









































136

CONVERSATION GROUPS

“How Do You Do That?”
Theological & Religious Studies Collection 
Development
Megan E. Welsh, University of Colorado Boulder
Alexander Luis Odicino, University of Colorado Boulder

ABSTR AC T The conversation group session was grounded in 
research conducted in December 2019 and January 2020, which 
investigated collection development trends of theological and reli-
gious studies librarians responsible for purchasing materials for 
their libraries located in the United States and Canada. After briefly 
introducing the details of how the research was conducted and 
key findings, the presenters facilitated guided discussion among 
attendees. Prior to the conference session, the presenters pre-
populated a Padlet (an online, editable platform) with questions to 
which small groups of conference attendees could respond. These 
questions centered on collection development practices and the 
platform created a space for attendee responses to “live” in perpe-
tuity, functioning also as a snapshot of the collection development 
trends that conference attendees embody.

INTRODUCTION

This conversation group centered on collection development trends 
of theological and religious studies collection development. Results 
from the presenters’ research study, conducted over December 2019 
and January 2020, functioned to provide background to conference 



Conversation Groups  137

attendees as they considered their own collection development prac-
tices and learned from their colleagues’ experiences. Discussion 
through small groups was captured through a Padlet—a web-based 
platform resembling a bulletin board—where participants could 
respond to questions posed by the presenters and also comment on 
others’ responses.

RESEARCH STUDY

Demographics
By means of introducing the research study, and also for the purpose 
of becoming familiar with conference attendees, the facilitators 
asked attendees to answer a few of the same demographic ques-
tions that study participants had answered. Attendees were polled 
at the beginning of the meeting, asking them to respond to which 
career stage they find themselves in, what kind of institution they are 
employed by (public, seminary, etc.), their total institutional enroll-
ment, and if their institution is affiliated with a Christian denomi-
nation. Conference attendees represented a variety of career stages 
and were primarily from seminary or divinity school settings with 
enrollments of less than 1,000. Additionally, a majority of their insti-
tutions were affiliated with a Christian denomination. Conversation 
group attendee responses mirrored responses from survey partici-
pants in several areas. Presenters shared the poll results live and 
then described the demographics of study participants.

The presenters recruited 86 librarians for the research study by 
emailing Atlantis and Association of Research Libraries member 
librarians who focused on religious studies or theology. Nearly half 
of those who responded identified as either late career or nearing 
retirement, and most respondents indicated that they are employed 
at institutions with less than 1,000 students. Thirty-nine respondents, 
nearly half of those who answered this question, identified as either 
advanced career or nearing retirement, and most respondents (n=26) 
reported a total institutional enrollment (including undergradu-
ates and graduates) as less than 1,000 students. A slight majority 
of respondents identified their institutional affiliation as a public 
university or college (n=22), yet 21 respondents identified that they 
are employed at a stand-alone seminary. The researchers also asked 
participants to identify if they work at a religiously affiliated institu-



138  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

tion. Forty-four respondents indicated that they did, and all but two 
work at institutions affiliated with Christianity. The two who did not 
identified their institutions as inter-religious.

Major Findings
Participants responded to a survey which contained up to 22 ques-
tions (where some questions were based on branch logic and no 
questions were required, so not all 86 participants answered every 
question) within a 3.5 week period spanning December 2019 and 
January 2020. Major findings gathered across these questions were 
presented to conference participants as belonging to three major 
areas: collection development funding, the use of acquisitions tools 
such as OASIS or GOBI, and methods for developing the collection.

Collection Development Funding
In an age when we hear about rising costs, especially of subscrip-
tions and licenses, the researchers were surprised to see that a total 
of 61 respondents answered that yes, the collections budget they 

FIGURE 1: Responses to question #6 (“Does the budget you receive satisfy 
the needs of religious studies or theology faculty & students at your 
institution?”) by institution type. Note that the authors removed responses 
from those who identified as from “Other” institutions. These responses 
totaled six where three survey respondents chose “yes” and three chose 
“no.”



Conversation Groups  139

receive satisfies the needs of religious studies or theology faculty 
and students at their institution. However, through open comments, 
sixteen of these individuals indicated that they would buy more 
materials if they could. Seventeen respondents indicated that no, 
their budget does not satisfy needs.

Conference attendees also seemed surprised that the majority 
of survey respondents effectively had enough funding to satisfy 
patron needs. As this result about budget satisfaction was presented, 
a conversation group attendee asked “So, were these more public 
institutions that were satisfied with budget?” The researchers did not 
have an answer to that question immediately, but reviewed the data 
after the conference and discovered that, although public institutions 
did report the most satisfaction across institution type (n=18), many 
respondents who reported affiliation with stand-alone seminaries 
were also satisfied with their budgets (n=17) (See figure 1).

Contemporary Acquisitions Tools
The researchers asked survey participants to choose from a list and 
identify how they gather ideas for materials to purchase. On this list 
was the option “Reviewing titles that match a pre-established profile 
through an acquisitions portal (e.g., Proquest OASIS, GOBI).” For 
those who did not choose this option, indicating that they did not use 
acquisitions tools, they were asked what prevents them from using 
such tools. Forty responses were collected and several themes arose. 
Notably, eight respondents did not see a need to use these tools, six 
said that using these tools was not worth it (that they are a hassle to 
set up, they add an unnecessary layer to their practice, etc.), and four 
said they do not have time to get familiar with these tools.

Collection Development Methods
The main goal of the study was to identify trends in collection devel-
opment practices among theological and religious studies librarians 
in the United States and Canada. To this end, the researchers asked 
three distinct questions asking participants to indicate what collec-
tion development methods they use. Survey questions included:

• An open-ended question about the primary method by which 
librarians discover relevant materials to purchase

• A multiple response question about ways in which librarians 
gather ideas about acquiring physical materials



140  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

• A multiple response question about ways in which librarians 
gather ideas about acquiring digital materials 

Overall, the most common method for gathering ideas is reviewing 
print catalogs, something by which the researchers were surprised. 
In an age of such technological advancement and online portals 
of vast amounts of information, responses indicate that the print 
catalog is classic and timeless. Additionally, despite the challenges 
of using acquisitions portals that some experience, using tools like 
GOBI or OASIS was the second most popular collection development 
method. 
Faculty recommendations constituted the primary collection devel-
opment method reported in the open-ended question, but it happens 
to be the lowest practice identified overall. The researchers neglected 
to include “patron recommendations” as an option in the list of 
responses for questions about physical and digital materials. On the 
other hand, only one person mentioned that they review syllabi to 
gather purchase ideas in the open-ended question, but many more 
chose that option from the list of responses for the questions about 
acquiring physical and digital materials.

CONVERSATION IN SMALL GROUPS 

Prior to splitting participants into breakout rooms, the conversation 
group facilitators shared a link to a Padlet—a web-based platform 
resembling a bulletin board—where participants could respond to 
questions posed by the presenters and comment on others’ responses. 
The Padlet is accessible to conference attendees (and readers of the 
Proceedings) beyond the annual conference at padlet.com/megan_
welsh/Atla2020CollectionDevelopment. The presenters asked attend-
ees to open the Padlet, review the questions the presenters had 
posted prior to the session, discuss answers as a small group, and 
add these to the Padlet. A total of 53 responses were recorded, with 
many attendees liking responses that others had contributed (likes 
are represented by a heart icon underneath each response). Partici-
pants indicated that the Padlet was easy to use, resulting in a produc-
tive conversation. Additionally, participants expressed their 
gratitude for being introduced to Padlet as it is a helpful platform 
that they would consider using in the future.

http://padlet.com/megan_welsh/Atla2020CollectionDevelopment
http://padlet.com/megan_welsh/Atla2020CollectionDevelopment


Conversation Groups  141

• A multiple response question about ways in which librarians 
gather ideas about acquiring digital materials 

Overall, the most common method for gathering ideas is reviewing 
print catalogs, something by which the researchers were surprised. 
In an age of such technological advancement and online portals 
of vast amounts of information, responses indicate that the print 
catalog is classic and timeless. Additionally, despite the challenges 
of using acquisitions portals that some experience, using tools like 
GOBI or OASIS was the second most popular collection development 
method. 
Faculty recommendations constituted the primary collection devel-
opment method reported in the open-ended question, but it happens 
to be the lowest practice identified overall. The researchers neglected 
to include “patron recommendations” as an option in the list of 
responses for questions about physical and digital materials. On the 
other hand, only one person mentioned that they review syllabi to 
gather purchase ideas in the open-ended question, but many more 
chose that option from the list of responses for the questions about 
acquiring physical and digital materials.

CONVERSATION IN SMALL GROUPS 

Prior to splitting participants into breakout rooms, the conversation 
group facilitators shared a link to a Padlet—a web-based platform 
resembling a bulletin board—where participants could respond to 
questions posed by the presenters and comment on others’ responses. 
The Padlet is accessible to conference attendees (and readers of the 
Proceedings) beyond the annual conference at padlet.com/megan_
welsh/Atla2020CollectionDevelopment. The presenters asked attend-
ees to open the Padlet, review the questions the presenters had 
posted prior to the session, discuss answers as a small group, and 
add these to the Padlet. A total of 53 responses were recorded, with 
many attendees liking responses that others had contributed (likes 
are represented by a heart icon underneath each response). Partici-
pants indicated that the Padlet was easy to use, resulting in a produc-
tive conversation. Additionally, participants expressed their 
gratitude for being introduced to Padlet as it is a helpful platform 
that they would consider using in the future.

Padlet Instructions
In order to maximize the amount of input and quality of participa-
tion, attendees were divided into breakout rooms of six persons or 
less. Each breakout group was asked to add highlights from their 
conversation to a Padlet prepared for the discussion group as a 
whole. The Padlet contained six discussion prompts relating to collec-
tion development trends and practices, with special attention given 
to adjustments which have had to be made in light of the SARS-CoV-2 
pandemic. These prompts were represented by six columns in the 
padlet and groups were asked to add main points from their conver-
sation underneath their respective questions’ columns.

Participants were asked to respond to the following prompts:

1)  What do you feel has made you effective in developing 
your collection? (e.g. tools, resources, experience, education, 
mentorship)

2) Thinking about your own collections, what collection develop-
ment challenges do you face?

3) What adjustments have you made to your collection develop-
ment practice in light of COVID-19? Do you feel you are still 
able to meet the needs of your stakeholders?

4) What role does funding play in your collection development 
practice and processes? Are you able to be effective with mini-
mal funding?

FIGURE 2: Screenshot of the Padlet with question prompts and attendee 
responses.

http://padlet.com/megan_welsh/Atla2020CollectionDevelopment
http://padlet.com/megan_welsh/Atla2020CollectionDevelopment


142  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

5) How are the trends represented by the conversation group 
facilitators similar to or different from your professional prac-
tice? Anything that stands out, surprises you, or resonates 
with you?

6) How can Atla members provide support for one another to 
satisfy collection development needs and overcome chal-
lenges?

Conversation Summary
Conference participants found the most success in their collection 
development when maintaining close relationships with faculty. 
This includes maintaining familiarity with course assignments and 
faculty research. Some respondents also noted making use of collec-
tion development tools, such as GOBI, and periodic surveys of faculty 
needs.

Hurdles encountered in the cost and functionality of e-books 
and databases was a refrain across nearly all points of discussion. 
The onset of SARS-CoV-2 appears to have only exacerbated existing 
pressure to invest in digital resources, including e-books, databases, 
journal subscriptions, and streaming services. Some participants 
found it difficult to advance their collections when a majority of their 
current budget needed to go to buying electronic versions of physi-
cal materials already in the collection. Furthermore, some partici-
pants expressed frustration with the licensing limitations of certain 
e-books, such as user limits. Looking ahead from adaptations that 
have had to be made in light of COVID-19, one participant noted that 
the current focus on e-book purchases may be one that is unlikely to 
subside in the near future:

A vast majority of the books we have purchased this year are e-books, 
though I do wonder if this moment represents a watershed, in that 
more faculty will have had experience with online teaching and it 
may be the norm for some time to come as the pandemic continues.

Reflecting on ways that Atla members can support each other to 
address challenges in collection development, respondents empha-
sized the importance of interlibrary loan. Along those lines, respon-
dents suggested that Atla members invest in DRM-free e-books that 
can be loaned and that regional groups be created to enable recipro-
cal borrowing outside of OCLC. Additionally, respondents suggested 
that Atla create a collection development interest group as well as 



Conversation Groups  143

make the special collections holdings of member libraries accessible 
to the association as a whole. Lastly, one respondent recommended 
that Atla invest in publishing more book reviews so that librarians 
can better evaluate potential purchases.

CONCLUSION

Grounded in research representing themes identified from reli-
gious studies and theological librarians across the United States and 
Canada, conference participants were able to engage in a thoughtful 
discussion across geographical and institutional categories. Hope-
fully more discussions of this nature happen in future conferences, 
especially as the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are felt in the 
years to come.


