Collection Building

Collection development in UK university libraries

Stuart Hunt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Stuart Hunt, (2017) "Collection development in UK university libraries", Collection Building, Vol. 36 Issue: 1, pp.29-34, https://
doi.org/10.1108/CB-09-2016-0026
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-09-2016-0026
Downloaded on: 18 September 2018, At: 06:50 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 16 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1917 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)

(2017),"Training needs analysis based on mismatch between the acquired and required levels of collection management skills
of academic librarians", Collection Building, Vol. 36 Iss 1 pp. 20-28 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-06-2016-0012">https://
doi.org/10.1108/CB-06-2016-0012</a>
(2017),"Collection development in Tawang monastery libraries", Collection Building, Vol. 36 Iss 2 pp. 77-88 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/CB-12-2016-0037">https://doi.org/10.1108/CB-12-2016-0037</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Collection development in UK
university libraries
Stuart Hunt
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight collection development activity in UK higher education libraries and to place it within both a
conceptual and strategic context.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses a theoretical approach to collection development and content strategy derived from literary
theory to contextualise debates. It uses current examples from collection management within UK academic libraries.
Findings – This paper suggests that collection development is not exclusively a library practitioner activity but needs to be considered within a wider
context that takes account of multiple strands of collection selection and management. Collection development cannot be considered in isolation
but alongside collection management and in relation to content strategy.
Research limitations/implications – This paper includes consideration of the topic of collection development that is influenced by other
disciplines, notably literary theory. This suggests that research in library science should include input from other disciplines.
Practical implications – This paper includes implications for content development within academic libraries that suggest that a re-focus at the
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)

strategic level of content is required.

Originality/value – This paper introduces a conceptual register to collection development outside of traditional library science models and posits
a move to strategy.
Keywords Academic libraries, University libraries, Collection development, Collection management, Content strategy, Collection assessment
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction and are beginning to articulate this. But it does not follow that
these changes have found their way into library policies despite
Collection development is a core activity within UK academic
being recognised in library practices.
libraries. UK academic libraries have created collection
This paper addresses how strategies and policies need to
development policies that reflect the perceived requirements
change, have started to change or indeed have changed. In
of their respective communities to support the education and
particular, it re-frames the issue of collection development
research missions of their parent institution and, in many
within the wider context of content strategy and emphasises
cases, to emphasise on the uniqueness of their local
this as central to a coherent approach to content and,
collections. Collection development is routinely carried out,
therefore, library collections. Inevitably, in any discussion of
although not necessarily always explicitly articulated.
collection development, the issues addressed merge into a
Although there is a significant scholarly record to support it as
discussion of collection management, and there are instances
a central function of libraries, particularly in North America
where library collection development policies directly address
(Gregory, 2011), UK academic libraries have not universally
collection management. This is in no small part due to the
exposed their policies and practices to close scrutiny. Policies
close relation between these two areas of practice. Where these
may have been created some time ago, have not always been
two come together is in addressing content strategy as each fall
subject to review and renewal and largely represent a
under this heading. At times, collection development and
print-based view of the library collection. This is not to
collection management appear to be two sides of the same
undermine the importance of print, or print culture, and it is
coin, and in the examples given in this paper, it will be shown
not to suggest that libraries have ignored digital content and
how the activity of one can inform the activity of the other.
collections. However, UK collection development policies do
Indeed, in addressing content strategy as a whole, it is
exhibit a custodial perspective that does not necessarily take
important that each factor is taken into consideration and
into account content that is neither owned nor curated by the
should not be considered in isolation.
library. Things do need to change and they are beginning to do
The UK higher education sector is the context for this
so. In particular, the print-based view of library collection is
paper, and the examples used are taken from this setting. This
being eroded, and some libraries have long since recognised
does not, however, preclude non-UK libraries from, it is
hoped, finding the points raised here as pertinent. In
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on particular, the more philosophical sections of this paper are
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0160-4953.htm included as they are specifically conceptually transferable and

Collection Building
36/1 (2017) 29 –34 Received 28 September 2016
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0160-4953] Revised 28 September 2016
[DOI 10.1108/CB-09-2016-0026] Accepted 12 November 2016

29
 Collection development in UK university libraries
Stuart Hunt
can readily be applied, or discarded according to belief, by the
wider library community. They are, however, included to
emphasise that library science needs to be informed by other
disciplines and practices.
This paper is not a literature review of the exhaustive
scholarly record for collection development. Little would be
gained by repeating well-articulated and well-rehearsed
arguments. In contrast to the non-UK world, collection
development has not traditionally been widely taught in UK
library education and is often a skill learned or acquired “on
the job” by the library practitioner.
It is hoped this paper does, along with a selective overview
of the UK landscape, challenge the central premises of
collection development and, by extension, collection
management. Examples are used where they illustrate and
support the positions being made. At base, this paper is largely
an opinion piece and reflects the personal perspective of the
author, albeit one informed by both practical and strategic
management experience.
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)
The changing academic library landscape
UK university libraries have, in common with institutions
elsewhere, historically carried out collection development.
This has been seen as a professional activity for librarians,
often invested with a high degree of pride and dedication. This
work of collection building through focussed selection was
carried out at a subject level by dedicated subject librarians, or
their equivalent, in close liaison with academic faculty to
ensure that adequate resources were acquired in support of
teaching, learning and research. Subject librarians had
responsibility for subject-based funds, which had been
allocated according to local formulae, including student
numbers and average costs for books within specific subject
areas. Funds were then expended as judged to be appropriate
for each subject.
Over recent years within UK universities, there have been
changes introduced through staff re-structuring that has either
removed the traditional subject librarian role or changed its
focus. This has had an inevitable knock-on effect on collection
development. Subject librarians had been getting increasingly
caught-up in decisions regarding the numbers of copies
required for individual titles and for titles required for reading
lists. These are decisions that can more readily be made in a
formula-based manner by acquisitions or procurement staff.
With the changed role and increased variety of academic
liaison and relationship management activities, collection
development has increasingly had to be removed from the
subject librarian. This change has presented libraries with new
opportunities, particularly in moving towards data-driven
decision making and in using data in ways new to librarians.
From collections to content
It is clear that library collection is not co-extensive with all the
content that the library has available and can facilitate access
to. The vocabulary of the collection implies those materials
that the library collects and is custodian of. In the current
environment, this will only be a proportion of the total
information offerings that it makes available. The migration of
print journals to e-journals is a clear illustration of this.
30
Collection Building
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2017 · 29 –34
Increasing numbers of e-books also compound this. The
vocabulary of collection development and collection
management is now out-dated and out of step with how
libraries actually operate even when this is not specifically
recognised. For this reason, libraries should exercise caution
in the use of collection-based terminology and, better, shift
their thinking to content. Content strategy should replace
collection development and collection management. This is
no mere semantic trick of substituting one word for another. It
is not enough for the university library to substitute the word
content for the word collection and simply re-package current
policy. Rather, there needs to be a conceptual change in the
understanding of how library strategy conceives content.
It is only recently that UK academic libraries have started to
consciously talk in terms of content strategy rather than
collection development (Hunt, 2014). Relatively few UK
academic libraries have, at present, developed a content
strategy, but this is starting to change, and there is a move
towards taking this up as something for libraries to do. The
strategies being created vary in their depth and focus, but it is
noteworthy that conceptual changes are being achieved.
The move from collections to content represents a
significant shift in how the library perceives itself and
articulates that through its strategy. The custodial model that
views the collection as central is grounded in notions of
ownership. The collection is a physical artefact, or collection
of artefacts, that is conceived as a totality owned and curated
by the library. Although this approach might be appropriate
for specific aspects of library content, such as special
collections and archives, it does not adequately cover other
types of content, both print and digital. For the digital, the
library is not custodian but only facilitator, enabling access to
content. The task of the library is, therefore, shifted to access
and facilitation and away from custodianship and curation,
which is, where commercial content is involved, addressed by
third parties. Even local digital content, from repository
content, research data to digitised collections, may well be
hosted elsewhere by third-party providers.
Content strategy
Content strategy sits above any collection development and
collection management policies, informing and guiding policy.
A content strategy takes account of more than just the physical
collections. Physical collection policies, such as for special
collections and archives, should sit under the content strategy
and be informed by it. Content strategy is independent from
the format of materials it encompasses, the services through
which it is made available and delivered within the library. It
takes a holistic approach to all content that is created,
consumed, re-used, curated and disposed of. It accounts for
the complete life-cycle of content. Content strategy also takes
into account the consumer of content, as student or academic,
and the governance and management of content. These have
often been absent from collection development and collection
management policies. This move to content strategy is
underpinned by a specific conceptual interpretation derived,
in part, from other disciplines.
Content is not fixed in identify but is deployed within a
specific context on each and every occasion that it is used.
Applying the work of Roland Barthes, this contextual
 Collection development in UK university libraries
Stuart Hunt
deployment of content is the act of writing. Every use of
content in context is writing. “Every text is eternally written
here and now” (Barthes, 1993). The act of deploying content
is the act of writing. This can be contrasted with the collection
which has a fixed identity. The collection is conceived of as a
unitary whole, and its constituents are seen as artefacts. This
places the collection closer to a museum than the library where
the collection is of interest in its totality, as an artefact, as a
whole. Applying Barthes’ work further through the definitions
of readerly and writerly texts (Barthes, 1990), content in this
context is conceived of as writerly:
The writerly text is a perpetual present, upon which no consequent language
[. . .] can be superimposed; the writerly text is ourselves writing, before the
infinite play of the world [. . .] is traversed, intersected, stopped, plasticized
by some singular system [. . .] which reduces the plurality of entrances, the
opening of networks, the infinity of languages.
Collections are, on the contrary, readerly and define the reader
as the recipient of a fixed and static text. The collection is,
therefore, in Barthes’ vocabulary readerly. It is not re-written
in the way that content is.
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)
The collection posits meaning outside of itself as the fixed
notion of the collection. For example, libraries often speak in
terms of specific named collections. The same cannot be said
for content. This can be seen further in the consideration of
early texts by Orgel (2015), which sees the book as being only
completed when it is annotated. There is a modern
“idealization of the text” which has assumed “that printing
fixed the text, that the printed book was the work in its final
form”, which is a “stabilization of the text”. Orgel contrasts
this with the “variability of manuscript copies” and “the
characteristic instability of electronic texts”. Thus, there is no
“textual finality”, content is re-written, although the collection
is an artefact. This is not a diversion from the issue of
collection development but, rather, provides a philosophical
and conceptual framework to content strategy.
Collections and space
Recently, the long-unfashionable subject of collection
management has re-emerged as both a pressing and prescient
concern for UK academic libraries. In many cases, this is not
driven by collection pressures but by space requirements.
Also, in these instances, collection space has to be sacrificed to
new and expanded study spaces that are required to support
the increased student population and the changes in study
methods such as the importance of multiple types of study
space from group study to single quiet and silent study. In this
context, large historic collections of rarely used materials
occupy space which is at a premium for the library.
Collections have to be relegated or disposed of to maximise
the space available and to satisfy student needs in an
ever-more-demanding and league table-driven higher
education sector where student satisfaction is a significant
factor in planning and funding.
Collection development and collection management, and
thus content strategy, need to adapt to these changed and
changing circumstances. They need to move to become
data-driven activities. Decisions to retain, relegate or dispose
of materials have to be made on the basis of, for example,
usage, and titles need to “earn their keep” and work hard if
they are to remain on the shelves. For example, at the
31
Collection Building
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2017 · 29 –34
University of Bristol, materials in some of the smaller
collections, such as the Medical Library, can be seen to work
much harder than materials in the Arts and Social Sciences
Library. Comparing collection size against circulation data
shows significantly more usage of the smaller Medical Library
collection over both three and seven year periods. Stock in the
Medical Library also renews more frequently because of the
nature of the disciplines covered and the scholarly output and
publishing cycle. Arts and Social Sciences Library materials,
on the contrary, circulate far less frequently, yet the persistent
argument is that these more monograph-heavy disciplines
require historic collections irrespective of their use. Evidence
can be a potentially highly political tool in discussions with
faculty in rationalising some collections.
Changing models changing practices
Patron-driven collection development has emerged through
the widespread adoption of patron-driven (or demand-drive)
acquisitions. This has devolved the selection of content to the
library user rather than the, potentially centralised, specialist
within the library. After an initial flurry of patron-driven
acquisition (PDA) activity in UK academic libraries, there has
been a drawing back or re-defining of how PDA is used. This
has been in no small part because of financial considerations
and the pricing models available. Libraries have spent often
considerable amounts of their budget on PDA and seen, in
some cases, what they believe to be very little return on that
investment. This is particularly the case where short-term
loans have accounted for the vast majority of PDA
expenditure, and the library sees no ownership following from
these costs. However, perhaps, this too is a remnant of a
custodian approach to content, which still wishes to see
ownership as the ultimate mission of the library. This may not
necessarily be in tune with the experience of the user who
wishes to access content at the time and place of their
choosing. It is only publisher pricing models that are holding
back wider adoption of PDA as, although libraries recognise
the clear benefits, they are not seeing sustainable financial
models to support it. The introduction of PDA for journal
articles, which to some extent is just an extension of a
pay-as-you-go approach to individual article purchase, will
potentially fare the same and has not, as yet, received any
wide-scale take-up in UK academic libraries.
Evidence-based acquisition is increasing in the UK, as the
publisher models are more suited to predictable budgeting by
libraries who see this as a way of increasing both student
satisfaction and the breadth of content provision. Like PDA,
the development decision is based on usage of specific titles
but maintains mediation at the centre from the library for the
ultimate purchasing decision. To this extent, evidence-based
acquisitions play to a cautious and more risk-averse role in
content development.
The impact of education and research
Content development is moving beyond the bounds of the
library and out into the library community. The role of the
subject librarian, as nexus and mediator in a content
development process, has been eroded, and decision-making
is moved from the centre. Although libraries have, for a long
 Collection development in UK university libraries
Stuart Hunt
time, worked with recommendation schemes for specific titles,
new service offerings and wider institutional drivers are
introducing new developments. The National Student Survey
(NSS), completed annually by final year undergraduate
students in the UK and concerned with the total educational
experience, has been instrumental in bringing change to
library content development practices. The NSS has a single
question about libraries, Question 16, “The library resources
and services are good enough for my needs”, which survey
respondents mark on a scale of agreement or disagreement.
Institutional scores are available at the question level and by
academic discipline. Free-text comments are also made
available to institutions. These responses are being used by
UK universities to identify less well performing areas and to
develop both library-wide and discipline-based strategies for
response. The typical response across the sector is to target
resource expenditure, either from within existing resource or
as additional resource made available by the parent university,
at the less well performing subject areas. Responses include
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)
purchasing additional copies of specific titles, purchasing
additional new content and selectively using patron-driven or
evidence-based acquisitions. These responses, in effect, shift
the content development away from the library towards the
student. With an institutional driver to support and enhance
the student experience, the library and its content
development has to conform to the institutional need. This is,
certainly, no bad thing, as it ensures that the library is
providing access to appropriate content to support students
and their education. This development is weighted in favour
of undergraduate education rather than research needs.
Teaching, and the educational experience, also exercises a
significant impact through taught-course reading lists. Again,
this pushes the content development away from the library
and into the hands of the academic course leader. Although
this has long been a standard practice for libraries, ensuring
that recommended readings are available to students, this has
been given further emphasis with the wide-scale adoption of
reading list software within UK university libraries. Reading
list software allows the academic to compile their course
reading list on line and share it with the library for content
procurement purposes and with students, often within the
course-specific context in their virtual learning environment.
The increased emphasis on reading lists and the provisioning
of course readings changes the focus of content or collection
development, shifting the emphasis from development for its
own sake, and replaces it as an instrumental activity directly
supporting educational needs. Responsibility is taken away
from the library and is placed with the individual academic.
Reading lists, and reading list software, are a self-perpetuating
cycle where their adoption has a knock-on effect, increasing
adoptions across the university. At some UK universities, an
institutional mandate exists for the use of reading lists and the
creation of lists within the particular reading list application in
use at the university.
The widespread adoption of reading list software, and in
many instances, automated purchasing based on lists, can also
have budgeting implications for libraries and how the
traditional content budget is divided. With the increased
emphasis on satisfying the education requirements, the next
logical step is to move away from micro-budgets, where each
32
Collection Building
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2017 · 29 –34
subject has its own budget. Instead what is now emerging is a
move towards budgeting at the higher category level, dividing
by different requirements such as reading list and research
needs.
Open Access (OA) monograph publishing is increasing both
with new or newly resurgent university presses within the UK.
Knowledge Unlatched, which offers libraries to collectively
“unlatch” monographs making them OA, presents an
interesting model. This is, in effect, collaborative content
development, as Knowledge Unlatched requires multiple
institutions to pledge money upfront to gain significant funds
to release titles. The number of titles has increased year on
year, with the current-year three 2016 lists comprising 343
titles. This is a significant increase compared to the previous
year. Although recognising this as collaborative content
development, it does raise the question if libraries are
committing to the content, because they believe in the
underlying principles of OA above and beyond the actual
content available.
“Above campus” and sector activities
The UK Research Reserve (UKRR) aims to create distributed
national research collection for serial holdings:
The UK Research Reserve (UKRR) is a collaborative distributed national
research collection managed by a partnership between the Higher Education
sector and the British Library. It allows Higher Education libraries to
de-duplicate their journal holdings of a title if two copies are held by other
UKRR members, ensuring continued access to low-use journals, whilst
allowing libraries to release space to meet the changing needs of their users
(UKRR, 2016).
This programme involves only a small group of
research-intensive university libraries in the UK, along with
the British Library. Although the initial phases of this project
were supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE), this scheme now faces the requirement to
be self-sustaining. The programme has enabled libraries to
significantly reduce their local serial holdings and to identify
those titles, volumes and issues that need to be retained. There
is an inherent tension in the UKRR between a mission to
create a national distributed research collection at the “above
institution” level, whereas individual institutions are using the
scheme to dispose of runs of serials that, in many instances,
are of low use and occupy significant amounts of shelf space.
The UKRR requires that two other libraries have a title before
confirming that an individual institution may dispose of their
locally held title.
The very obvious next step for the UKRR, and one that
is being actively investigated (as of Summer 2016), is to
expand the scheme to include monographs. This is a
long-held demand of UK academic and UKRR member
libraries and, should it come to fruition, will be very
popular. Again, the tensions of the UKRR previously
identified will remain with both retention and disposal
being the drivers. Many institutions have their own local
physical store or stores which can often incur significant
recurrent financial investment. The ever-growing challenge
of the physical store is compounded for those institutions
with a city-based location or in areas of prime real estate
costs. City-centre real estate costs make the usage of prime
real estate for storage a poor and inappropriate use of
finances. High regional real estate costs may result in stores
 Collection development in UK university libraries
Stuart Hunt
being located in some cases at a considerable distance from
the institution, as is the case for some universities within
central London. Any store will also entail service costs for
transporting materials to and from the remote store. As a
counter-part of collection development within the library,
there ought to be collection development for the remote
store, where relegation is seen from both the perspective of
removing titles from the library and also adding them to the
store. One ought not necessarily to imply the other,
especially when the total cost of ownership is taken into
account. Alternative models for supply may well be more
appropriate, with remote storage being dedicated to unique
materials that need to be retained.
At a community level, there is an increasing awareness of
the need for collection management and development. The
space driver is clearly a significant factor in this. New library
buildings, or refurbishments to existing buildings, also have a
significant influence. Over the past five years, the UK higher
education sector has seen an increase in the number of new
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)
library buildings. Integral to these has been discussion about
what should be in these new libraries and how much of the
library’s historical collection should be included. Thus, space
planning for both high- and low-density storage is a driver.
Libraries do not want to shift legacy collections to a new build
without first considering if they should be retained. Similarly,
some university libraries are being built on the basis that other
smaller site libraries will be incorporated in to the new build,
with the obvious consolidation that this involves. Data here in
making the necessary decisions are central to planning.
Within the UK, the collection management community has
emerged with a specific identity and has formed around the
work of the JISC Collection Management Community
Advisory Board. This was originally formed as an outcome of
the JISC Collection Management Tool (CCM) project and its
associated Board and now has a wider remit to advise on
collection management and bibliographic data tools to
support collection management (Massam, 2016). This is done
through the running of community events on collection
management and related activities.
The Copac CCM tool allows libraries to analyse their
collections, or parts of their collections, against other
institutions at a title level. As a collection management tool, it
can also be potentially used for collection development,
enabling individual institutions to understand what
constitutes a specific collection, for example, by discipline
when supporting a new programme within the university
(Elder and Massam, 2016).
Emerging from the CCM project is a wider collaboration
between the White Rose Libraries of the Universities of Leeds,
Sheffield and York. Working with the Online Computer
Library Centre (OCLC) GreenGlass service, the libraries will
analyse their print collections with a view to establish a joint
approach to strategic collection management. This approach
of consortial collection management also points the way
towards a similar content development strategy. It highlights
the “above campus” aspect of content and how this can be
incorporated into individual library strategic planning. The
challenge for libraries is to stop seeing content from
the perspective of custodianship and ownership. Whether this
can and will be achieved remains to be seen, particularly
33
Collection Building
Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2017 · 29 –34
within the context of the both co-operative and competitive
higher education environment.
Collection assessment is an integral part of collection
development and also of collection management, as it moves
forward into content strategy and management. The
well-known work on conspectus by the former Research
Libraries Group (RLG) is helpful is categorising collections
and still has meaning at present. For example, the Library of
Congress has taken the decision to continue using the RLG
categorisation in their Collection Policy Statements (Library
of Congress, 2015). In the UK, similar work took place at the
University of Leeds with the creation of a collection
categorisation scheme (Leeds University Library, 2013). This
categorisation is now increasingly becoming the subject of
interest within selected UK research libraries as a means of
developing policy and can inform institutional content
strategy at an effective level. The categorisation need not be
applied to the print collection only, as it had been conceived,
but can be expanded to consider content irrespective of
format. The categorisation, although directly indicating
collection strengths and supporting collection management,
also highlights collection development priorities, indicating
specific areas for collecting or not as appropriate.
Conclusions
Collection, or content, development is a complex picture
across UK universities. Although different practices may
occur at the local level, there are stronger similarities than
there are differences between institutions. The drivers are, for
the most, part the same; supporting the education and
research missions of their institution. The balance in how
different methods and models are used may reflect the wider
focus of the institution as a whole, between education and
research. A key driver that should not be under-estimated for
all UK university libraries is that of the student experience.
Across the sector, this has become a central factor in library
strategic planning.
At the strategic level, libraries are, either explicitly or
implicitly, moving towards a content-centred, rather than a
collection-centred, approach, including content development.
Content development as and content management are
constituents of content strategy. It is not sustainable for UK
academic libraries to cling to historic collection development
practices. The landscape has become far more complex, with
an increase in the models, methods and means for content
procurement. Demand as a driver has more clearly moved to
the fore, and automated tools and data-driven methodologies
are increasingly being used to address this.
Many tools and approaches that are available and used for
collection management can and are additionally being used for
content and collection development. This is increasingly the case
where an “above campus” or consortial approach to content is
adopted. The UK is yet to establish a truly distributed national
research collection, and such an aspiration still seems far off. At
this time, only effective regional co-operation such as in the
devolved nations of Wales and Scotland seems likely.
UK universities, as a content creators, are directly
impacting on content development as libraries seek to support
the education and research missions of their parent institution.
Open Access content, research data, locally created open
 Collection development in UK university libraries Collection Building
Stuart Hunt Volume 36 · Number 1 · 2017 · 29 –34

educational resources and the outputs of institution-based
publishing houses need to be made available and curated by
the library. As content creation moves closer to the library,
there is a shift towards access to, and the curation of, locally
created content, and the library is increasingly a partner in
this. Content strategy, then, is focussed upon facilitation and
access to external content and to internally created content.
References
Barthes, R. (1990), S/Z, Blackwell, Oxford.
Barthes, R. (1993), “The death of the author”, Image – Music –
Text, Fontana, London.
Elder, R. and Massam, D. (2016), “Using Copac data to
benchmark collections”, Performance Measurement and Metrics,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 194-202.
Gregory, V.L. (2011), Collection Development and Management
for 21st Century Library Collections: An Introduction,
Neal-Schuman Publishers, NY/London.
Downloaded by Universitas Indonesia At 06:50 18 September 2018 (PT)
Massam, D. (2016), “Jisc collection management community
advisory board”, available at: https://blog.mimas.ac.uk/ccm/
w p -co n ten t/u p lo a d s/sites/13/2016/05/Col l ect i on-
Management-Advice-and-Oversight-May-2016.pdf (accessed
27 September 2016).
Orgel, S. (2015), The Reader in the Book, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
UK Research Reserve (2016), available at: www.ukrr.ac.uk
(accessed 27 September 2016).
Further reading
Jisc Copac Collection Management Tools (2016), available at:
https://ccm.copac.jisc.ac.uk/ (accessed 27 September 2016).
Knowledge Unlatched (2016), available at: www.
knowledgeunlatched.org/ (accessed 27 September 2016).
National Student Survey (2016), available at: www.
thestudentsurvey.com/ (accessed 27 September 2016).
OCLC (2016), “OCLC sustainable collection services and
GreenGlass”, available at: www.oclc.org/support/training/

Hunt, S. (2014), “Ditch your collections and get a content

portfolios/library-management/sustainable-collections.en.
strategy”, Paper Presented at I2C2 Conference, Manchester,
html (accessed 27 September 2016).
6-7 March.
University of Bristol Library (2016), available at: www.bristol.
Leeds University Library (2013), “Collections strategy for
ac.uk/library (accessed 27 September 2016).
Leeds University Library”, available at: https://library.leeds.
White Rose Libraries (2016), available at: www.whiterose.ac.
ac.uk/downloads/file/212/collections_strategy (accessed 27 uk/libraries (accessed 27 September 2016).
September 2016).
Library of Congress (2015), “Library of Congress collecting
levels”, available at: www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/cpc.html Corresponding author
(accessed 27 September 2016). Stuart Hunt can be contacted at: stuart.hunt@bristol.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

34