SPEC Kit 337: Print Retention Decision Making · 51
Mostly focused on buildings being reorganized and one branch scheduled to close. Duplication of print holdings has
been the most important focal point for these projects. The branch project has led to factoring in online holdings of
journals too.
We normally do not deaccession unless the material is duplicated elsewhere in our collection. The closure of several
libraries recently has caused significant transfers to the shelving facility and de-duping.
Part of on-going activities
Good weeding creates useful collections.
We deaccession only duplicates.
Additional Comments
Of course we withdraw materials routinely, but these questions seem to imply a more systematic approach, which we
have not taken so far we anticipate that changing in future, however. We will deaccession more significantly as part of
overall collection (and library space) strategy.
We have such a regular stream of projects we have three staff plus student resources continuously dedicated to
relocating and deaccessioning collections. Perhaps you can decide how that meets your categories above.
We do deaccession a very limited number of items when they are damaged beyond repair or for a few serial titles where
the new volume entirely supersedes the old. We have no large-scale strategy for deaccessioning that your questions
seem to be getting at, which is why I answered “no” to the question in general.
If you answered “Yes” above, you will continue to questions about the deaccession strategy.
If you answered “No,” you will skip to the section Managing Future Growth of Print Materials.
DEACCESSIONING: STAKEHOLDERS
35. Please indicate which stakeholders were involved in the initial decision to manage print collections
by deaccessioning, and the role they played. Check all that apply. N=53
Stackholder Champion of
the strategy
Policy
decisions
Procedures Budget Design and
construction
Other
role
N
Senior library administrator 36 47 32 23 5 — 51
Subject selector/
bibliographer
10 28 40 1 3 2 46
Library director 29 22 1 15 1 — 39
Preservation staff 2 13 22 1 1 1 25
University advisory
body (Faculty Library
Committee, etc.)
3 6 — — 1 1 10
Mostly focused on buildings being reorganized and one branch scheduled to close. Duplication of print holdings has
been the most important focal point for these projects. The branch project has led to factoring in online holdings of
journals too.
We normally do not deaccession unless the material is duplicated elsewhere in our collection. The closure of several
libraries recently has caused significant transfers to the shelving facility and de-duping.
Part of on-going activities
Good weeding creates useful collections.
We deaccession only duplicates.
Additional Comments
Of course we withdraw materials routinely, but these questions seem to imply a more systematic approach, which we
have not taken so far we anticipate that changing in future, however. We will deaccession more significantly as part of
overall collection (and library space) strategy.
We have such a regular stream of projects we have three staff plus student resources continuously dedicated to
relocating and deaccessioning collections. Perhaps you can decide how that meets your categories above.
We do deaccession a very limited number of items when they are damaged beyond repair or for a few serial titles where
the new volume entirely supersedes the old. We have no large-scale strategy for deaccessioning that your questions
seem to be getting at, which is why I answered “no” to the question in general.
If you answered “Yes” above, you will continue to questions about the deaccession strategy.
If you answered “No,” you will skip to the section Managing Future Growth of Print Materials.
DEACCESSIONING: STAKEHOLDERS
35. Please indicate which stakeholders were involved in the initial decision to manage print collections
by deaccessioning, and the role they played. Check all that apply. N=53
Stackholder Champion of
the strategy
Policy
decisions
Procedures Budget Design and
construction
Other
role
N
Senior library administrator 36 47 32 23 5 — 51
Subject selector/
bibliographer
10 28 40 1 3 2 46
Library director 29 22 1 15 1 — 39
Preservation staff 2 13 22 1 1 1 25
University advisory
body (Faculty Library
Committee, etc.)
3 6 — — 1 1 10
