Journal of East Asian Libraries Journal of East Asian Libraries

Volume 2003 Number 130 Article 5

6-1-2003

Selectivity: A User-Centric Content Management Selectivity: A User-Centric Content Management

Alban Kojima

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jeal

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Kojima, Alban (2003) "Selectivity: A User-Centric Content Management," Journal of East Asian Libraries: Vol. 2003 : No. 130 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jeal/vol2003/iss130/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of East Asian Libraries by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.

selectivity USER CENTRIC CONTENT management

albanalbaib kojima university pennsylvania

introduction

I1 began writing paper I1 full intention making japanese studies specificI1 present meeting CEAL committee japanese materials goal

promote japan related academic matters affairs initially paper titleselectivity quantitative qualitative collection development japanese studies then

during early stage my study title transformed selectivity user centric contentmanagement japanese studies I1 soon realized content paper apply

librarianship outside japanese studies consequently I1 removed qualifier japanesestudies paper nonetheless while content may general reader may

chooses frame qualifier japanese studies

world produced continue produce information resources great valuethese resources remain static meaningless unless brought arena welldefined methodically sound resource management actualizes functionalitygiven number ways manage resources I1 chosen selectivityconcept selectivity discussed often counterpart comprehensiveness collectiondevelopment since emergence farmington plan late 1940s wagner 2002 today I1

propose define term selectivity process content management selectorempowered exercise hisheraisher subject expertise well bibliographic acumen decide uponqualitative resources induce user satisfaction meeting academic needs immediate localusers institutional programs selectivity then aims qualitative resources user satisfaction

paper probes selectivity light oflkofl1 content management 2 quality 3 user satisfaction4 resources

CONTENT management

content management origin collection management itself evolved collectiondevelopment quarter 20th century wagner 2002 evolutionsophistication level resource selection risen basic holistic let us compare brieflyfundamental aspects three main resource selection processes order understand how each

evolved why content management suitable todays complex libraryenviromenvironenvironmentnent

collection development basic three subject based identificationacquisition preservation resources relevant needs users ongoing institutionalprograms branin 2000 collection management slightly complex collectiondevelopment amalgamates resource development policy development collection assessment

paper originally presented march 27 2003 during 2003 annual meeting council east asianlibraries association asian studies new york city new york

36

budget distribution various types user user studies well administrativecomponents branin 2000 m both collection development collection management libraryresources perceived taxonomically whether resources tangible intangible

tangible monographs journals video recordings sound recordings CDROMsCD ROMsintangible e journals online databases web sites library sources

understood terms accessownershipaccess ownership dichotomy owns resource howaccessed

these dichotomous perceptions dissolve content management primary focusemphasizes very content information resource itself regardless medium formatharloe 1994 words content management concerns itself set ofideationalideational

attributes concepts ideas data forth contained tangible intangible meanshelps interpret andor determine significance academic communication budd 1997type organization requires highest level receptivity responsiveness partlibrarians must meet user needs uncovering best possible content examplejohn budd 1997 points librarians must familiar same content manifesteddifferent media able determine these media best serve library users goals

way content precedes medium core question what medium do want our userscharacterizes both collection development collection management key question whatcontent do want our users represents aims content management

1979 charles osbourn proposed bieringtiering resource management plans 1 meet local usersneeds 2 unify local services national whole implement resource sharing branin2000 today resource management getting away tiered framework rapidlyevolving form integrated content management integrated content managementindividual institutions operate independently meet specific local user needs while individualoperations connected nationally through sophisticated collaborative resource sharing systems

multi volume set program north american coordinating council japaneselibrary resources borrow direct meet user needs level seems clearintegrated content management mature solidify technological sophisticationborrow direct continues advance

information environment what viewed selectivity implemented individual institutionslocal level constitute comprehensiveness national level perhaps global levelfew years here selectivity comprehensiveness merge holistically integration parts

whole

QUALITY

primary focus resource selection content resource given user needscomplex focus mandates qualitative content management purpose todays libraries

provide user specific information order ascertain viability service firstquestion must ask what QUALITY donald riggs suggests figuratively quality

rail train runs riggs 1993 paul mosher offers library specific definitionquality utility benefit library collections library patrons needs worksinstitutional programs mosher 1979 term utility refers usefulness attain

certain purpose term benefit refers promotes gainfulgainflil positive

37

results riggs mosher appear express exactly same concern different terms whatmosher calls utility benefit library collection riggs rail what mosherlabels user needs institutional programs riggs train here moshersboshersMoshersdefinition QUALITY primary criterion assessing research collections shifts whatephraim 1994 calls standard scholarly bibliographies library users

user satisfaction then ultimate goal content management developed end

content management inductive structure 1 satisfy user quality must meet user needs2 maintain high level quality content management must improve continuously 3

improve quality content management close communication between librarianuser required

USER satisfaction

what do say ourselves come across new library resource dont often assumealmost instinctively useful lets get assumptive approach resourceselection perhaps approach acceptable research libraries building omnivorouscollections based upon assumed user needs under pretext creating balanced collectionmonroe 1997 ultimate goal content management meet immediate needs

specific users then assumptive approach used developing balanced collection unsuitablecontent management too unwieldy remembering balanced collection

derivative comprehensive collection whose lack practicality manageability ignoresindividual user needs user satisfaction paul mosher 1989 attributes inclination selfcontained comprehensiveness natural desire each institution academic self sufficiency

meet virtually demands local users local collections unrealistic assumesingle library capable collecting resources necessary pursuit knowledge

buckland 1995 holley 1995 mosher 1989 content management built assumptiveapproach selectivity necessitates high level real time user librarian interaction

thinking hermeneuticsofhermeneutics underlying linkage connecting user librariancontent suggested thomas froehlich 1994 hermeneutic linkage series interpretivephases generates user librarian interaction phase 1 example begins users saying

themselves 1I want write paper oshio chusaischussisChusais confucian motives behind 1836

insurrection I1 want know chusaischussisChusais motives political philosophical herebasis own intentions users interpret contextualizecontextualize set informational components

though precision level interpretations contextualizations differ considerably eachtime engage type information seeking behavior phase 2 highlights librariansbinary interpretive skill librarians interpret userssusers informational contextualizations modifyandor refine them then librarians interpret broad range relevant intellectual contents expressed

various media formats interpretive process must guided librarians keenperception oflkofl1 users 2 what needs 3 what users intendaccomplish 4 how relevant these identified user attributes overall institutional programs

part phase 3 synthesizes phase I1 phase 2 user librarian interactioncontinues while librarian integrates remoldsreimolds two types interpretive results orderbring well focused set content options once again process content prevailsmedium

38

user satisfaction end result brought both very fact content based userlibrarian interaction quality interaction continuously maintainedthroughout process librarians mediation qualitative therefore judged successful

user satisfied

RESOURCES

once relevant content results user librarian interaction obtained then librarianseeks appropriate medium choice medium depends upon how user intends utilize

given content medium tangible monograph intangiblee joumaljourtialjouhal combination both point media formats constitute

options users therefore must viewed horizontally possessing unique utilitiesserving diverse purposes example user may want retrieve then copy paste line

kiritsubokuritsuboKiritsubo section tale ofgenjigenkigenji order incorporate line hisheraisher paperuser electronic version work suitable another user might want

engage depth reading kiritsubokuritsuboKiritsubo section same time study relationshipbetween kiritsubokuritsuboKiritsubo section sections user print version same work

appropriate joseph brannin 2000 robert holley 1995 look choice mediaanother angle both print electronic journals scientists vehicles sharing information

report disseminate research results quickly while monographs remain humanitiesscholars main sources since humanities scholars do depend jjournalournalburnal articles research

medium then matter user option

given users continue need both electronic print media how librarians manageexplosion electronic materials electronic materials continue grow evolving further

capacity quantity superb accessibility yet despite growth resource managementcurrent digitalization yet reached maturity nor established reliability termsacademic functionality branin 2000 explosion web documents despiteenormous growth volume lack permanent retainability holley 1995 highlycritical attitude required librarians assessing quality academic relevance thesedocuments pernpennperm report 2002 hasty unwise state longer need printmaterials electronic media become prevalent must aware archivaltechnologies permanent preservation electronic content yet evolved norextensive user studies identifying analyzing user population media usages comeyet penn report 2002

hand bart harloe 1994 asserts print materials deeply rooted systemacademic communication become extinct expressly seasoned uniqueviability yet print collections enormous quantity immediate relevance userneeds currency must maintained continuously exists already dyadic systemwithin selectivity based content management serves purpose 1 coordinated topicalrelevance end continuum 2 pruning froehlich 1994 suggeststopicality constitutes centrality relevance following example illustrates functionalmeaning topical relevance suppose professor john doe specializes biographical studiespolitical figures diplomatic history japan 1912 1945 topical condition comprisesfive elements 1 comprehensive terniterm japanese history 2 defining term diplomatic history

japan 3 delimiting term chronological range 4 primary target term political

39

figures 5 secondary target term biographical studies comprehensive term pointswidest possible range publications spanning antiquity present although defining

term narrows scope comprehensive term framing certain aspect conceptexpressed comprehensive term range publication coverage remains unchangedunfortunately topical relevance balanced collection format stops here however selectivityrequires deeper level topical probing defining term further refineddelimiting term matched target terms does establishment topical relevanceprofessor does specialization result subsequently well coordinated topical interfacedetermines items selected well appropriate method applied purchase

selected items let approval plan title title purchase qualifying item selectionacquisition well coordinated topical relevance user needs marks well grounded

beginning content management selectivity

topical relevance highly effective must paired pruning integral partcontent management pruning consists two types intuitive evaluative m intuitive pruninglibrarians deselect items according assumptions certain items irrelevant userneeds evaluative pruning set criteria formulated first consensus librarians thenitems deselectedselectedreselectedde according criteria criteria example may read monographspublished acquired between 1980 1990 circulation frequency none between 19922002 statement comprises 1 specific format material question 2 specificchronological range publication acquisition 3 specific circulation frequency 4specific chronological range frames circulation history while intuitive pruning remainsblind assumption evaluative pruning provides intelligent methodical deselection based uponcriteria

conclusion

unlike comprehensive andor balanced collection management content management buildstopical relevance equal consideration media user options ultimate goalmeeting immediate needs specific users realization user satisfaction requiresqualitative resource management based quality driven user librarian interaction mprocess selectivity prevails

users group individuals uniquely identifiable needs pursuits knowledgeacademic community amalgamation these individuals each whom comes varyingneeds research libraries exist serve academic communities highly committedidentifying each individual users needs order provide effective appropriate means

user satisfy aims m my view user based qualitative content managementbuilt upon cornerstone selectivity best way research libraries expresscommitment academic communities serve

WORKS CITED

buckland michael 1995 what collection developers do information technology andlibrarieslibrariesseptember volvoivol1414 no3noa p155 159

40

budd john M bart M harloe 1997 collection development scholarly communication 21stcentury collection management content management hi collection managementmanagementfor 21stcentury ed G E gormangerman ruth H miller westport conneticutconnecticut greenwood press p3pa 25

branin joseph frances groen suzanne thorin 2000 changing nature collection managementresearch libraries library resources & technical services january vol44 nolnoi1 p23 32

ephraim PE 1994 review qualitative quantitative measures collection analysiselectronic library august volvoivol1212 no4noa p23p237 7247 242411

froehlich thomas J 1994 relevance reconsidered towards agenda 221st1 st century introductionspecial topic issues relevance research journal ofamericanamerican societyforsociety information science april

vol45 no3noano3pl24p 124134124 134

harloe bart john M budd 1994 collection development scholarly communication eraelectronic access journal ofacademiclibrarianshipacademic librarianship may vol20 no2noa p83 87

holley robert P 1995 cooperative collection development yesterday today tomorrow college &research libraries news february volavol56vol56 no2noa pp19pig19319 3355

monroe william 1997 role selection collection development past present futurecollection managementmanagementfor rorjor 21st century ed G E gormangerman ruth H miller westport conneticutconnecticutgreenwood press p 105118105 118

mosher paul H 1979 collection evaluation research libraries search quality consistencysystem collection development library resources & technical services winter vol23 nolnoi1 p 163216 32

mosher paul H 1989 collaborative collection development era financial limitations australianacademic research libraries march vol20 nolnoi1 p5pa 15

penn library 2002 report university university pennsylvania library fall 2002

riggs donald E 1993 managing quality TQM libraries library administration & managementvol7vola no2noa p73 78

wagner ralph D 2002 history farmington plan maryland scarecrow press

41