Library Collection Assessment: A Case Study of Two ... · information resources in various formats is a continuous process in any library. Collection assessment is the evaluation

Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

52

Library Collection Assessment: A Case Study of Two Universities in the

Region of Punjab, India

Har Singh

Panjab University, Chandigarh

India

[email protected]

Preeti Mahajan


India

[email protected]

ABSTRACT: Collection development is one of the important activities in academic

libraries. The purpose of this study is to investigate the perception and the needs

of users’ from library collections of print and electronic resources, including

users’ awareness of library collection development policy and procedure. The

study highlighted various library resources used by the respondents and their

degrees of satisfaction. The scope of the study was limited to two universities in

the region of Punjab, India, i.e., Panjab University, Chandigarh and Punjabi

University, Patiala. The respondents were postgraduate students from all

disciplines of these two universities. A stratified random sampling technique was

used. The data was collected through a questionnaire and personal discussions

with the respondents about their opinions in collection development of university

libraries. The major findings of the study are: the majority of the respondents are

not aware of library collection development policy and procedures. Hence, it is

recommended that libraries should involve users in collection development,

seeking users’ feedback and suggestions and evaluating collections on a regular

basis.

I. Introduction

The basic function of a library is to collect, store, and disseminate information for use. Of these,

“collection” plays a significant role as it affects the other two functions of the library to a

considerable extent. A collection once adequate both in terms of quality and quantity, if not

properly and constantly nurtured, will cease to be a live collection. Hence, the acquisition of

information resources in various formats is a continuous process in any library. Collection

assessment is the evaluation of library collections (print, e-resources, and non-print materials),

which can be carried out on a periodic basis with the help of feedback and suggestions received

from the regular users of the library. Not long ago, libraries were judged on the basis of the

quantity of their collections. And it was generally assumed that libraries with large collections

were good ones. In recent years, the concept has been changed. Now libraries are assessed on the

basis of the quality of their collections rather than quantity because a good collection is the heart

mailto:[email protected]



53

of a library. The quality of library collections could be noted through regular collection

assessment or evaluation by a collection review committee as well as through users' need

assessment by way of feedback from library users on regular basis. This includes activities such

as assessing users’ needs, evaluating the present collections, determining selection policies,

coordinating selection, re-evaluating and storing parts of the collections, and planning for

resource sharing. Thus, collection development and collection assessment are inter-related

activities.

The library budget in most universities in India has remained static while the cost of resources

has been increasing due to inflation. A library has to procure qualitative literature within a

limited budget so that it can cater to the varying needs of the users. It is very difficult for a

librarian to acquire good and qualitative materials without proper collection assessment,

evaluation, and feedback from regular users of the library. Hence, there is a need for continuous

assessment, evaluation, and improvement of library collections in light of the availability of

scholarly resources in various formats in the current IT scenario. Therefore, this study is an

attempt to find out the need and expectations of the users from the library in terms of its

collections.

II. Literatures Review

A large number of studies have been undertaken on many aspects related to collection

assessment in university libraries the world over. These include collection assessment, collection

evaluation, collection development practices, policies, funding, challenges, end users need, and

expectations from the library. However, there is not much literature regarding collection

assessment in university libraries in the developing countries.

Andrade and Vergueiro (1996) explored the difficulties faced by library staff in collection

evaluation. They considered collection development as several interrelated and interdependent

activities of the library. They believed that Evans’ Model of Collection Development is sufficient

for developing library collections in the developing countries (Evans & Saponaro, 2005).

Gandhi (2001) explored the library resources of the six universities in Karnataka for over a

decade and found that cost of books and journals were increasing in tremendous ways. He

observed that collection development in university libraries is the most important activity and

that problems faced by the librarians are inadequate budget, escalation of prices of information

resources, and lack of involvement of the academic community.

Herzog (2004) argued that libraries do not have a proper collection development policy despite a

budget sufficient for acquiring resources.

In their study, Borin and Yi (2011) examined the multi-dimensional model of collection

evaluation and suggested a few techniques for assessing and evaluating library collections.

Tabacaru & Pickett (2013) investigated the collection development policy of Texas A&M

University (TAMU) Libraries and suggested that the libraries should spend their budget in e-

resources, digital preservation of resources, and repositories.


54

III. Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are:

To examine users’ awareness of the library collection development policy;

To explore the usage of library collections;

To find out the usage of print and e-collections;

To examine user satisfaction on library collections;

To suggest practicable guidelines for collection development suitable to university

libraries in India.

IV. Research Methodology

The survey method was adopted. The data was collected through a questionnaire, using the

stratified random sampling technique. The respondents were postgraduate students (both PhD

and MPhil) at Panjab University, Chandigarh (PUC) and Punjabi University, Patiala (PUP),

India. Copies of a questionnaire were distributed and collected personally.

V. Data Analysis and Interpretation

1. Questionnaire distribution and response rate

Table 1. Questionnaire distribution and response rate

Name of University Questionnaire

Distributed

Questionnaire

Received

Response Rate

(%)

Panjab University,

Chandigarh 180 80 44

Punjabi University,

Patiala 150 80 53

Table 1 shows the distribution of the questionnaire and the response rate. In Panjab University,

Chandigarh, 180 copies of the questionnaire were distributed and 80 completed copies were

received from the respondents. The response rate was 44%. In Punjabi University, Patiala, 150

copies of the questionnaire were distributed and 80 completed copies were received. The

response rate was 53%. A total of 160 responses (80 from each university) were received from

the respondents.


55

2. Frequency of library visit

Fig. 1. Frequency of visit

Table 2. Frequency of visit

Frequency of Visit Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)

% Punjabi University,

Patiala (n=80)

%

Every Day 30 37.5 32 40

Twice or thrice a

week 14 17.5 28 35

Once in a week 16 20 12 15

Once in a fortnight 4 5 2 2.5

Once in a month 6 7.5 6 7.5

Very rarely 10 12.5 0 0

Total 80 100 80 100

Table 2 shows the frequency of library visit by the respondents. 30 respondents (37.5%) from

Panjab University, Chandigarh and 32 respondents (40%) from Punjabi University, Patiala visit

their respective libraries every day. 16 respondents (20%) visit the library once in a week at

PUC, whereas 28 respondents (35%) from PUP visit the library twice or thrice in a week. 10

respondents (12.5%) from PUC visit the library very rarely, whereas none of the respondents

from PUP visit the library very rarely.

30

14 16

4 6 10

32 28

12

2 6

0

Every Day Twice or thrice aweek

Once in a week Once in a fornight Once in a month Very rarely

Frequency of visit

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala,


56

3. Average time spent in the library per week

Fig. 2. Average time spent per week

Table 3. Average time spent per week

Use of

Library


(n=80)

% Punjabi University, Patiala

(n=80)

%

Few minutes 6 7.5 2 2.5

0.5 - 1 Hours 20 25 10 12.5

1-2 Hours 14 17.5 16 20

2-4 Hours 12 15 18 22.5

4-6 Hours 24 30 24 30

6-8 Hours 4 5 10 12.5

Total 80 100 80 100

Table 3 shows the average time spent per week in the library by the respondents. 24 respondents

(30%) from both universities spent 4-6 hours per week in their respective libraries, followed by

20 respondents (25%) from PUC spending 0.5 to 1 hours per week and 18 respondents (22.5%)

from PUP spending 2-4 hours per week in their respective libraries. 4 respondents (5%) from

PUC spend 6-8 hours whereas 10 respondents (2.5%) from PUP spend 6-8 hours per week in the

library. In a word, the time spent in the library by the respondents from both universities is quite

similar.

Few minutes 0.5 - 1 Hours 1-2 Hours 2-4 Hours 4-6 Hours 6-8 Hours

6

20

14 12

24

4 2

10

16 18

24

10

Average time spent per week

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala


57

4. Purpose of library visit

Fig. 3. Purpose of visit

Table 4. Purpose of library visit

Purposes Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


Patiala (n=80)

%

Study and Research 62 77.5 70 87.5

Consult the books 40 50 48 60

Consult the journals 42 52.5 50 62.5

Borrow Books 38 47.5 44 55

To check the new

arrivals 20 25 24 30

Access Internet 12 15 40 50

Access Electronic

Resources 10 12.5 44 55

Table 4 shows the purposes of library visit by the respondents. 62 (77.5%) respondents from

PUC and 70 (87.5%) from PUP visit the library for study and research, followed by 42

respondents (52.5%) from PUC and 50 respondents (62.5%) from PUP visit the library to consult

the journals. Therefore, the major purpose of library visit is to study or do research from both

universities. 10 respondents (12.5%) from PUC visit the library to access electronic resources

from the terminals available in the library, whereas 44 respondents (55%) from PUP visit the

library for the same purpose. Both universities have IP-based access to e-resources so that users

can also access the e-resources across the campus.

Study andResearch

Consultthe books

Consultthe

journals

BorrowBooks

To checkthe newarrivals

AccessInternet

AccessElectronicResources

62

40 42 38 20

12 10

70

48 50 44

24 40 44

Purpose of visit



58

5. Awareness of the library collection development policy

Fig. 4. Awareness of collection development policy

Table 5. Awareness of collection development policy

Awareness of

CDP

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


(n=80)

%

Yes 6 7.5 0 0

No 74 92.5 80 100

Total 80 100 80 100

Table 5 shows how many respondents are aware of the library collection development policy

(CDP). 6 respondents (7.5%) are aware of the CDP whereas 74 respondents (92.5%) are not

aware of the CDP at PUC. Since PUP does not have a CDP in written form, none of the

respondents are aware of it.

6. Use of the print resources in the library

Fig. 5. Use of print resources

6 0

74 80


Awareness of Collection Development Policy

Yes No

Often Occasionally Never

52 26

2

38 32 10

Use of print resources Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala


59

Table 6. Use of print resources

Use of Print

Resources

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


Patiala (n=80)

%

Often 52 65 38 47.5

Occasionally 26 32.5 32 40

Never 2 2.5 10 12.5

Total 80 100 80 100

Table 6 shows how the respondents use the print resources in their respective libraries. 52

respondents (65%) from PUC use the print resources often whereas only 38 respondents (47.5%)

from PUP use them often. 26 respondents (32.5%) from PUC and 32 respondents (40%) from

PUP occasionally use the print resources. Only 2 respondents (2.5%) from PUC and 10

respondents (12.5%) from PUP never use the print resources in their libraries.

7. Use of the e-resources in the library

Fig. 6. Use of e-resources

Table 7. Use of the e-resources in the library

Use of E-

Resources

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


(n=80)

%

Often 48 60 36 45

Occasionally 24 30 28 35

Never 8 10 16 20

Total 80 100 80 100

Table 7 shows how the respondents use the e-resources in their respective libraries. 48

respondents (60%) from PUC and 36 respondents (45%) from PUP use the e-resources in their

libraries often. 24 respondents (30%) from PUC and 28 (35%) from PUP occasionally use the e-

resources in the libraries. Only 8 (10%) respondents from PUC and 16 respondents (20%) from

PUP never use the e-resources in the libraries.


48

24

8

36 28

16

Use of e-resources



60

8. Advantages of using the print resources

Fig. 7. Advantages of print resources

Table 8. Advantages of using the print resources

Use of Print Resources Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


Patiala (n=80)

%

Easy to access 52 65 52 65

Comfortable than e-

resources 30 37.5 50 62.5

Portable and easy to

handle 42 52.5 48 60

Easy to read and

concentrate 48 60 66 82.5

Easy to photocopy 16 20 48 60

Others 2 2.5 10 12.5

Table 8 shows the advantages of using the print resources according to the respondents. 52

(65%) respondents from both PUC and PUP use the print resources as they are ease to access. 66

respondents (82.5%) from PUP and 48 respondents (60%) from PUC feel that the print resources

are easy to read and concentrate. 30 respondents (37.5%) from PUC and 50 respondents (62.5%)

from PUP feel that the print resources are comfortable than e-resources to use.

52 30 42 48

16 2

52 50 48 66

48

10

Advantages of print resources



61

9. Use of various categories of resources

Fig. 8. Use of various categories of resources

Table 9. Use of various categories of resources

Resource Category Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


Patiala (n=80)

%

Textbooks 68 85 70 87.5

Reference books 44 55 66 82.5

Journals 54 67.5 74 92.5

Reports 46 57.5 56 70

E-resources 57 71.25 64 80

Newspapers 60 75 72 90

Magazines 41 51.25 60 75

Government

publications 20 25 35 43.75

Non-book materials 45 56.25 52 65

Table 9 shows how the respondents use various categories of materials. 68 (85%) respondents

from PUC use textbooks, followed by 60 (75%) reading newspapers. 74 (92.5%) respondents

from PUP read journals, followed by 72 (90%) reading newspapers. 57 respondents (71.25%)

from PUC use e-resources, followed by 54 (67.5%) reading journals. 70 respondents (87.5%)

from PUP use textbooks, followed by 66 (82.5%) consulting reference books. 45 respondents

(56.25%) from PUC and 52 (65%) from PUP use non-books materials.

68

44 54

46 57 60

41

20

45

70 66 74

56 64

72 60

35 52

Use of various categories of resources



62

10. Successfulness of accessing the materials

Fig. 9. Successfulness of accessing materials

Table 10. Successfulness of accessing materials

Accessing the

Materials

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=80)


Patiala (n=80)

%

Often 32 40 40 50

Occasionally 37 46.25 25 31.25

Never 11 13.75 15 18.75

Total 80 100 80 100

Table 10 shows how successful the respondents access the materials in their respective libraries.

32 respondents (40%) from PUC and 40 (50%) from PUP often find the materials they need in

the libraries, followed by 37 respondents (i.e., 46.25%) from PUC and 25 (31.25%) from PUP

occasionally find the materials they need. 11 respondents (13.75%) from PUC and 15 (18.75%)

from PUP never find the materials they need in the libraries.

11. Awareness of e-resources acquired through the Consortia and other databases

Fig. 10. Awareness of e-resources

Table 11. Awareness of e-resources

Awareness Yes % No %

Panjab University, Chandigarh (n=80) 50 62.5 30 37.5

Punjabi University, Patiala (n=80) 44 55 36 45


32 37

11

40 25

15

Successfulness of accessing materials


Yes No

50 30 44 36

Awareness of e-resources

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University


63

Table 11 shows how many respondents are aware of the e-resources subscribed by their

respective libraries. 50 respondents (62.5%) from PUC and 44 (55%) from PUP) are aware of the

e-resources, including e-resources acquired through consortia. 30 respondents (37.5%) from

PUC and 36 (45%) from PUP are not aware of the e-resources subscribed by their respective

libraries.

12. Use of consortial and e-resources databases

Fig. 11. Use of consortial and e-resources databases

Table 12. Use of consortial and e-resources databases

Consortia and E-

Databases

Panjab University, Chandigarh (n=50) Punjabi University, Patiala (n=44)

Often % Occasionally % Never % Often % Occasionally % Never %

UGC INFONET 31 62 16 32 3 6 30 68.18 12 27.27 2 4.55

INDEST 12 24 34 68 4 8 18 40.91 5 11.36 21 47.73

ScienceDirect 15 30 26 52 9 18 12 27.27 17 38.64 15 34.09

Emerald Databases 17 34 22 44 11 22 18 40.91 13 29.55 13 29.55

IEEE 22 44 26 52 2 4 11 25 19 43.18 14 31.82

Others 4 8 14 28 32 64 2 4.55 6 13.64 36 81.82

Table 12 shows how various e-resources are used by the respondents. The e-resources from the

UGC-INFONET Digital Library Consortium are used often by 31 (62%) of the respondents from

PUC and 30 (68.18%) from PUP. IEEE is often used by 11 (44%) respondents from PUC and 11

(25%) from PUP. Emerald databases are often used by 17 (34%) respondents from PUC and 18

(40.91%) from PUP. ScienceDirect is often used by 15 (30%) respondents from PUC and 12

(27.27%) from PUP. INDEST is often used by 12 (24%) respondents from PUC and 18 (40.91%)

from PUP.

Often Occasionally Never Often Occasionally Never


31

16

3

30

12

2

12

34

4

18

5

21 15

26

9 12 17 15 17

22

11 18

13 13

22 26

2

11

19 14

4

14

32

2 6

36

Use of consortial and e-resources databases

UGC INFONET INDEST Science Direct Emerald Databases IEEE Others


64

13. Features in the consortial and e-resources databases

Fig. 12. Features in the consortial and e-resources databases

Table 13. Features in the consortial and e-resources databases

Features in Consortia and

E-databases

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=50)

Punjabi University, Patiala

(n=44)

Yes % No % Yes % No %

Qualitative 39 78 11 22 27 61.36 17 38.63

Easy to access 38 76 12 24 18 40.91 26 59.09

Required information is

available. 22 44 28 56 25 56.81 19 43.18

Information is available in

one place. 22 44 28 56 23 52.27 21 47.73

Table 13 shows several features found in the consortial and e-resources databases. 39

respondents (78%) from PUC and 27 (61.36%) from PUP agree that these databases are

qualitative. 38 (76%) respondents from PUC and 18 (40.91%) from PUP agree that they are easy

to access. 22 (44%) respondents from PUC and 25 (56.81%) from PUP agree that required

information is available in these databases. 22 (44%) respondents from PUC and 23 (52.27%)

from PUP agree that information is available in one place in these databases.

Yes No Yes No


39

11

27 17

38

12 18

26 22 28 25

19 22 28

23 21

Features in consortial and e-resources databases

Qualitative Easy to accesss

Required information is available Information is available at one place


65

14. Frequency of accessing e-resources through the consortial and e-resources databases

Fig. 13. Frequency of e-resources access

Table 14. Frequency of e-resources access

Frequency of E-

Resources Access

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=50)


Patiala (n=44)

%

Daily 16 32 7 15.91

Twice in a week 17 34 15 34.09

Once in a week 10 20 5 11.36

Fortnight 4 8 4 9.09

Rarely 3 6 13 29.55

Total 50 100 44 100

Table 14 shows the frequencies of e-resources access by the respondents. 16 respondents (32%)

from PUC and 7 (15.91%) from PUP access e-resources daily. 17 respondents (34%) from PUC

and 15 (34.09%) from PUP access them twice a week. 10 respondents (20%) from PUC and 5

(11.36%) from PUP access them once a week. 4 respondents (8%) from PUC and 4 respondents

(9%) from PUP access them fortnightly. 3 respondents (6%) from PUC and 13 (29.55%) from

PUP access them rarely.

15. Need for more consortial and e-resources

Fig. 14. Need for more consortial and e-resources

Daily Twice in a weekOnce in a weekFortnight Rarely

16 17 10 4 3 7

15 5 4

13

Frequency of e-resources access


Yes No Can't say

32 13 5

28

5 11

Recomendations of more e-resources



66

Table 15. Need for more consortial and e-resources

Need for More Consortial

and E-Resources

Panjab University,

Chandigarh (n=50)


Patiala (n=44)

%

Yes 32 64 28 63.64

No 13 26 5 11.36

Can't say 5 10 11 25.00

Total 50 100 44 100

Table 15 shows that 32 (64%) respondents from PUC and 28 (63.64%) from PUP ask for more

subscriptions to e-resources in their respective libraries.

16. Satisfaction with the library collections

Fig. 15. Satisfaction with the library collections

Table 16. Satisfaction with the library collections Satisfaction

Level

Panjab University, Chandigarh, N=80 Punjabi University, Patiala, N=80

F.S. (%) S (%) M.S. (%) D (%) F.S. (%) S (%) M.S. (%) D (%)

Textbooks 34 42.5 20 25 15 18.75 11 14 42 52.5 18 22.5 15 18.75 5 6.3

Reference books 38 47.5 12 15 8 10 22 28 34 42.5 13 16.25 23 28.75 10 13

Journals 28 35 25 31.25 12 15 15 19 31 38.8 26 32.5 13 16.25 10 13

Reports 11 13.8 37 46.25 17 21.25 15 19 14 17.5 25 31.25 13 16.25 28 35

E-resources 44 55 23 28.75 10 12.5 3 3.8 30 37.5 34 42.5 9 11.25 7 8.8

Newspapers 55 68.8 15 18.75 8 10 2 2.5 60 75 8 10 8 10 4 5

Magazines 18 22.5 33 41.25 23 28.75 6 7.5 20 25 27 33.75 19 23.75 14 18

Non-book

materials 8 10 25 31.25 18 22.5 29 36 8 10 29 36.25 17 21.25 26 33

Govt.

publications 10 12.5 16 20 28 35 26 33 8 10 13 16.25 38 47.5 21 26

Notes: F.S. = Fully Satisfied, S = Satisfied, M.S. = Moderately Satisfied, D = Dissatisfied

Table 16 shows the satisfaction levels of the respondents regarding the library collections. At

PUC, 34 respondents (42.5%) are fully satisfied, 20 (25%) satisfied, 15 (18.75%) moderately


67

satisfied, and 11 (14%) dissatisfied with the textbooks available in the library. At PUP, 42

respondents (52.5%) are fully satisfied, 18 (22.5%) satisfied, 15 (18.75%) moderately satisfied,

and 5 (6.3%) dissatisfied with the textbooks available in the library. Some respondents from both

universities are fully satisfied from their library collections. At PUC, 38 respondents (47.5%) are

fully satisfied, 12 (15%) satisfied, 8 (10%) moderately satisfied, and 22 (28%) dissatisfied with

the reference collection available in the library. At PUP, 34 respondents 42.5%) are fully

satisfied, 13 (16.25%) satisfied, 23 (28.75%) moderately satisfied, and 10 (13%) dissatisfied with

the reference books available in the Library.

17. Overall satisfaction with the library resources

Fig. 16. Overall satisfaction with the library resources

Table 17. Overall satisfaction with the library resources

Resource

Type


(n=80)

Punjabi University, Patiala

(n=80)

Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%)

Print 62 77.5 18 22.5 56 70 24 30

E-resources 57 71.3 23 28.75 58 72.5 22 28

Table 17 shows the overall satisfaction of the respondents with the print as well as the e-

resources available in their respective libraries. At PUC, 62 respondents (77.5%) are satisfied

and 18 (22.5%) are not satisfied with the print collections available in the library. At PUP, 56

respondents (70%) are satisfied and 24 (30%) are not satisfied with the print collections available

in the library. At PUC, 57 respondents (71.3%) are satisfied and 23 (28.75%) are not satisfied

with the e-resources collection available in the library. At PUP, 58 respondents (72.5%) are

satisfied and 22 (28%) are not satisfied with the e-resources collections at the library.

VI. Conclusion

Collection assessment is one of the important activities of an academic library as it has to cater to

the needs of its users. All academic libraries should have a Collection Review Committee (CRC)


68

or Collection Evaluation Committee (CEC), comprising the top officials of the library, faculty

members, student representative, etc., to evaluate and assess the collections on a regular interval

and amend issues found in the process.

CRC or CEC should evaluate the library collections by compiling statistics of holdings, check-

list of bibliographies, figures, OPAC, expert opinions, feedback from regular users, etc.

Assessment of users’ needs is important for a qualitative collection development. Their feedback

should be taken earnestly. The library should make sure that users participate in its collection

development and assessment process. CRC or CEC should also have student representatives

from each college in its membership, including postgraduate and undergraduate students.

Well organized and up-to-dated collections help users to find their materials and fulfill their

needs. Hence, academic libraries must assess their collection of print, e-resources, and non-book

materials at the university level on a regular basis.

Collection assessment is one of the important activities of an academic library. The case of two

university libraries in the region of Punjab, India shows that the majority of their users are not

aware of the library collection development policy. The majority of the users from both

universities access print and e-resources frequently, but their preference has been shifted towards

e-resources. Most of the users are able to find their required materials in the library. At Panjab

University, Chandigarh, most users use textbooks often whereas at Punjabi University, Patiala,

users give preference to journals.

An academic library should assess the information needs of its users by seeking feedback from

them on a regular basis. Besides, an academic library should set up a collection evaluation

committee with representatives from faculty members and students to evaluate its collections at

regular intervals in order to cater to its users’ needs. Furthermore, an academic library should

inform its users about the library collection policy and procedures for requesting library

materials.

References

Andrade, Diva; & Vergueiro, Waldomiro. (1996). Collection development in academic libraries:

A Brazilian library’s experience. New Library World, 97(4), 15-24.

Borin, Jacqueline; & Yi, Hua. (2011). Assessing an academic library collection through capacity

and usage indictors: Testing a multi-dimensional model. Collection Building, 30(3), 120-125.

Evans, G. E.; & Saponaro, M. Z. (2005). Developing library and information center collections.

Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.

Gandhi, R. (2001). A study of problems & prospects of libraries and publishers with special

reference to collection development in university libraries in Karnataka (Doctoral dissertation).

University of Mysore, Mysore (India).


69

Herzog, Susan. (2004). Collection development challenges for the 21st century academic

librarian. Acquisitions Librarian, 16(31/32), 149-162.

Mahajan, Preeti; Har Singh; & Anil Kumar. (2013).Use of SNSs by the researchers in India: A

comparative study of Panjab University and Kurukshetra University. Library Review, 62(8/9),

525-546.

Tabacaru, Simona; & Pickett, Carmelita. (2013). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: Texas

A&M University Libraries’ collection assessment for off-site storage. Collection Building, 32(3),

111-115.

Authors:

Har Singh, PhD candidate, Department of Library and Information Science, Panjab University,

Chandigarh, and University Assistant Librarian, Central Library, Thapar University, Patiala,

Punjab, India, Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Preeti Mahajan, Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Panjab University,

Chandigarh, India, Email: [email protected]

Submitted to CLIEJ on 19 November 2014.

Copyright © 2014 Har Singh & Preeti Mahajan

Har Singh; & Mahajan, Preeti. (2015). Library collection assessment: A case study of two

universities in the region of Punjab, India. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic

Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl38SM.pdf




http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl38SM.pdf

Documents

Library Collection Assessment: A Case Study of Two ... · information resources in various formats is a continuous process in any library. Collection assessment is the evaluation