Collection-Level Description and Collection Management
Tool for the trade or information trade-off?

Discussion Group 1

Initial theme and linked questions

"There is a widely held view across all domains that collection level description should be regarded as an essential first step in identifying priorities for more detailed retrospective conversion, cataloguing and documentation." (Full Disclosure Prioritisation Study)

Some areas to consider:

• CLDs as a tool to help identify priorities for retro-cataloguing and retro-conversion?
• CLDs as a means of reviewing holdings - helping to decide which collections could be passed on to a larger / more relevant collection?
• CLDs as a means of looking in a more structured way at accessible format provision - e.g. audio materials, large print, e-books, etc.?
• CLDs - potential of bringing to light forgotten collections and then highlighting work that has to be done to make these collections more accessible.

Discussion

Collections vary in their nature. Some exist as physical items in a particular location, while others have some form of virtual existence. This could be a collection of physical items distributed throughout a larger collection (books given by a donor on a variety of topics and shelved by topic in the general collection) or a collection or physical and/or electronic items located in different institutions (as might be created through portals).

There was acknowledgment that a collection (temporary in nature) could be created by an enquiry, though it didn't seem that this required a CLD. The group had more difficulty with the concept that a single item might comprise a collection.

There was agreement that databases of CLDs could be a tool in locating potential partners (e.g for bids for funding, etc.). However, you need some partnerships to get the first CLDs and then some promotion of the CLDs to attract further partners. There is a need for this initial seeding before CLD work can really take off - perhaps we are just getting to that stage with the first databases about to be publicly available.

Small organisations, in particular, benefit from the publicising of collections, but conversely it may be difficult to get them included in collections of project or subject CLDs and existing projects because they are unknown. The disclosure of such 'hidden' resources is one of the aims of Full Disclosure.

Colleagues may be reluctant:

1. to create a CLD for a previously uncatalogued collection until the item level work is done.
2. to use a brief CLD in the interim and upgrade when further data is available (on the basis that it could not be guaranteed when/if it would be upgraded.
3. to publicise the collection with a CLD before access to the collection has been agreed.

The group felt that more needed to be done to inform colleagues that brief CLDs can be useful to LIS professionals in managing collections and that it is possible to designate some CLDs in a CLD database as 'not for public view', with the status changing to public view once the collection was accessible and the CLD upgraded.

The act of collecting data for CLDs may point up the lack of a collecting policy for a collection or the need for its review. Assessing the collection for the CLD can inform the development of a collecting policy. It was noted that there is a risk that some uncatalogued items in library collections run the risk of disposal without assessment (those odd boxes the basement - no-one knows what they are, so they can't be important) - CLD work could help here by providing an assessment stage and perhaps identifying other collections to which they could be offered if the institution decided not to retain the items.

Discussion moved to the relationship of items to the collection and that this would vary between collections. Can CLDs facilitate item level priorities in uncatalogued collections - thus forming a workplan for retrospective activity. It was noted that publicly available CLDs can increase the use of collections and so provide impetus for item level description work (but see also previous points about reluctance of colleagues on this).

People are increasing using resources on a cross-domain and cross-sectoral basis. Databases of CLDs which include details of collections in academic/public/special sectors and archive/ library/museum domains will be useful. It was noted that library and museum approaches tended to more similar to each other than to archives, although there is more convergence now than in the past.

The lack of knowledge about collections, and whether or not they are catalogued has hampered retrospective conversion and cataloguing work in the past. CLDs can be a valuable source of information in tackling retrospective activity in a focused way rather than the piecemeal method of the past. If sufficient data can be collected about retrospective requirements this could potentially provide justification for some new funding - perhaps with Resource acting as a broker to gain DCMS (or other department - health, education) funding.

Action Points

1. Dissemination - more is needed both internally in institutions and externally, to educate, inform and promote
2. Accessibility and sustainability - many projects have limited life spans and should be looking at exit strategies, in particular, making more than one entry point to the CLDs created
3. Getting the smaller organisations on board - persuading them of the value of CLDs for promotion of their collection, managing the collection and finding partner organisations for funding bids and perhaps long-term associations.

Information

• Discussion Group 1
• Discussion Group 2
• Discussion Group 3