Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Preeti Mahajan
Panjab University, Chandigarh
India
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
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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.
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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.
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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,
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh
(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
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
57
4. Purpose of library visit
Fig. 3. Purpose of visit
Table 4. Purpose of library visit
Purposes Panjab University,
Chandigarh (n=80)
% Punjabi University,
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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)
% Punjabi University, Patiala
(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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
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
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
59
Table 6. Use of print resources
Use of Print
Resources
Panjab University,
Chandigarh (n=80)
% Punjabi University,
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)
% Punjabi University, Patiala
(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.
Often Occasionally Never
48
24
8
36 28
16
Use of e-resources
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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)
% Punjabi University,
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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)
% Punjabi University,
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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)
% Punjabi University,
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
Often Occasionally Never
32 37
11
40 25
15
Successfulness of accessing materials
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Yes No
50 30 44 36
Awareness of e-resources
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
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
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
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
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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)
% Punjabi University,
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Yes No Can't say
32 13 5
28
5 11
Recomendations of more e-resources
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
66
Table 15. Need for more consortial and e-resources
Need for More Consortial
and E-Resources
Panjab University,
Chandigarh (n=50)
% Punjabi University,
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
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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
Panjab University, Chandigarh
(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)
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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).
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf
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