See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265969684

The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries: From

crisis to revolution

Article in Collection Building · July 2014

DOI: 10.1108/CB-02-2014-0012

CITATIONS READS

6 1,790

1 author:

Blanca San José Montano

Hospital Universitario de Móstoles
44 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Blanca San José Montano on 17 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The new paradigm of collection management
in university libraries: from crisis to
revolution
Blanca San Jose Montano
Health Science Library, Mostoles University Hospital, Madrid, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to argue regarding the evolution of the collection management as a gradual process where internal and external factors interact
to transform the collection and its management activities. In this progress, cooperation is used as a necessary strategy for assuming its roles and to fit the
new goals, mission and context of the library. Libraries are living organisms in continuous change to adapt to the context where they exist and which is
the cause of their progress. It is formed by “vital elements” such as the collection – which is its basic element and the nucleus of its activity.
Design/methodology/approach – This argumentative paper establishes a logical reasoning of the evolution process of the “collection
management”, with the application of Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions.
Findings – The library collection has had great changes, such as its origin, composition, ownership, volume and diversity, different life cycle from
paper to digital formats and evaluation process. These changes have affected the principles and practices of collection management in three key
areas: expansion and change of traditional activities in collection management; enlargement and modification of agents involved; and fundamental
mission of giving access to all information resources needed by actual or potential remote users. The “cooperation” becomes an essential element
and the main engine of great part of the collection management.
Originality/value – In this paper, Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions theory is used to establish the evolution of the collection management,
to become a revolution, with a new paradigm “cooperative collection management”.
Keywords Cooperation, Collection management, University libraries, Collection development, Science philosophy, Structure of scientific
revolutions
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction cooperation is to optimize resources and services of libraries,

at the lowest cost for the satisfaction of the users’ needs, and
Libraries are living organisms (Anglada, 2006), a product of
to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency in solving the
human activity. They are continually growing (Ranganathan,
problems (Merlo Vega, 1999).
1931) to adapt to the historic context which is the reason for
Higher education also has changed; university libraries had
their evolution. The concept of a library has progressed
to assume and strengthen traditional roles and identify which
together with the technology that transforms the collection,
are the new ones to incorporate into their work (Bueno, 2010)
access and services and social changes that modify their goals.
as a coordinator in an integrator environment, intermediary to
In the age of information (Castells, 2006), it is the
the digital information universe available online, support for
information itself, and management, that produces structural
the main activities of the university community (teaching,
changes at economical, social and cultural levels. These new
learning and research), managers and publishers of the digital
forms of creating, organizing and spreading information have
intellectual production of university, forming/assisting search
also transformed twenty-first century libraries, which, in turn,
processes and use of information.
have had the need to search for innovative approaches to their
This article reviews the evolution of the collection of the
mission, nature and practice through a new way of
university library briefly, trying to establish a progression in
understanding (Fyffe, 2002). Libraries have also had to
collection management using the science philosophy and
develop their ability to cooperate to adapt to the new “network
incorporating an essential tool which is cooperation.
society”, twentieth century tree society (Castells, 2007). The
library uses cooperation as a strategic alliance necessary to
evolve within and outside the institution. The aim of library Transforming the collection
The library as a living organism is formed by “vital elements”
such as the collection – which is its basic element and the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0160-4953.htm
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Manuel Varela and to his
daughter Sara, for their in translation support to this article.

Collection Building Received 5 February 2014

33/3 (2014) 90 –97 Revised 8 April 2014
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0160-4953] 22 April 2014
[DOI 10.1108/CB-02-2014-0012] Accepted 5 May 2014

90
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries Collection Building
Blanca San Jose Montano Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97

nucleus of its activity. With the appearance of the Internet and Figure 1. Changes produced in the library collections in the
other digital formats, the collection seems to lose its relevance, twenty-first century
but, in truth, it has become a more complex, active, strong and
elaborated element, and has radically modified its Evaluation
composition (Fuentes, 2007). procedures of the
collection in its
The most striking changes in library materials and different formats
collections have been (San José Montana, 2011):
● Origin: The universe of the collection elements has
Origin
multiplied. A large volume of the collection remains Composition
acquired material that has an external creation, with
Different
different business models such as consortia purchasing, locations of the
Transformation of
CHANGES the materials,
subscription licensing, print on demand, driven pattern material
PRODUCED digitalisation and
acquisition, etc. But at the same time, the university ON THE creation of
LIBRARY repositories
libraries have begun to create, maintain and guard their COLLECION
economic and institutional capital (Atkinson, 2005) in 21 st
Ownership CENTURY
repositories (scientific production, learning objects and Volume
cooperative collection).In addition, the academic libraries and
diversity
are responding through their catalogs to an emerging issue
which includes the ability to identify free, useful and
New work flux to Particular
quality information on the net (Kohl, 2009). manage access Different life- characteristics of
● Composition: One of the biggest changes in the collection is and maintenance cycle each format due
of collection From paper to to their
its diversity of resources (Okerson, 2003) paper, electronic material digital format intellectual
and digital object. heritage

● Ownership: There are new forms of access such as rental

and perpetual access, and therefore is no longer owned by
the library.
● Volume and diversity: Libraries have augmented the size of
their collections through the purchase of packages with a
growth trend in the collection based on the demand and
new types of resources (repositories, selected links, etc.).
● Transformation of the material: The change from largely
paper-based resources to digital collections through
digitalization and the creation of the institutional
repositories. In 2007, 90 per cent of the institutional
repositories in USA were led by academic libraries
(Markey et al., 2007).
● Different life cycle from paper to digital formats: Electronic
formats entail a greater volume of processes such as
licensing, technical evaluation and business negotiation
(Parker et al., 2012). All life cycle processes of the
electronic resources management expand (licenses, use,
maintenance, review, storage, etc.) and acquire a different
concept (Farmer, 2009).
● The evaluation process for new formats: There is a need to
analyze the user needs (pre-analysis) and the use that they
make of the collection (post-analysis) (Figure 1).
For all these reasons, the concept of the university collection
has been transformed, and now we can define (San José
Montana, 2011) it as:
[. . .] the sum of the material formed by content and information resources
managed by information professionals and directed to the university
community, whose work is also responsible for preserving and promoting
universal dissemination.
Science philosophy in libraries
Librarianship, as a discipline of information science, evolves
and progresses, and should therefore be studied within a
historical and social context. It is formed by a community with
common theories which define its models and processes and
that sometimes determine experience perceptions and new
theory formulations.
Scientific theories, which are created to interpret the human
science, are the result of the human world model; for this
reason, they are changing objects and objectives constantly,
outcomes of human progress itself. Science philosophy deals
with the nature and practices of science throughout evolution,
as well as of the changes in scientific theories.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1922-1997), a physicist and epistemologist,
created a new historiography of science with a dynamic
character. He considered science progress a consequence of
revolution and not simply an accumulation of data. In Kuhn’s
eyes, science is a product of human activity – and being a social
product, it is formed by processes where internal and external
factors interact. In his work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
Kuhn (1970) analyzes science history as a gradual process, and
he also popularizes the term “paradigm”. In the first edition
(1962) Kuhn defines paradigm as a:
[. . .] model or pattern ([. . .]), it is an object for further articulation and
specification under new and more stringent conditions”. In the second
edition (1970), the author specifies more his definition of “paradigm” as
“success and solution to a recognized problem by the community ([. . .]) it
is what the members of the community share, and a community is a group
with a shared paradigm.
Kuhn’s theory divides science evolution into five stages:
1 Pre-paradigm phase: A paradigm or set of consensus ideas
is accepted and is the link between the community
members.
2 Normal science: Science as such appears and starts the
appearance of paradigm anomalies. There are attempts to
reach consensus among theory and practice, but often
discrepancies rise, and if they are not solved, they can
become great anomalies.
3 Scientific crisis: Major unresolved faults generate a crisis. The
crisis started when a paradigm is not working properly to

91
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries
Blanca San Jose Montano
explain phenomena that are happening and often
accompanied the birth of other approaches for solving.
4 Revolutionary science: Paradigms unable to explain a
phenomenon produced a controversy that allows a new
paradigm to emerge. Each generation deals with its own
problems, using its own instruments and resolution
methods. A new paradigm can produce a reconstruction of a
determined field either partially or totally through new
founding grounds.
5 Extraordinary science: The scientific community accepts a
common new theory or paradigm.
Kuhn established that his model could legitimately be applied
to other sciences apart from the natural ones. Redón Rojas
(2000) argues that Kuhnian concepts of “crisis” and
“scientific revolution” can efficiently be applied to the
documentation. The author’s argument is that this field has
undergone deep conceptual and methodological changes,
which have led professionals to face the dilemma of adopting
new theoretical positions or of maintaining the traditional ones
already established.
Application of science revolution theories to
library collection management
Based on the phases of Kuhn’s science revolutions theory, we
will try to argue and show how library collection management
has developed in the past decades.
Pre-paradigm phase. Acceptation of a model or a set
of ideas “collection development”
In the late 1970s, American libraries promoted the concept of
“collection development” to encompass the processes leading
to the creation of bibliography in paper format which extended
the traditional selection and acquisition processes. This new
concept was necessary due to the large volume of information
available to automation, to space restrictions and to budget,
which force libraries to use critical judgment to build the
collection in quality, quantity and entirely appropriate
equilibrium with respect user requirements (Negrete, 2003).
Evans and Zarnosky (2005) stated that collection
development is a universal, dynamic, sequential and
continuous process, and it is composed of six elements:
1 analysis of the user community;
2 politics of collection development;
3 material selection;
4 acquisition;
5 weeding; and
6 continuous collection evaluation.
Libraries are a product of human activity; for that reason, its
collection is affected by external and internal factors of the
context that interact and affect its evolution. Since the end of
last century, the external factors that have influenced
contemporary advancement of society are most generally the
internet and information and communications technology,
but other factors have been incorporated such as:
● Web 2.0 with its spirit of social community and crowd
intelligence;
● information growth and globalization;
● users accustomed to digital spaces and “Googlized”
(Weldon, 2009); and
92
Collection Building
Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97
● the necessity to preserve and provide access to cultural
heritage in analogy and digital media, etc.
All these factors have influenced library collections, producing
a change of format from paper to digital – both through
digitalization and acquisition (Térmens I Graells, 2008); new
models of acquisition (“big deal”, access licenses, copyrights,
etc.); the appearance of new materials with repositories and
learning objects, the creation of digital libraries, new forms of
communication with users; and new needs of preservation and
access (Hider, 2008).
All these factors are the result of changes that have taken
place in European university libraries, and especially in Spain,
with the development of the European Space for Higher
Education, which was first started with the Bologna
Declaration (1999). Universities have transformed to adapt to
the society’s changing needs and advancements in scientific
knowledge. Universities are moving toward the Knowledge
Society that goes beyond the information society, and whose
keystone is access to information and learning as a key value
(Cyraned, 2005). This society is making their university
libraries the epicenter of knowledge management of the
institution. University libraries participate in teaching and
researching activities, and they adapt to academic
communication changes with the creation, management,
organization, preservation and diffusion of open access
journals and repositories of institutional knowledge.
Normal science phase. Development of “collection
management”
Keeping in mind all the previous factors, from the 1980s and
1990s, the collections began to develop parallel to the
technologies, procurement consortium and a large volume of
information acquired in different formats and locations. These
changes result in a conversion in the philosophy of collection
development (Ameen, 2005) as not only a collection built to
meet the needs of the community but also to focus it toward
the effectiveness of continued use. The term “collection
management” was born which is a process to plan and
monitor the growth and preservation of the collection,
creating a generally systematic plan (Johnson, 2004). It is a
program that coordinates and establishes a link between all
areas of the library and covers all materials. It aims not only to
meet the needs and demands of the user (Clayton and
Gorman, 2001) but also the effectiveness of the use of the
collection, using qualitative techniques for collection
development, based on the study of strengths and weaknesses
and future estimates. The activities involved are in addition to
those involved in developing the collection; those operations
necessary for the material is available, such as institutional
coordination, cooperative policies and the development of
information technology.
During this time, collection management has attempted to
adapt theory with practice. However, there have been
important changes that can be grouped into three parts:
1 Expansion and change of traditional activities in collection
management (Burgett et al., 2004):
● different workflow in management processes of the
material (Jewell, 2001) such as composing the
collection: different origins, nature and location;
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries Collection Building
Blanca San Jose Montano Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97

● changes in intrinsic management activities include
planning, organization, methodology and politic and
evaluation of all its activities (Law, 2009; Johnson,
2009; Casserly, 2004);
● digitalizing and digital preservation/conservation
becomes important work (Kohl, 2009), demanding
large amount of time, requirements, knowledge and
cooperation (Bee, 2008; Anderson, 2008);
● purchase, negotiation and resources sharing require a
strong background in access management,
interoperability, intellectual property legislation (Ross
and Sennyey, 2008; Marcum, 2003).
● Working toward knowledge management of the
institution and academic communication requires
unifying the knowledge and the experience of its
members (Lynch, 2003).
2 Enlargement and modification of agents involved in its
management, including:
● diverse contents and resources added to the collection;
● diverse spaces: Physical, digital and virtual;
● diverse interlocutors: Internal institutions (governing
bodies, departments, research users, teacher users and
students) and external institutions (offices, libraries,
institutional organizations, consortia and general
users);
● diverse relationships within and outside of the
institution;
● The new library’s product that must be promoted:
institutional marketing (Dillon, 2008), other libraries
and users; and
● the librarian’s new role as 2.0 user, legacy
administrator and access mediator and manager
(Castelli, 2006; Sennyey et al., 2009).
3 The new and fundamental mission of giving access to all
information resources needed by actual or potential
remote users. According to this priority, the library will
search the synergy between accessibility to the collection
and users’ self-sufficiency. The library will develop the
following aspects:
● technological issues to permit access to the Internet
Web 2.0 tools and the extension to semantic Web 3.0;
● usability, favoring unification and ease of access to all
quality information resources of the library;
● the library’s positioning regarding its competitive
advantage and the optimization of searching engines;
and
● intercommunication of the library catalog through
interoperability, metadata labeling and indexing
Internet (Figure 2).
Crisis phase. The unsolved anomalies lead to a crisis
in collection management: “Development” versus
“management” versus “fragmentation”
Many of the aforementioned transformations have not been
incorporated into collection management, giving rise to
several anomalies:
● Library community accepts and uses the terms
“management” and “development”. The term
“development” involves the establishment of general
principles to build a collection (selection and acquisition),
while “management” includes specific issues for its
implementation such as selection, acquisition,
organization, personnel, budget, physical installation and
all the implications of the different electronic and digital
materials (Singh, 2004). Besides “collection management”
originates as a part of the process of “collection

Figure 2. Changes in principles and practices of the collection management in the twenty-first century

CHANGES IN PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE

ENLARGEMENT AND COLLECTION MANAGEMENT
MODIFICATION OF
AGENTS
EXPANSION AND CHANGE OF NEW FUNDAMENTAL MISSION
TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES OF GIVING ACCESS
Diverse contents and
resources
Different work flows in Management
Diverse processes Technological issues
spaces

Changes in intrínsic management activities

Diverse
interlocutors Usability

Diverse Digitalizing and digital

relationships preservation/conservation

Library´s positioning
New library´s
product Purchase, negotiation and resources
sharing
Librarian´s new Intercommunication and interoperability
role
Institutional knowledge management

93
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries
Blanca San Jose Montano
development” of the library, but their concept is extended,
while “collection development” becomes a part of the
process of “collection management”.
The terms “development” seems to be a set of library
internal processes of and the term “management” has
expanded its field to all library areas, the whole institution
and also outsources their work, granting certain
universality.
● These conceptual differences lead to different positions of
the experts, some support “collection management” as
more adapted to current needs, as in the case of Johnson
(2004), and others keep the term “collection
development” while trying to adapt to new trends, such as
Evans and Zarnosky (2005).
● However, the term “collection management was not
assimilated by all in the community, and often both terms
were used interchangeably, thus resulting in a certain
ambiguity and misunderstanding, both as a concept and in
practice. This ambiguity can be seen in Google search
performed on 21 April 2014, each term and both together
related to libraries and their policies. The result is shown in
Table I and shown as both terms are used, with greater use
of “development” on the “management”, but even the two
terms are used together to avoid confusion.
● A change in the elements of the collection of the library, in
addition to increased management activities with the
primary objective of providing access to the collection, to
carry out this work emerges with vigor and rapid
development, activities that require a lot of resources and
work. Some of these activities are:
– digitization;
– digital preservation;
–institutional repositories creation; and
– open access publishing.
All these activities have the aspiration to provide access to
the collection and ease of use and usefulness, encompassing
in the process of collection management. But are these
activities with both content and container, which, in many
cases, are handled as separate collection management, and
even not considered part of the same collection. This is the
case of institutional repositories, whose creation objectives
are clear objectives for managing the collection, formation
of the collection to stop generating their own teaching and
research activities of the institution as a priority in the
mission of the university libraries, which also have the
advantages (Hernández Pérez et al., 2007) to reduce
Table I. Google search result with the terms “development” “management”
and “development and management” related to the collection
Search result
Strategy (number)
“Collection development policy” library 159.000
“Collection development” library 2,690.000
“Collection management policy” library 60.400
“Collection management” library 738.000
“Collection development and
management policy” library 22.700
“Collection development and
management” library 27.900
94
Collection Building
Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97
spending on the acquisition of the collection (open access
movement). Or the case of preservation, that includes
various professionals in the process, creates its own
preservation programs with outsourcing services or opting
for collaboration with others institutions. This produces a
“fragmentation” of collection management activities, and
thus generates anomalies in the concept of a unified and
integrated library management plan to achieve its
institutional mission.
● Cooperative capacity has evolved into libraries. Although
library cooperation has a long tradition in many of its
activities, it was generally limited to the sharing of
resources, purchasing or interlibrary sharing. Management
cooperation is more recent and its great development came
in the hands of the consortia. Virtual Library of Virginia
was one of the first consortia established management
programs in cooperation collection for consortia purchases
to reduce costs and improve user satisfaction (Martula et
al., 2008). But libraries began to expand their cooperative
activities to collection management, not limiting them, to
only the purchase of the electronic collection. As shown in
the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) survey
conducted in 1998, 83 per cent of libraries had cooperative
management collection agreements (⬎55 per cent
agreement), and its most common form of cooperation
after acquisition and preservation (Soete, 1998). A report
of the Online Computer Library Center Environmental
Scan: pattern recognition, 2003, says that libraries are
changing and that the key element of sustainability is
cooperation, especially in activities such as the creation of
repositories, collections of “whole cloth” preservation and
storage (De Rosa et al., 2004). This affirmation is also
shared by Wilson (2009). Cooperation becomes an
essential element in the collection management and the
main engine of a great part of the collection management,
making possible many of the library’s objectives which
individually would be impossible.
● Library cooperation is also fragmented; each activity or
program is developed in cooperation individually and not
as a unified global cooperative collection management.
This trend can be seen in the Web site of the association
2CUL[1]. This association works collaboratively with
management activities, but the different collections work
individually as we can see on their Web site at: e-resource
management, collaborative collection development and
digital preservation.
Revolutionary phase in the collection management:
“cooperative collection management”
The aforementioned anomalies have been appearing in a
quick, continuous and swift manner, complying with
Kyrillidou and Cook’s theory (2008) that follows
Ranganathan’s (1931), stating that a growing organism cannot
be directly described because it changes rapidly. The
evolution of the collection management is still so fast that it
could not be described in its new concepts, theories and
practices. For that reason, the collection management seems
to have become invisible, hidden between its activities and
waiting for define a new paradigm. This definition must starts
with a clear description of what are the elements that compose
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries
Blanca San Jose Montano
an academic library collection that convert the library in the
center for university knowledge management. Besides to give
priority to management and access, rather than selection, this
loses some of its importance with the consortial purchasing of
large volumes of information.
The revolutionary phase in collection management is that in
which we believe we are at the moment. Anomalies are
essential enough to call into question the previous paradigm,
without allowing for a reinterpretation. This advance is neither
cumulative nor linear, and it implies a large transformation.
For Kuhn, “incommensurability” is when the theories can not
be compared and establishes which one is right. In addition, in
this moment, the elements and concepts of the collection and
the practice required for its management are so different that
a “revolution in the collection management” must be
admitted. Further, we say “the revolution of the collection
management” because although currently both terms are used
together, as we can see in the title of the book “Fundamental
collection development and management” (Johnson, 2009),
the development is part of the activities of the management.
Extraordinary science phase: immediate future
The extraordinary science phase should be the next step, and
the establishment of a new paradigm to transform
librarianship through the building of new theoretical
propositions. This new model, adapted to its environment,
could be named “cooperative collection management” and
arises from the principles that give root to the library, the
collection and its management, prompting the development of
a new disciplinary array with cooperation as its backbone and
central element.
This new paradigm is born of self-transformation of the
principles that make the concepts of the library, the collection
and management, causing the birth of a new “disciplinary
matrix”. This matrix continues with the need to manage the
collection of library materials; the collection is extensive with
the term “material” to include all the resources, and the
contents that comprise it are increasingly broader in shape and
property.
Cooperation becomes a staple, is the glue necessary for the
success of library management in all its activities. Cooperative
collection management could be defined (San José Montana,
2011) as:
[. . .] the cooperation, collaboration, coordination and sharing of two or
more libraries or institutions’ activities aiming to provide a mutual benefit to
their users and the fulfillment of their purposes. This is achieved through
agreements based in communication and in the development of suitable
planning, methodology and continuous evaluation, which should help in its
evolution in order to develop a compound, negotiated and balanced strategy
allowing for the fulfillment of all activities related with its management.
The history of libraries, study their theories based on conceptual and
instrumental applications. And this reveals an inevitable transformation with
a model change.
Conclusion
After the analysis of the evolution of the libraries’ collection
and its management, the conclusions are as follows:
● Libraries adapt to their historical context. They live and
breathe on the technological, social, cultural and political
transformations that converge and interact, with a cause –
effect correlation that is difficult to establish for its rapid
evolution. In the past decades, the developments in the
95
Collection Building
Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97
digital fields have gained momentum, the library maintains
and increases the relevance of its fundamental mission to
organize and preserve that has neither changed nor has
been deprecated. The library is no longer a static place and
becomes a space; the collection remains a tangible
possession deposited in a place and becomes a material
network with value-added services, and the user becomes
an active element of conversation.
● University libraries have transformed their aims and
functions to become a unified university information
system, enlarging their mission of conserving and
preserving the teaching and researching collections to
make them more useful and competitive. These libraries
seek to facilitate learning and academic communication,
adapting to the digital world, their institutions and their
users.
● The standards and tools for conventional “collection
management” have gone through a real revolution. The
new model “cooperative collection management” should
be configured so as to provide the library and its
community with a balanced, homogeneous and
standardized view of its purposes, strategies and good
common practices.
The new “cooperative collection management” should
articulate, redefine and actualize:
● The concepts of library, collection and its management.
● The library’s guiding principles regarding the needs of its
users, its collection and its institution.
● Practices that are changing their rules, politics and
processes, including cooperation as the backbone of the
library’s activities and as an element providing
sustainability for its progress.
Notes
1. Columbia and Cornell University Libraries partnership.
http://2cul.org/
2. Synthesis to previous dissertation.
References
Ameen, K. (2005), “Developments in the philosophy of
collection management”, Collection Building, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 112-116.
Anderson, M. (2008), “Not alone: a digital preservation
community”, Against the Grain, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 34-38.
Anglada Ferrer, Ll. (2006), “Colaboraciones y alianzas: la
inteligencia social aplicada a las bibliotecas universitarias”,
Anales de Documentación, Vol. 9, pp. 7-15.
Atkinson, R. (2005), “Six key challenges for the future of
collection development: introduction for the break-out
sessions”, in Janus Conference on Research Library Collection,
Ithaca, 9-11 de October 2005, available at: http://ecommons.
library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/2608 (accessed 14 January
2011).
Bee, R. (2008), “The importance of preserving paper-based
artefacts in a digital age”, The Library Quarterly, Vol. 78
No. 2, pp. 179-194.
Bueno de la Fuente, G. (2010), “Modelo de repositorio
institucional de contenido educativo (RICE): la gestión de
materiales digitales de docencia y aprendizaje en la
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries
Blanca San Jose Montano
biblioteca universitaria”, Doctoral Thesis, available at:
http://earchivo.uc3m.es:8080/bitstream/10016/9154/1/Tesis%
20doctoral-Gema_Bueno.pdf (accessed 4 January 2014).
Burgett, J., Haar, J. and Phillips, L.L. (2004), Collaborative
Collection Development: A Practical Guide for Your Library,
American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
Casserly, M.F. (2004), “Collection management as risk
management”, Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical
Services, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 79-92.
Castelli, D. (2006), “Digital libraries of the future and the role
of libraries”, Library Hi Tec, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 496-503.
Castells, M.O. (2006), La Era de la Información. Economía,
Sociedad y Cultura: III. Fin de Milenio, Alianza Editorial,
Madrid.
Castells, M.O. (2007), La Transición a la Sociedad en Red,
Ariel, Barcelona.
Clayton, P. and Gorman, G.U. (2001), Managing Information
Resources in Libraries: Collection Management in Theory and
Practice, Library Association Publishing, London.
Cyraned, C. (2005), “Towards knowledge societies”, United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
Paris, available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/
001418/141843e.pdf (accessed 4 January 2014)
De Rosa, C., Dempsey, L. and Wilson, A. (Eds) (2004), The
2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition. A
report to the OCL Membership, OCLC Online Computer
Library Center, Dublin, OH.
Dillon, D. (2008), “A world infinite and accessible: digital
ubiquity, the adaptable library and the end of Information”,
Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Evans, G.E. and Zarnosky Saponaro, M. (2005), Developing
Library and Information Center Collection, Libraries
Unlimited, CT.
Farmer, L.S.J. (2009), “The life cycle of digital reference
sources” The Reference Librarian, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 117-136.
Fuentes Romero, J.J. (2007), “Las definiciones de la colección
de materiales de las bibliotecas. Los conceptos de desarrollo
y gestión de las colecciones: un estado de la cuestión”,
Boletín de la Asociación Andaluza de Bibliotecarios, Vols. 88/89
No. 2, pp. 89-108, available at: www.aab.es/pdfs/baab88/
88a5.pdf (accessed 1 November 2012).
Fyffe, R. (2002), “Technological change and the schorlarly
communications reform movement: reflections on Castells
and Giedden”, Library Resources and Technical Service,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 50-80.
Hernández Pérez, T., Rodríguez Mateos, D. and
Bueno de la Fuente, G. (2007), “Open Access: el papel de
las bibliotecas en los repositorios institucionales de acceso
abierto”, Anales de Documentación, Vol. 10, pp. 185-204.
Hider, P. (2008), “How much are technical services worth?
using the contingent valuation method to estimate the
added value of collection management and access”, Library
Resources and Technical, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 254-262.
Jewell, T.D. (2001), “Selection and presentation of
commercially available electronic resources: issues and
practices”, Council on Library and Information, WA, DC,
available at: www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub99/pub99.pdf
(accessed 1 November 2013).
96
Collection Building
Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97
Johnson, P. (2004), Fundamentals and Collection Development
and Management, American Library Association, Chicago.
Johnson, P. (2009), Fundamentals and Collection Development
and Management, 2nd ed., American Library Association,
Chicago.
Kohl, D.F. (2009), “Knowledge life cycles: renewal and
obsolescente”, El Profesional de la Información, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 374-381.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kyrillidou, M. and Cook, C. (2008), “The evolution of
measurement and evaluation of libraries: a perspective from
the association of research libraries”, Library Trends, Vol. 56
No. 4, pp. 888-909.
Law, D., (2009), “Academic digital libraries of the future: an
environment scan”, New Review of Academic Librarianship,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Lynch, C. (2003), “Institutional repositories: essential
Infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age,” ARL
Bimonthly, No. 226, pp. 1-7, available at: http://scholarship.
utm.edu/21/1/Lynch,_IRs.pd (accessed 2 May 2013).
Marcum, D. (2003), “Requirements for the future digital
library”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 276-279.
Markey, K., Rieh, S.Y., St. Jean, B., Kim, J. and Yakel, E.
(2007), “Census of institutional repositories in the United
States. MIRACLE Project re-search findings”, CLIR
Publication No. 140, available at: www.dspace.org/images/
LinkTo/clir%20report.pdf (accessed 1 November 2012).
Martula, C.M., Pathak, S.B. and Pfeiffer, C. (2008),
“Cooperative collection management in the consortial
environment: the VIVA pilot projects”, Library Philosophy
and Practice, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Merlo Vega, J.A. (1999), “La cooperación en las bibliotecas
universitarias: fundamentos y redes cooperativas”, Boletín de
la Asociación Andaluza de Bibliotecario, Vol. 54, pp. 33-57.
Negrete Gutiérrez, M.C. (2003), El Desarrollo de Colecciones y
la Selección de Recursos en la Biblioteca Universitaria, UNAM,
Centro Universitario de Investigaciones Biotecnológicas,
Mexico.
Okerson, A. (2003), “Asteroids, Moore’s law, and the Star
alliance”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 280-285.
Parker, K., Robertson, N.D.M., Anderson, I., Chandler, A.,
Farb, S.E., Jewell, T. and Riggio, A. (2012), “Electronic
resource management workflow flowchart”, available at:
www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/dlfermi0408appb.pdf (accessed 1
November 2012).
Ranganathan, S.S. (1931), The Five Laws of Library Science,
Madras Library Association, Madras.
Redón Rojas, M.A. (2000), “La ciencia bibliotecológica y de
la información ¿tradición o innovación en su paradigma
científico?”, Investigación Bibliotecológica, Vol. 14 No. 28,
pp. 34-52.
Ross, L. and Sennyey, P. (2008), “Library is dead, long live
the library! the practice of academic librarianship and the
digital revolution”, Journal of Academic Librarianship,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 145-152.
San José Montano, B. (2011), “La gestión de la colección
cooperativa en las bibliotecas universitarias a comienzos del
 The new paradigm of collection management in university libraries
Blanca San Jose Montano
siglo XXI”, Doctoral Thesis, available at: http://e-archivo.
uc3m.es/handle/10016/10412 (accessed 14 January 2013).
Sennyey, P., Ross, L. and Mills, C. (2009), “Exploring the
future of academic libraries: a definitional approach”,
Journal of Academic Librarianshi, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 252-259.
Singh, S.P. (2004), “Collection management in the electronic
environment”, The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 55-60.
Soete, G.J. (1998), “Collections management programs in
ARL libraries”, Systems of Procedures Exchange Center Kit,
No. 235, pp. 1-73.
Térmens, I. and Graells, M. (2008), “Looking below the
surface: the use of electronic journals by the members of a
library consortium”, Library Collections, Acquisitions and
Technical Services, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 76-85.
The Bologna Declaration (1999) “The European Higher
Education Area, The Bologna declaration of 19 June 1999”,
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
97
View publication stats
Collection Building
Volume 33 · Number 3 · 2014 · 90 –97
available at: www.eees.es/pdf/Declaracion_Bolonia.pdf
(accessed 14 January 2013).
Weldon, L.S.J. (2009), “The googlization of the library
collection”, Information Outlook, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 20-25.
Wilson, L.A. (2009), “Local to global: the emerging research
library”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 127-139.
Further reading
Lynch, B.P. and Smith, K.R. (2001), “The changing nature of
work in academia libraries”, College Research Libraries,
available at: http://crl.acrl.org/content/62/5/407.full.pdf
(accessed 11 November 2013).
Corresponding author
Blanca San Jose Montano can be contacted at: blanca.sanjose@
salud.madrid.org