Well, I've ploughed my way through chapter 1 of the Kennedy text, and also chapter 1 of a similar book by Peggy Johnson, and I feel that I now have a pretty thorough knowledge of US library history, along with the development of these two terms. So, here is what I now know:
- Most librarians use these terms interchangeably.
- Collection development came first to reflect a more thoughtful approach to selection.
- As budgets, and collection growth, diminished collection management became the preferred term by many.
Essentially they describe the same processes. The only real difference is the emphasis on growth implied by collection development. Collection management does seem to be a more satisfactory name for the tasks undertaken to maintain a static collection.
However, in the futuristic utopia we now inhabit library collections are anything but static. We are supposedly providing an elastic collection that flexes to accommodate current user demands. There is constant development in the acquisition of access to new resources, and growth can potentially outstrip the weeding process.
Johnson, and the ALA apparently, have settled on the title of collection development and management. It's a bit more of a mouthful, but at least they don't have to waste any more time bickering over who's the head honcho here.
No comments:
Post a Comment