55: Refocusing Special Collections

7 - 11 August 1995

The emphasis of this course, aimed at research and rare book librarians with collection development responsibilities, will be on techniques for improving a current collection's focus, though matters concerning the acquisition of new materials will also be touched upon. Topics include: developing a viable collection development policy; surveying current collections; preparing a collection description; the challenges presented by reformatting; techniques of deaccession.

1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Marginally useful. There were very few of them and they were not very pointed toward special collections content. Received some readings during the week that it would have been productive to see earlier. 2: Readings were useful. 3: There should have been additional readings that were more specific to special collections, eg, on deaccession, which is a topic we covered in class. 4: Few readings; inconsequential. 5: Fairly useful; we did not discuss them in detail, but I'm glad that I was exposed to them. 6: Less than inspirational and not absolutely relevant, but this is a function of the literature rather than the choice. 7: Useful, to the small extent that I managed to read any of them. 8: Good preparation for class discussion during the week. I found the readings were a way to get me thinking about the upcoming course, and began to formulate questions.

2. Did your instructor prepare sufficiently to teach THIS course? Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful?

1: He admitted in class that he could have prepared much better, and it showed. The ALA draft collections analysis document is good to have in hand. 2: Instructor was prepared, knew the subject, and had much experience. 3: The instructor was well prepared. The syllabus was rather sketchy. In future years, I'd suggest a more detailed syllabus. 4: Additional readings of qualified value; some useful exclusively in course context. 5: Yes. 6: More explicit attention to archival collections would have strengthened the discussions. 7: Very adequately prepared. 8: The instructor was well prepared for each item on the syllabus. It was apparent that he was very knowledgeable and brought considerable experience to class discussions. The course outline could have provided more details, perhaps brief descriptions.

3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: A bit thin and not sufficiently focussed on collecting for special (as opposed to general) collections. Most of the special collections-oriented discussion content came from fellow students. 2: Appropriate. 3-5: Yes. 7: Yes. 8: Yes. I felt that I was with professionals who had given considerable thought in their daily work to the topics.

4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: Three visits elsewhere, all very useful. Trip to Alderman stacks to do on-the-fly collections analysis was an excellent exercise; wish we could have carried it further to apply to analysis of special collections. Special Collections stack tour was great fun, if tangentially related to course content. Electronic classroom visit with David Seaman to view the Web site descriptions of collections at various institutions was extremely useful and could have been more so had it beenmore actively prepared for. 2: Very well spent -- all classes should visit Special Collections. 3: Yes. 4: Electronic classroom visit (one session) interesting and could have been expanded to deal with a number of issues raised in class discussion. Live library visits to general collections (for individual projects) of qualified value. Special Collections tour inevitably enjoyable and instructive. 5:Yes, Special Collections and Electronic classroom visits were worthwhile. 6: Yes (Special Collections and the Electronic Text Center). 7: Yes. 8: We toured Special Collections and utilized the Electronic classroom in the library. I've found these trips essential to any of the courses taught at RBS. This is one of the reasons for the effectiveness of RBS.

5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: The course did indeed cover the topics mentioned in the description, but too much time was spent on general collections matters. We do have things to learn from such, but the time devoted was disproportionate. 2: In the future the brochure might mention that the course has a focus on academic libraries. 3: More or less. There was considerable discussion of general collection development theory and while this was appropriate, I think it could have been condensed with additional time given to collection development issues that are peculiar to special collections. 4: Was expecting more discussion/focus (as advertised), focussed on special collections exclusively. Although discussion of relationship to a general collection was often useful, it was too extended, as were discussions of acquisitions policies and procedure more relevant to general holdings. 5: Yes. 6: See no. 7, below. 7: The title of the course Refocusing Special Collections suggested an emphasis which was not so obviously present, although everything we did cover was relevant to the general idea. 8: It was mid-day Thursday before I finally began to put it all together. The concept of ``refocusing'' requires considerable introduction before one can tackle the concept. The instruction and course structure were excellent at this.

6. What did you like best about the course?

1: Collections evaluation exercise. Caliber of classmates. 2: The experience of both the instructor and fellow students was invaluable. 3: The seminar atmosphere that encouraged participation by all those in attendance. Not surprisingly in a course such as this, as much was gained in exchanging ideas around the table as from the prepared remarks of the instructor. 4: Fellow students -- representing a variety of collections -- with commensurate variations in experience, interests, and aspirations. Much informed and congenial discussion, with constructively expressed criticism and analysis. 5: HE was very good -- he was flexible, sensitive to class members, entertaining, and knowledgeable about the subject. Other class members were full of good advice, stories, suggestions. The course was a pretty thorough examination of the subject of collection development -- I'm leaving with LOTS of food for thought. 6: Specifics from the wide and varied experience of the students. 7: The excellent interaction between the students and the instructor, and between the class members themselves -- generous, tolerant, informed, amusing, experienced, &c. 8: The attention of the instructor to comments by students and his ability to move the discussion along in keeping with the topic. Also, the instructor's knowledge of the subject.

7. How could the course have been improved?

1: More thoughtful preparation on instructor's part. Provision of laudable examples of collection policy statements, collections analysis narratives, and effective collection descriptions. 2: Perhaps more time devoted to the case study that each student's institution had. The advice of the instructor and fellow classmates would have been helpful. 3: A bit more focus on collectiondevelopment/management issues as they pertain specifically to special collections. 4: More focus on special collections exclusively -- materials, the market, production of electronic or surrogate texts/images, &c., in greater detail. A single case study (rather than individual offerings) might provide a focus of discussion and provide a bibliography of less diffuse readings. 5: I would have benefitted from a little more variety and more hands-on experience. Don't know how to do this, exactly, but I think we all enjoyed the field trips. 6: Less concern for methodologies and measures drawn from consideration of general (ie, not special) library collections. More time for case studies (students might profitably be asked to bring draft descriptions -- if not full analyses -- of collections for ``refocusing'') and their critiques. 7: All courses must be capable of being improved, but bearing in mind this was being taught for the first time, I'm inclined to think it was very well done. I will go home with my head full of ideas -- what more improvement could there be? 8: Perhaps having time actually to write collection descriptions and have them evaluated by other course members. Also, I think a selection of collection development policies from other institutions would have been helpful as handouts.

8. Any final thoughts?

4: If a ``school,'' I think a defined structure is necessary; our course would have benefitted from a more defined program of discussions. We all too often lapsed into agreeable, if tangential, conversation. But I would attend again! 5: Because of the nature of the material covered, this is a discussion course. HE was good at touching all the bases in his outline without squelching discussion. Other members of the class are also an important ingredient in having a good course. HE has worked in many libraries and has lots of examples from his experiences. The accumulated experiences of other class members are very helpful. I have taken other RBS courses in which the students could not get a word in edgewise -- that was definitely not the case this time. 7: My first RBS visit, but I hope not my last. Any one considering this course should be urged to take it, if only for its valuable exchange of experience aspect -- even for someone whose background was inevitably English rather than American practice. 8: I highly recommend the course to future students. It is a timely topic in Special Collections. My notes will serve me well as I rethink (and refocus) special collections in my own institution. This is my first trip to Virginia. I am glad to see RBS continue to succeed. Best wishes to TB and his staff.

Number of respondents: 8

Percentages

There were six rare book librarians (74%), one curator of special collections (13%), and one rare book/archive/manuscript librarian (13%).