/June 2012. Public Libraries. Web. Howard, Jody K. "Basic Selection Tools: 21st Century Style." School Library Monthly 28.3 (2011): 9-11. Web. Jacobs-Israel, Melissa. "A Sticker Won't Do the Job." School Library Journal (2012). Web. Jones, Christopher. "Why Startups Have the Power to Lead Americas Innovation Revolution." 2013. Technori. Web . 18 February 2013. Kessler, Tara. "We Transitioned to Floating Collections and All I Got Was This T-Shirt." Public Libraries (2012). Web. Ravitch, Diane. Diane Ravitch's Blog. 20 December 2012. Web . 21 February 2013. Springen, Karen. "What Common Core Means for Publishers." 18 July 2012. Publishers Weekly. Web. 21 February 2013. "TitleEZ Subscriptions." 2013. Follett Titlewave. Web. 18 February 2013.
5

Issue Paper #2

LIS 748 99 Spring 2013

Laurel Schilling

Ulanoff, Lance. "Self-Publishing: Why You Could Be the Next Stephen King." 12 March 2012. Mashable. Web. 21 February 2013.