Friday 605 class brought about a discussion on the different polices and models for collection development within the libraries.  Casey K. told us about the model one of the universities is adopting for their development of e-book collection.  To summarize, the university library signed contract with database vendor of the e-books, and members of the library with their usage indicate which e-books will be purchased for the collection.  The access to the full list of e-books is available and from members prospective it is transparent.  E-books are initially leased, but if enough requests occur for the e-book, that e-book is automatically purchased for the collection.

                At that time I immediately saw problems with that model, and we had some chuckles about my objection of that time.  I could not formulate precise argument even though I knew something was critically wrong with that model.  I will try to present my case here. 

                As we know process of collecting is a proactive process of acquiring materials to achieve certain goals.  Museums for example collect artifacts which fit aims of those museums, and curators take very active role in what artifacts get included in those collections.  This brings about first issue I see with this hands off approach by librarians.  Librarians choose database (which is true), but they leave decisions of how collections develops exclusively to the members.  Considering amount of the data and the information available to the members, making the best possible decision on what they should be using is hard so they pick based on good enough concept (Paradox of Choice).   The members should be a starting point for librarians in development of the collections, since they can indicate what community needs to have within their collections, but librarians instead of giving their job away to database holders (or Jobbers of the past) should take this a step further.  After initial interest is indicated by members, librarians should be then looking more deeply into the subject to see how the collection can be fleshed out based on that initial indication.  Even experts who might be requesting information through the library do not know all the sources and the research that might be available to them.  That is why leaving collection development purely in hands of member is not really a collection development. 

The second problem which comes out of this is dependence on one database or jobber for the collection development.  Both of these organizations are commercial organizations.  Their list of available resources is limited by many factors.  They might have dispute with some publishers, copyright holders, or their internal bias might conflict in representing some of the materials.  When librarians leave the job in the hands of that chosen database vendor or jobber they give away vital function of their responsibilities.  No curator of major museum will step back and let some third party start providing materials for their collection without their input, and neither should a librarian.  The starting point is database or jobber, but it is just that, a starting point.  Librarians’ job then is to look for resources missed by either of those entities, and to make sure that they make it into the collection with the approval of the community.  I say with approval because librarians when dealing with specialized information still need to keep conversations open with their members to make sure that they find useful additions to the collection. 

                So is the concept presented by Casey bad? Answer is no, it is great if it also is expanded to include librarians heavily involved in process through their research and conversations with the community members.