Selection Criteria For Traditional And Electronic Resources

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR TRADITIONAL ANDELECTRONIC RESOURCESTable of ContentsSelection Criteria Task Force (TF) ChargeTF CompositionBackgroundTraditional Selection CriteriaEnvironmental ScanPoints of ConvergenceAnalysisElectronic Selection CriteriaEnvironmental ScanPoints of ConvergenceCultural Heritage Materials and Learning ObjectsAnalysisLinksInfrastructureCost Factors and Freely Available WebsitesOwnership and ControlTrendsConclusionAppendix AAppendix BAppendix CAppendix DAppendix EAppendix FAppendix GAppendix HReferencesAdditional Selection Criteria ReferencesBooksArticlesDigital InitiativesAuthor: Selection Criteria Task ForceEditor: Amy Tracy WellsDraft 6.01 of 37

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR TRADITIONAL ANDELECTRONIC RESOURCESAll I know of the world beyond the narrow range of myown personal experience is what others have told me. Itis all hearsay. But I do not count all hearsay as equallyreliable. Some people know what they are talking about,others do not. Those who do are my cognitiveauthorities. (Wilson, Patrick. Second-Hand Knowledge:An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, CT:Greenwood Press, 1983, 13)Selection Criteria Task Force ChargeThe Task Force (TF) was charged with “compiling/reviewing/disseminating selectioncriteria for electronic resources to supplement traditional selection criteria (e.g.,authorship, content, provenance, accuracy, relevance to institutional mission, andsubject matter) used by libraries, archives and museums. Supplemental criteriainclude: design, use, timeliness, permanence, quality of links to other sites, valueadded utility beyond print version, originating domain, downloading capability,uniqueness, reverse links, etc.” The process we followed was to:1. appoint TF members who have expertise with different types of materials,2. undertake an 'environmental scan' of existing selection criteria for traditionalresources, and3. undertake an 'environmental scan' of existing selection criteria for eresources.As a follow-up to the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control in the NewMillennium tml), it is anticipatedthat the dissemination of this draft within the TF, to the Cataloging Directorate, andto other TFs, will generate additional issues for consideration and suggestions forother documents (physical or digital) to examine. The TF welcomes all comments.Throughout this document the term ‘traditional resources’ is defined as a physicalresources made available through tangible means, and ‘e-resources’ is defined “asany work encoded and made available for access through the use of a computer”based device (Library of Congress, Collections Policy Statements: ElectronicResources, 1999). To be more specific, “online will refer to intangible works, (and)physical to a tangible work” (ibid.). To some degree, the distinction being drawnbetween ‘traditional’ and ‘electronic’ materials is both arbitrary and somewhat dated(just as one person’s cultural heritage object is another person’s freely-accessibleAuthor: Selection Criteria Task ForceEditor: Amy Tracy WellsDraft 6.02 of 37

website.) For example, though geospatial data are often digital, maps can be printand/or electronic. This distinction is presented, however, as it is consistent withcurrent librarianship and perhaps, as a consequence, with the conceptual divisionwhich remains in many informational settings. The term ‘library’ is also used, but isunderstood to include archives and museums of both a traditional and non-traditionalnature.TF CompositionOur organizational composition includes numerous areas of expertise: licensedelectronic products and freely accessible websites; government information; culturalheritage (physical objects and images); earth science and educational geospatialdata; and, learning objects. An additional dimension includes an evaluation of bothfreely accessible and fee-based e-resources. This was a deliberate effort, as eachtype has both similar and separate selection criteria. Therefore, an explicit structure,and a consequent goal, has been to enumerate as many types as possible. Memberaffiliations and expertise follow.Member nameDr. Angel D. BatisteCarolyn LarsonPat Ann LoghryGene MajorKaren G. SchneiderDr. Mary WoodleySusan Rae MorrisAmy Tracy WellsAffiliation(s)LC representativeLC representative &LC UniversalHoldings liaisonNotre Dame &CMDS liaisonNASA, GlobalChange MasterDirectoryLII (Librarian’sIndex to theInternet)California StateUniversity,NorthridgeLC Liaison to TFMSU, MATRIX &RUSA liaisonAuthor: Selection Criteria Task ForceEditor: Amy Tracy nments andinternationalorganizations)Licensed productsand freelyaccessible websitesLicensed productsAddressesabat@loc.govEarth science andeducationalgeospatial dataFreely accessiblewebsitesmajor@gcmd.nasa.govCultural heritage(physical objectsand images)(blank)mary.woodley@csun.eduLearning objectsand freelyaccessible lii.orgsmor@loc.govwellsat@msu.eduDraft 6.03 of 37

While discussing selection criteria for the broad universe of materials is not possible,many of the criterion enumerated will be applicable to other types of known andemergent objects.BackgroundWhat is the utility of selection criteria? To a librarian, this issue is fundamental to theefficient allocation of energy, monetary resources, and patron assistance. However,in the age of Google, where information retrieval against in excess of three billionpages can yield almost instantaneous precision (or at least recall) regardless ofauthority, the relevancy of selection criteria is called into question (January 10,2003, from http://www.google.com/press/highlights.html ). For example:(There) is a growing consumer orientation toinformation.As a result, the process of selection,evaluation, and interpretation that develop informationinto knowledge and understanding are atrophying formany readers (or not being developed in the first place).We see this trend epitomized in the Web, anddiscussions around the Web, which as Marshall (1996)points out conflate 'information' with 'knowledge.' Onceaccessed, it is for the reader, in most cases, to judgewhat it means, or if indeed it means much of anything atall. Unfortunately, this second-order reflection isdiscouraged by the leveling effect that puts allinformation points at the same level of accessibility andthe designer/authors at the same prima facie level ofcredibility. (Nicholas Burbules, “Rhetorics of the Web:Hyperreading and Critical Literacy” in Page and Screen:Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era [New SouthWales: Allen and Unwin, rs/rhetorics.html)However, recall and precision are separate from issues of selection criteria. In arecent survey, Marcum and George (2003) note that “high proportions of studentsand faculty” agreed that “information provided by (their institution’s library) remainsmore highly regarded than information found on the Internet.” Specifically, thelibrary: contains information from credible and known sources (98.2%)provides high quality information (97.9%)provides information that I use and trust without additional verification(89.0%).’In a hypermedia environment defined as any networked media, the complexities ofselection criteria become more complex, not ignorable (Bieber 2000)Author: Selection Criteria Task ForceEditor: Amy Tracy WellsDraft 6.04 of 37

Traditional Selection CriteriaEnvironmental Scan -- PrintThe environmental scan of traditional print selection criteria included examining:1. Bopp, R.E. and L.C. Smith. Reference and Information Services: AnIntroduction. 3rd edition. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 20012. Katz, W. Introduction to Reference Work Volume I: Basic InformationSources. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002a.3. Katz, W. Introduction to Reference Work Volume II: Reference Services andReference Processes. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002b.4. Wood, R. and F. Hoffman. Library Collection Development Policies: AReference and Writers' Handbook. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1996.(Detailed tables for Bopp & Smith, Katz, and Wood & Hoffman follow in AppendicesA, B, and C respectively.)This approach is utilized because “although evaluation criteria were originallydeveloped for print sources, they are also applicable to non-print sources, such asmicroforms and databases” (Bopp and Smith 2001, 312). Or as Katz (2002) states,Whether in print or an electronic database, there arebasic evaluative points concerning the all-importantcontent . Aside from the content the librarian must askat least four basic questions about a reference work:What is its purpose? It’s authority? Its scope? Itsproposed audience? Finally, the format must beconsidered for print and the navigational tools forelectronic databases. (25-26)However, Bopp and Smith (2001, 312), also note that one-to-one comparisons arenot necessarily appropriate as “it may be more difficult to apply some of the criteriato electronic and nonprint sources, however, because such media cannot beexamined directly in the same way that one handles print sources.” Soo Young Rieh(2001, 159) suggests that “people's relevance criteria and decision rulesaccumulated in the traditional information systems may not be directly applicable tothe Web.” It seems logical, then, that electronic and nonprint sources can beassumed to have selection criteria which are not applicable to print sources.However, as both formats are in production and use and have sufficient overlappingcharacteristics, both are examined.Author: Selection Criteria Task ForceEditor: Amy Tracy WellsDraft 6.05 of 37

Points of ConvergenceAn analysis of convergence is appropriate to illustrate commonalities amongtraditional resources regardless of material type. This analysis must consider thevariety of resources: reference works; dictionaries (thesauri, and quotation books);almanacs, yearbooks and handbooks; biographical sources; encyclopedias;geographical sources (maps, atlases, gazetteers, and travel guides); bibliographicalsources; serials (periodicals and newspapers); indexes and abstracts (periodicals,table of contents, subject, citation, and reviews); government documents andstatistics sources; imagery; and scientific data. These points of convergence aresummarized by Katz (2002, 24-28) as:1. Purpose -- Is the purpose evident and has it been fulfilled?2. Authority –- “What are the author’s (or compiler's) qualifications for thefulfillment of his or her problem? What is the imprint of the publisher?”How objective is the work?3. Scope –- “Will this (item) be a real addition to our collection, and if so,what exactly will it add?” For example, unique contributions and currency4. Audience -- Use of comprehensible language and content to addressintended audience5. Cost6. Format – “Arrangement is of major importance (or ease of) search.’”What is the clarity of structure, font, symbols, graphics/illustrations, andabbreviations?AnalysisThe points of convergence outlined above are often problematic in their universalapplication. The difficult semantic mapping of terms such as ‘purpose’ and‘authority’ (see also “Link” section) and merit discussion and analysis; an example ofthis difficulty is seen in the attempt to understand authority based on the currentsources. As Wilson (1983) notes, there are three different types of authority,“cognitive (influence on thoughts), administrative (influence on action), andinstitutional (influence from institutional affiliation)” (cited in Fritch and Cromwell2001, 499). Authority can originate from different sources including author,publisher, reviewer, sources consulted, receipt of awards, etc.* The term also seems*For further discussion, see this document’s “Analysis,” pageAuthor: Selection Criteria Task ForceEditor: Amy Tracy WellsDraft 6.06 of 37