Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.

pdf

Library Collection Assessment: A Case Study of Two Universities in the

Region of Punjab, India
Har Singh
Panjab University, Chandigarh
India
Infoisil07@gmail.com

Preeti Mahajan
Panjab University, Chandigarh
India
ipreeti2001@yahoo.com

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

52
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

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.

53
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

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 Questionnaire Response Rate

Distributed Received (%)
Panjab University,
180 80 44
Chandigarh
Punjabi University,
150 80 53
Patiala

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.

54
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

2. Frequency of library visit

Fig. 1. Frequency of visit

Frequency of visit
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala,

30 32
28

14 16
12 10
4 6 6
2 0

Every Day Twice or thrice a Once in a week Once in a fornight Once in a month Very rarely
week

Table 2. Frequency of visit

Frequency of Visit Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Chandigarh (n=80) Patiala (n=80)
Every Day 30 37.5 32 40
Twice or thrice a
14 17.5 28 35
week
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.

55
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

3. Average time spent in the library per week

Fig. 2. Average time spent per week

Average time spent per week

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

24 24
20
18
16
14
12
10 10
6
4
2

Few minutes 0.5 - 1 Hours 1-2 Hours 2-4 Hours 4-6 Hours 6-8 Hours

Table 3. Average time spent per week

Use of Panjab University, Chandigarh % Punjabi University, Patiala %
Library (n=80) (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.

56
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

4. Purpose of library visit

Fig. 3. Purpose of visit

Purpose of visit
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

70
62
48 50
40 42 38 44 40 44
20 24
12 10

Study and Consult Consult Borrow To check Access Access

Research the books the Books the new Internet Electronic
journals arrivals Resources

Table 4. Purpose of library visit

Purposes Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Chandigarh (n=80) 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
20 25 24 30
arrivals
Access Internet 12 15 40 50
Access Electronic
10 12.5 44 55
Resources

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.

57
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

5. Awareness of the library collection development policy

Fig. 4. Awareness of collection development policy

Awareness of Collection Development Policy

Yes No

80
74

6
0

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

Table 5. Awareness of collection development policy

Awareness of Panjab University, % Punjabi University, Patiala %
CDP Chandigarh (n=80) (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

Use of print resources

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

52
38 32
26
2 10

Often Occasionally Never

58
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

Table 6. Use of print resources

Use of Print Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Resources Chandigarh (n=80) 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

Use of e-resources
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

48
36
24 28
16
8

Often Occasionally Never

Table 7. Use of the e-resources in the library

Use of E- Panjab University, % Punjabi University, Patiala %
Resources Chandigarh (n=80) (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.

59
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

8. Advantages of using the print resources

Fig. 7. Advantages of print resources

Advantages of print resources

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
66
52 52 50 42 48 48 48
30
16
2 10

Table 8. Advantages of using the print resources

Use of Print Resources Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Chandigarh (n=80) Patiala (n=80)
Easy to access 52 65 52 65
Comfortable than e-
30 37.5 50 62.5
resources
Portable and easy to
42 52.5 48 60
handle
Easy to read and
48 60 66 82.5
concentrate
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.

60
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

9. Use of various categories of resources

Fig. 8. Use of various categories of resources

Use of various categories of resources

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

68 70 74 72
66
54 56 57 64 60 60
44 46 41 45 52
35
20

Table 9. Use of various categories of resources

Resource Category Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Chandigarh (n=80) 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
20 25 35 43.75
publications
45 56.25 52 65
Non-book materials

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.

61
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

10. Successfulness of accessing the materials

Fig. 9. Successfulness of accessing materials

Successfulness of accessing materials

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

32 40 37
25
11 15

Often Occasionally Never

Table 10. Successfulness of accessing materials

Accessing the Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Materials Chandigarh (n=80) 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

Awareness of e-resources
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University
5044 30 36

Yes No

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

62
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

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

Use of consortial and e-resources databases

UGC INFONET INDEST Science Direct Emerald Databases IEEE Others

34 36
31 32 30
26 26
22 22 21
1517 16 14
18 18 17 19 151314
12 12 11 12 13
9 11 6
4 34 2 2 5 2

Often Occasionally Never Often Occasionally Never

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

Table 12. Use of consortial and e-resources databases

Consortia and E- Panjab University, Chandigarh (n=50) Punjabi University, Patiala (n=44)
Databases
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.

63
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

13. Features in the consortial and e-resources databases

Fig. 12. Features in the consortial and e-resources databases

Features in consortial and e-resources databases
Qualitative Easy to accesss
Required information is available Information is available at one place
39 38
28 28 27 25 23 26
22 22 18 19 21
17
11 12

Yes No Yes No
Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

Table 13. Features in the consortial and e-resources databases

Features in Consortia and Panjab University, Punjabi University, Patiala
E-databases Chandigarh (n=50) (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
22 44 28 56 25 56.81 19 43.18
available.
Information is available in
22 44 28 56 23 52.27 21 47.73
one place.

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.

64
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

14. Frequency of accessing e-resources through the consortial and e-resources databases

Fig. 13. Frequency of e-resources access

Frequency of e-resources access

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

16 17 15 13
7 10 5 4 4 3

Daily Twice in a week

Once in a weekFortnight Rarely

Table 14. Frequency of e-resources access

Frequency of E- Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
Resources Access Chandigarh (n=50) 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

Recomendations of more e-resources

Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala

32 28
13 5 5 11

Yes No Can't say

65
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

Table 15. Need for more consortial and e-resources

Need for More Consortial Panjab University, % Punjabi University, %
and E-Resources Chandigarh (n=50) 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 Panjab University, Chandigarh, N=80 Punjabi University, Patiala, N=80
Level 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
8 10 25 31.25 18 22.5 29 36 8 10 29 36.25 17 21.25 26 33
materials
Govt.
10 12.5 16 20 28 35 26 33 8 10 13 16.25 38 47.5 21 26
publications
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

66
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

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 Panjab University, Chandigarh Punjabi University, Patiala
Type (n=80) (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)

67
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

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).

68
Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 39. URL: http://www.iclc.us/cliej/cl39SM.pdf

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: infoisil07@gmail.com and harsingh@thapar.edu

Preeti Mahajan, Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Panjab University,
Chandigarh, India, Email: ipreeti2001@yahoo.com
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

69