IO2J Publiclibrories ond Adull Fiction:Another Look ol o Core Listof "Clossics" JudilhJ. Senkevitchond Jomes H. Sweeflond f\ part o[ an ongoing effort to under- reluctant to weed lest they discard a work stand the nature of adult liction collec- that might return to favoi (Truett 1gg0). tions in public libraries and to develop This is particularly a concern in smaller metl.rodologies and tools to assist practi- libraries with very limited resources. tioners in evaluating fiction colleitions, There is both a need for and lack ofunder- we have conducted"a series of researcli standing of ways to identify adult fiction projects to examine various aspects of titles that will remain popular or endure. evaluating public library adult fiition. In Seeking to address that question, we an initial study undertaken in lgg2 of next undertook a study, funded by the evaluation practices and concerns in srnall OC-LC Online Computer Library Center and medium-sized \\/isconsin public li- to determine whethir a core lisi o[ adult braries, we found that a large majority of fiction titles widely held by public librar- librarians had evaluated their aduit ficiion ies could be identified for use in evaluat- collections within the previous five years ing adult fiction collections (Sweetland (Senkevitch and S,n'eeilandf994). How- and Senkevitch lgg5; Senkevitch and ever, in that study and otl-rers,researchers Sweetland f996). In that study, we also also found that many librarians in smaller examinedwhetlrer cornrnonly used collec- libraries do not distinsuish between tion development lists of recornrnended evaluationand r.r'eeding,and thnt they are titles or lists ofbestsellerswould be useful ([email protected],m JUDITH J _srrrrvrrcu edu) and f,rnrs H Swrsrurxo (ss,eetlnd@ csd urvn.r'edu) are associate professors at the School oi Llbr^ry and Information Scielce, Ur.riversityof wisconsin-Miiu'aukee. lvlanuscript received Decernber 5, l9g7; accepted for publication February I0, 1998 LRTS o 42(2) o Public Libraries and Adult Fiction /103 in pre&cting rvidely Iield works. Using the tematically the degree of volatility of titles OCLC Online Union Catalos (OLUC) of on the list, we undertook a second study, over 30 rnillion records,we iilentified the funded by OCLC, in 1995-96 In this sec- approximately 400 adult fictlon titles most ond study, we generated a new list of400 widely held by public library participants adult fiction titles most widely held by in OCLC (Senkevitch and Sweetland OCLC member public libraries in 1995 1996). \\/hile our findings suggested that and cornpared that list rvith the 1994 list this core list might be useful as an evalu- to examine the relative stability of the ation tool, they also raised questions about listing. The findings ofthis latter study are the stability of the hst \\/ould the same reported here. \A/hile a brief background-library titles remain on the list of widely held otr k"y issues relating to public works frorn one year to the next, or would collection evaluation and the role ofpopu - there be substantialchange in the make- lar materials is also provided, readers are up of the list? \\'e had an underlying as- referred to previous works (Sr,veetland sumption that a fiction work widely held and Senkevitch 1995; Senkevitch and bv nublic libraries would in sornesense be Sweetland I996) for a fuller discussionof "clisslc," and prevalence in public library these topics. collections rather than, for example, in- clusion in a "literary canon," formed the Rrsnencn eNo basis for the operating definition of "clas - Qursrrous Hvrornrsrs sic" in the study. The issue oflongevity on the list-the stability of a title-raised an The principal research questions ad- important question in this regard. dressedby this study are: As part ofthe 1993-94 project, OCLC staff produced two lists of widely held QuestionI Does the emphasisin pub- oublic librarv adult fiction titles: one list lic librarieson providingcurrent popu- in December 1993 that contained a total lar readir.rgappear to lead to relatively count ofthe holding codes for all manifes- rapidchanges in the titlesheld by those tations, and a second list in Aueust 1994 libraries? that contained a count ol" the indiudual 2. If not,could a corelist of such libraries holding a given title. \\1hile some Question titles be developedto assistlibrarians in variation in the titles included on the two collectionevaluation? lists might reasonably have been expected with the modification in the parameters of In addition, the study provided insights the database run, examination of the two into what constitutes a "fiction clxsic." lists showed that more than 207o of the Hypotheses tested included the fbllowing: titles changed frorn the first to the second list wtthin this brief period In addition, Hypothesis.L The listing of adult fiction the numbers of holdinss had increased titles mostu'idely held by OCLC menber substantially for many renraining titles in public libraries u'ill change urthin one the eight rnonths between the generation year, *'ith many titles dropping fron.rthe of the two lists, a phenomenon also not list and neu'titlestaking their place necessarilyexplained by the rnodification in parameters.Alnost by definition, a Iist Hypothesis2 Titlesu'ith morerecetrt pub- of "classics"would be expectedto change licationdates rvill shos'a largerincrease in rather slowly, if at all, over time. Fin&ngs nunrber of hoiding libraries thar-rthose ti- from the 1993-94 work, however, raised tless'ith olderpublicatiorr dates questions about the degree ofvolatility of Hypothesis3. Titlesu'ith olderpublication tl.re list of adult fiction most likely to be datesu'ill be more likely to drop fronrthe held by U.S public libraries that are par- list than thoseu.ith recent dates ticiDantsin OCLC. Therefore, in order to explore further Hypothesis4. Thosetitles added to the list the potential uselulnessof Juch a listing frorn one year to the nexts'ill be thoseu'ith as an evaluation tool and to examine sys- recerrtpublication dates I0A LRTS . 42(2) o Senkeoitchand Su;eetland Hypothesis 5. Those titles s'ith more re- mended fiction and award-winners in the ceut publication dates u'ill shorv 4 grs21s1 weeding process. increasein number of different OCLC re- cords (as a result of nes'editions and dif- ferent Ibrmats) than those titles with older publication dates BacxcnouNo collection is used as the basis for evalu- ation. Civen its apparent success for larger acadernic libraries. the approach has been adapted not only for nonfiction collections but also for fiction, even 1985), fiction rernains the most corn- mon adult material taken out of the li- brary (Johnson 1989; Vavrek 1990; size ofthe given genre or category com- pared rvith the collection as a whole. Qual- ity judgments for fiction are made by look- ing at size and growth rate, number of authors and titles owned, and desired in- tensity of collection for each genre. A fur- Baker 1993; Shearer 1993; Senkevitch ther test ofquality refers to current lists of and Sweetland1994). awards and honors, presence on lists of Although it is clear that fiction for "classics,"and recent lists of ALA Notable adults is an important part of public li- Book awards (Baker 1994). brary collectioni,there has been surpris- It is clear that both librarians and the lngly little research on such collections public beheve that fiction for adults is (Sweetland l99l; Senkevitch and Sweet- an important part of public library col- land 1994). Researchersin a number of lections. Hourever, despite tlris. ihere stu&es have pointed out the value of dis- has been almost no researchon how to play and promotion in increasing circula- improve this important aspect of pubhc tion-notably Baker (1986, 1988), Long library service.Similarly, while librari- (f986), and Parrish (f986). While useful, ans aqree on the need for evaluation unfortunately, these and other authors and weeding of fiction collections, there is little information on how to do it. One aspect of the problern identified in earlier research (Senkevitch and Sweetland 1994) is the lack of reliable ways to identifv fiction "classics" when selecting and iueeding. This study ad- dressesfhat issue. As of August 1994, there were over lated individually, because such time 18,300 participating libraries in the OCLC rnight vary from two months to nearly ten years. In tl're revised CHEW (Continuous Revierv,Evaluation, and \A'eeding) rnanual on weeding, Boon (1995)suggests consider- ing a time-on-sl.relfsince last circulation of two years .rs a viable figure {br weeding decisions for fiction, in contrast to Slotei approxirnately4,000 public libraries: a varying figure. Boon also suggests consid- year later this nurnber had groun to about ering a title's presence on lists of recorn- 4,700 public libraries (McClain 1995). LRTS o 42(2) o Public Libraries and Adult Fiction /lO5 TABLE 1 TrrrnrvMosr-HELD TITLES oN OCLC gv NurvrsnnoF HoLDINGS,1995 No. ofUnique Change in Change in Library Rank by, Number of Date of Holdings in Holdings Holdings Author/Iitle Publication 1995 1994-95 1994-95 Jakes,John Nofth and South 1982 1,090 0 39 Keillor, Garrison Lake \\bbegon da1's 1985 1,078 0 45 UAmour, Louis, Last of the breed 1986 1,069 l0 43 \\'hitney, Phy4lis Dream of orchids r985 1,068 -1.0 4l LAmour, Louis The walking drum 1984 1,062 5 42 King, Stephen The stand 1978 r,057 20 D{' Holt, Victoria The time of the hunter's moon r983 1,056 -l D 36 \\'hitne1., Ph1'llis Flaming tree 1985 I,U)) -l 0 43 Flolt, Victoria Secret for a nightingale 1986