









































87

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Defining Balances in Collection 
Development Policies
Katie Benjamin, Duke Divinity School
Andrew Keck, Southern Methodist University
Myka Kennedy Stephens, Lancaster Theological Seminary
Michelle Spomer, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

ABSTR AC T In addition to defining scope, collection development 
policies are increasingly defining new balances of digital/print, 
subscriptions/selections, faculty/student/community/regional 
needs, curricular/research needs, providing access/building a 
collection, etc. Learn from three librarians who will dig deeply into 
the issues around defining a particular balance in collection devel-
opment as well as describe the process for defining these balances 
on their respective campuses.

CONSORTIAL AGREEMENTS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Myka Kennedy Stephens, Lancaster Theological Seminary

As seminary librarian at Lancaster Theological Seminary, I have 
found it worthwhile to consider the balance between collection 
development decisions for the library and the community it serves 
and collection development decisions based on the consortial agree-
ments and other partnership commitments our library has made. 
Our collection development policy had been the result of an assess-
ment of our collection’s strengths and an evaluation of the evolving 
needs of our community. During a recent biennial review, we made 



88  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

revisions based on conversations with other libraries that we are in 
relationship with. These include the member libraries of the South-
eastern Pennsylvania Theological Library Association (SEPTLA) as 
well as Franklin & Marshall College (F&M)—a four-year liberal arts 
college located across the street from our campus. When I arrived at 
Lancaster as a new faculty member and library director, I relied on 
the accounts of others to discern the nature of the library’s relation-
ships and commitments. There were not any concrete statements 
recorded in the library’s collection development policy, nor were 
there any formal written agreements that outlined these relation-
ships to be found in our archives.

Based on conversations with librarians at the other SEPTLA 
libraries, it became clear to me that SEPTLA functions loosely as a 
consortium. Consortia have recently become synonymous with lever-
aging group purchasing power. This is not what SEPTLA does, or, at 
least, not at the present. Its identity as a consortium is rooted in its 
long and proud history of collaboration and cooperation among the 
member libraries. It is part of the oral history that SEPTLA library 
directors collaborated on collection development, with each library 
making specific commitments to devote portions of their budget 
toward filling gaps in periodicals and monograph series not held 
by any of the other libraries (Heisey 2014, 2). While it is well known 
that the SEPTLA library directors made these commitments, it is 
not known how these commitments changed over time and across 
leadership transitions.

Lancaster Theological Seminary’s relationship with F&M, at least 
from the libraries’ perspective, is primarily defined by a recipro-
cal borrowing arrangement. In conversations with F&M’s college 
librarian, we were both aware of collection development decisions 
being made in consideration of one another’s holdings. For exam-
ple, F&M does not actively seek to develop subject areas like practi-
cal theology, which they know to be core to our curriculum and our 
patrons’ research interests. Likewise, Lancaster Seminary does not 
actively seek to develop subject areas like philosophy or world reli-
gions beyond our immediate curricular needs because this is not an 
emphasis of our degree programs. While this understanding exists, 
neither of us could locate any formal coordinated collection devel-
opment commitments by our predecessors.

While these conversations were illuminating and helped me 
better place the Lancaster Theological Seminary Library within 



Panel Discussions  89

SEPTLA and in relation to F&M, it did not resolve my unanswered 
questions about previous commitments to coordinated collection 
development. What, if anything, had our library agreed to collect, 
maintain, and preserve? Might it be possible to revise our collection 
development policy, making much needed changes while uphold-
ing and honoring our present institutional commitments and rela-
tionships? To begin to answer these questions, I decided to research 
how SEPTLA libraries approach collection development in relation 
to other libraries.

Collaboration and cooperation on collection development among 
the SEPTLA library directors is among the generally accepted facts 
about SEPTLA, what it is, and what it does. SEPTLA libraries partici-
pate in a reciprocal borrowing program and direct interlibrary loan 
lending. These activities may be the driving force behind these crite-
ria for SEPTLA membership found in the bylaws:

1.1.2. Such libraries shall have their own library facilities within the 
SEPTLA region with adequate collection and accessibility to support 
their academic programs and the interests of SEPTLA. There must 
be a demonstrated ongoing commitment to maintain the same. 
(SEPTLA 2019).

Note that this statement includes “the interests of SEPTLA” as some-
thing a member library’s collection needs to support. Logically, 
consideration of SEPTLA’s interests and a member library’s commit-
ments to SEPTLA have a place in establishing collection develop-
ment policy.

In spring 2019, I conducted a review of collection development 
policies from SEPTLA member libraries. Fifteen libraries partici-
pated in the study, including Cairn University, Clarks Summit Univer-
sity, Lancaster Bible College, Lancaster Theological Seminary, Missio 
Seminary, Moravian College and Theological Seminary, New Bruns-
wick Theological Seminary, Palmer Theological Seminary at East-
ern University, Princeton Theological Seminary, Reconstructionist 
Rabbinical College, Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Saint Charles 
Borromeo Seminary, Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Semi-
nary, United Lutheran Seminary, and the University of Valley Forge. 
The first thing I examined was whether the collection development 
policy mentioned SEPTLA. At one extreme of the spectrum, five 
libraries did not mention SEPTLA at all in their collection develop-
ment policies. Seven libraries mentioned SEPTLA membership in 
their collection development policy but did not specify what bear-
ing that membership had on collection development. Three librar-



90  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

ies mentioned SEPTLA and specified how their SEPTLA membership 
influenced collection development.

Though grouped at the other extreme of the spectrum, the librar-
ies that mentioned SEPTLA and specified how SEPTLA influenced 
collection development provided three different understandings 
of coordinated collection development as part of SEPTLA member-
ship. Reformed Episcopal Seminary stated explicitly that they do not 
collect “denominational or institution-specific historical materials 
that are or should be available at another local library or that repre-
sent the unique programs of other institutions” (Kuehner Memorial 
Library, Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Collection Development 
Policy, revised March 2019). My interpretation of this statement 
is that it not only includes material specific to an institution’s reli-
gious tradition, but also material specific to an institution’s curricu-
lar commitments and degree programs. Saint Charles Borromeo 
Seminary, a Roman Catholic seminary, has a collection development 
policy that clearly states a reliance on Jewish and Protestant SEPTLA 
member libraries to develop and presumably maintain deep collec-
tions of materials from their religious traditions (Ryan Memorial 
Library, Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, Collection Development 
Policy and Procedures, n.d.). The policy from the former Lutheran 
Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, now United Lutheran Seminary, 
was the most intriguing. It cited dialog with SEPTLA as an influence 
in purchasing subscriptions to periodicals, serials, databases, and 
major reference works (A. R. Wentz Library, United Lutheran Semi-
nary Gettysburg Campus, Collection Development Policy, updated 
and revised October 2012). While the reliance upon or expectation 
that SEPTLA member libraries would maintain collections of mate-
rials from their own religious traditions did not seem unreasonable 
or out of the ordinary, this statement hinted at the deeper conversa-
tion around coordinated collection development that once existed 
among SEPTLA library directors.

Among those libraries that mentioned SEPTLA membership in 
their collection development policies but did not specify its influence 
on collection development, one stood out. New Brunswick Theologi-
cal Seminary articulated in its collection development policy how 
its relationships to SEPTLA, the New York Area Theological Library 
Association, and Rutgers University did not “preclude the necessity 
of building, on the Seminary campus, a strong core collection in 
support of the curriculum” (Gardner A. Sage Library, New Bruns-



Panel Discussions  91

wick Theological Seminary, Collection Development Policy, October 
2018). This statement acknowledged resource sharing made possi-
ble by institutional relationships as something that adds to the Sage 
Library’s collection yet does not factor into key collection develop-
ment decisions.

In my research of SEPTLA library collection development poli-
cies, I also wanted to see if there were ways in which our policies 
might lend themselves to cooperation and coordination regardless 
of any formal statement in the policy itself regarding other SEPTLA 
libraries. I focused on whether the collection development policy 
mentioned any specific collecting commitments. The majority of 
SEPTLA libraries, nine out of fifteen, did mention specific commit-
ments in their policies. The way in which they articulated these 
commitments differed dramatically. Some libraries adopt a version 
of the Research Libraries Group (RLG) Conspectus model, while 
others simply list subject areas they are committed to collecting.

Research-level collecting commitments are the best point of 
connection if SEPTLA member libraries were to consider a coor-
dinated approach to collection development. A research-level 
commitment, according to the RLG Conspectus, “includes major 
published source materials required for dissertations and inde-
pendent research” (Library of Congress n.d.). All SEPTLA member 
libraries that named specific collecting commitments included their 
identifying denomination or religious tradition as among their 
research-level commitments. SEPTLA member libraries are diverse 
in religious traditions, so there is very little overlap of these commit-
ments. The only significant amount of overlap is found when exam-
ining the collection development policy from Princeton Theological 
Seminary Library. It names several subject areas for research-level 
collecting, some of which overlap with the commitments named by 
other SEPTLA member libraries.

After sharing this with the SEPTLA membership at our spring 
2019 meeting, I incorporated the findings and our discussion into 
a revision of Lancaster Theological Seminary Library’s collection 
development policy (Lancaster Theological Seminary Library 2020). 
Regarding SEPTLA, I named our research-level commitments to 
subject areas related to our German Reformed heritage and our 
United Church of Christ affiliation as what we bring to our commit-
ment as a SEPTLA member library. I also named that our partici-
pation in that association provides for the research needs of our 



92  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

students and faculty when they extend beyond the library’s narrowly 
focused research commitments. Regarding our relationship with 
F&M, I borrowed language from New Brunswick Theological Semi-
nary’s collection development policy. While the use of the F&M 
library is a benefit to our students and faculty, the nature of the 
relationship does not make it practical to rely on their collections 
in any way.

Since revising and adding these statements to our collection devel-
opment policy, I have also considered how to publicly indicate what 
we intend to keep and conserve in our collection. Like many other 
theological libraries, we have been deaccessioning a lot of material 
from our collection. I have reduced the size of our circulating collec-
tion by approximately forty percent and am currently assessing and 
making decisions about our rare book collection. Within SEPTLA, 
we have looked at and talked about OCLC’s GreenGlass as a tool that 
might help us take a more detailed look at our collections and decide 
as a group which materials each would commit to retain. The possi-
bilities of such a cooperative project are attractive, yet our deacces-
sioning projects cannot wait for the shared adoption of a tool at a 
price point we can afford. For the time being, we are indicating our 
commitment to retain in other ways.

The first way is by adding a 583 Action Note to the MARC records 
of items we intend to keep and preserve. I am primarily using this 
for rare books I have determined we need to keep and are commit-
ting to be a home library for as long as we are able. We are an OCLC 
cataloging library, so we add this 583 Action Note to the OCLC record 
to indicate our commitment to other libraries. The following exam-
ple uses syntax as recommended by the Library of Congress (2005):

583 ## $a will conserve $c YYYYMMDD $2 pda $5 LCT

We are starting by using the action “will conserve” and will update 
this with the specific preservation action we take on the item when 
that action is completed in the future.

The second way we are indicating a commitment to retain is by 
adding a locally defined 593 note field. MARC 59x fields are made 
available for libraries to define them as they need, so I decided that an 
appropriate companion to the 583 Action Note would be a 593 Local 
Retention Note. This is used primarily for items in our circulating 
collection, and sometimes special collections, that faculty members 
recommended the library retain. The syntax I have adopted is simi-



Panel Discussions  93

lar to the 583, and these notes are visible in our OPAC from the title 
notes tab in record view:

593 0# $a retain $c YYYY-MM $f Name of Faculty $x Non-public note 
(optional) $z Public note (optional)

It is possible to search our OPAC specifically for these notes using 
search queries based on MARC fields. We are able to provide SEPTLA 
member libraries, and anyone else who wishes to coordinate on 
collection development, with encoded links that return lists of all 
items in our collection that we plan to retain or conserve.

In conclusion, I posit that a library rarely develops its collection 
in isolation. As responsible stewards of our collections, we must 
continue to find ways to work together in the collection and preserva-
tion of these materials. Balancing the needs of our local communities 
with our commitments and relationships among fellow libraries is 
an important piece of that work. Communicating about and sharing 
what your library is collecting and how you intend to care for it is a 
key action that you can take toward advancing that work.

Works Cited

Heisey, Terry. 2014. “SEPTLA – A Golden Anniversary.” Teamwork: 
Newsletter of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Theological Library 
Association (Fall 2014). septla.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/
Teamwork-2014_2-Fall.pdf.

Lancaster Theological Seminary Library. 2020. “Collection 
Development Policy.” Library Policies. Latest revision May 
30, 2020. guides.lancasterseminary.edu/subjects/guide.
php?subject=library_policies#tab-6.

Library of Congress. 2005. “Preservation & Digitization Actions: 
Terminology for MARC 21 Field 583.” Accessed June 18, 2020. loc.
gov/marc/bibliographic/pda.html.

———. n.d. “Collecting Levels.” Accessed June 18, 2020. www.loc.gov/
acq/devpol/cpc.html.

SEPTLA. 2019. “Southeastern Pennsylvania Theological Library 
Association Amended Bylaws as Adopted May 9, 2019.” septla.
org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SEPTLA-Bylaws-May-2019.pdf.

http://septla.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Teamwork-2014_2-Fall.pdf
http://septla.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Teamwork-2014_2-Fall.pdf
http://guides.lancasterseminary.edu/subjects/guide.php?subject=library_policies#tab-6
http://guides.lancasterseminary.edu/subjects/guide.php?subject=library_policies#tab-6
http://loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/pda.html
http://loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/pda.html
http://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/cpc.html
http://www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/cpc.html
http://septla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SEPTLA-Bylaws-May-2019.pdf
http://septla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SEPTLA-Bylaws-May-2019.pdf


94  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

BALANCES IN SUBJECT AREA COLLECTING
Michelle Spomer, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

I finished writing a 34-page collection development policy recent-
ly, so today, I’ll be talking about the various considerations that 
went into the policy section on subject area collecting.

Context
In 2016, I started my job as the director of Barbour Library at Pitts-
burgh Theological Seminary (PTS). I brought with me 20 years of 
experience in theological libraries, as well as an MDiv and MLIS, but 
I’d never written a collection development policy, nor had I ever done 
collection development on a large scale before. After a major library 
renovation was completed in 2018, I decided that the existing policy 
needed to be updated, and then I quickly realized that I would really 
be writing a brand-new policy.

Selection Criteria
I will be focusing on subject as part of the selection criteria for library 
materials, but I’d like to briefly cover the other criteria that I included 
in the policy.

• Language — Is there a primary language that is preferred? 
What other languages are appropriate and why? 

• Currency — Are current resources being selected? Under what 
circumstances is it okay to select non-current items?

• Geographic Coverage —Are global perspectives represented? 
Why or why not?

• Quality of Scholarship — Did it come from an expert and/or a 
reputable publisher?

• Format — Is there a preference for print vs. non-print? For what 
types of items? What formats are to be avoided and why?

• Projected Use — What’s the likelihood that the item will be 
used? I have to say that I’ll be asking this question a lot when I 
evaluate the standing orders in the fall.

• Cost — Are there limits in what will be spent per item? How are 
these limits determined?

• Subject — Which subject areas will be included in the collec-
tion? What are the factors that influence subject coverage?



Panel Discussions  95

Considerations for Subject Areas
Subject area collecting may seem like a no-brainer in a theological 
library—we all know that there should be a lot of books with “B” call 
numbers on the spine (or “200,” as the case may be). But knowing 
how to provide subject coverage that’s specific to your particular 
community can be tricky. These are the major considerations that 
helped me shape subject area coverage for the Barbour Library:

• Seminary Mission Statement — Collections should support the 
institutional mission. While mission statements generally don’t 
offer a lot of subject detail, they can often point in a general 
direction. Take a look at these two mission statements:

 ˏ Pittsburgh Theological Seminary — “Pittsburgh Theological 
Seminary is a community of Christ joining in the Spirit’s work 
of forming and equipping people for ministries familiar and 
yet to unfold and communities present and yet to be gath-
ered.”

 ˏ Harvard Divinity School — “Harvard Divinity School educates 
students of religion for intellectual leadership, professional 
service, and ministry.”

 ˏ “Forming and equipping people for ministry” points to the 
importance of practical formation, while the Harvard state-
ment perhaps emphasizes a more academic approach. Vision 
statements and strategic plans should also be considered.

• Seminary Degree Programs — In addition to considering the 
Doctor of Ministry and various master’s degree programs 
offered at the seminary, I also wanted to be sure to include 
certificate and continuing education programs in developing 
the collection.

• Course Descriptions — The curriculum and corresponding 
course descriptions are pure gold in determining subject areas 
of collection. Combing through syllabi for bibliographies is also 
very useful.

• Faculty Research Interests — Often, there is much being 
collected for the curriculum that also supports faculty research 
interests. You want to keep an eye out for more specialized 
areas. For example, one of our faculty specializes in Asian 



96  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

American history and theology, and another in theologies of 
disability and suffering.

• Denominational Affiliation(s) — PTS is a Presbyterian institu-
tion, specifically PC(USA). However, there are also ongoing and 
developing partnerships with United Methodists, Episcopalians, 
and Baptists. How will the collection serve them?

• Other Library Users — Who are your library users outside of 
faculty, staff, and students? Local clergy comprise one of our 
bigger groups of users, so I try to provide a certain level of prac-
tical theology and professional resources for this group.

• Special Collections — If you have special collections, are there 
resources you can add to enhance them? 

• Local & Regional Interests — Since many PTS students go on to 
ministry positions locally or in the region, are there resources 
that could help them understand the people and history in these 
areas better? We had a book on reserve in the spring with the 
title A History of Christianity in Pittsburgh.

• Previous Policy Decisions — If you have a previous collection 
policy, which subject areas were included? Are they still rele-
vant? Also, simply walking through the physical collection and 
taking note of what’s been collected can be immensely helpful, 
especially if you’re new to the institution. Of course, this can 
also give you ideas for deselection!

• Policies from Other Institutions — And lastly, see what you can 
find from other institutions. I learned a lot by finding and read-
ing other policies. You’ll find the policies I used in the refer-
ence list for this session. I was even able to add a link to Karl 
Stutzman’s policy from AMBS, which was highlighted in yester-
day’s session on collection development.

Organizing Subject Criteria
Now that I had an idea of the subjects that should be collected, how 
was I going to prioritize and organize them? I settled on the conspec-
tus method collection depth levels as a way to prioritize collection 
in subject areas. Probably, many of you have heard of or used some 
sort of subject conspectus in your policies. As I looked at other poli-
cies, I found many different versions of this, and decided to try to 
find the original conspectus.



Panel Discussions  97

So it turns out, in the late 1970s, a library consortium called the 
Research Library Group (RLG) developed the conspectus method 
as a national approach to collection assessment. It was described 
as “a multi-faceted, multi-purpose collection-centered assessment 
process that provides a survey of a library collection” (Wood and 
Strauch 1992). The conspectus process used worksheets for recording 
collection depth values by broad subject fields. The long-term goal 
of the RLG was to assure that library materials were acquired and 
preserved for the members’ use. This conspectus method was revised 
by the Association of Research Libraries and the Western Library 
Network in the 1990s, and I found the updated collection depth level 
definitions on the website for the International Federation of Library 
Associations and Institutions (www.ifla.org/publications/guidelines-
for-a-collection-development-policy-using-the-conspectus-model).

Most of the policies I saw did not use the original conspectus 
collection depth indicator definitions and had simply taken the idea 
of prioritizing subject areas for collecting and made it their own. I 
decided to use the IFLA-revised definitions with some minor modi-
fications and found it to be a good way to organize my subject area 
collecting goals. Another reason I organized subject priorities in this 
way is because I thought it would resonate with faculty, who were 
going to vote on and approve the policy as a whole.

I’ve included the conspectus level section from my collection 
development policy below. There are six collection depth levels, 
beginning with zero, which is out-of-scope subjects. Level five is a 
comprehensive level of collecting and, while I included the defini-
tion, there aren’t any subjects that we try to cover comprehensively.

Lastly, I distilled all the subject areas and collection levels into 
a summary table that provides a handy “at-a-glance” overview. Let 
me know if you have any questions or would like more information. 
I’d be happy to help!

Conspectus Collection Depth Indicator Definitions

0 — Out of Scope
The library does not intentionally collect materials in any format 
for these subjects.

http://www.ifla.org/publications/guidelines-for-a-collection-development-policy-using-the-conspectus-model
http://www.ifla.org/publications/guidelines-for-a-collection-development-policy-using-the-conspectus-model


98  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

Barbour Library: While there are certainly exceptions to this, materi-
als outside of the LC ranges typical for theological collections (B–BX, 
DS, PA, PJ, Z, etc.) are not collected.

1 — Minimal Information Level
Collections that support minimal inquiries about this subject and 
include:

• A very limited collection of general materials, including mono-
graphs and reference works.

• Periodicals directly dealing with this topic and in-depth elec-
tronic information resources are not collected.

The collection should be frequently and systematically reviewed for 
currency of Information.

Superseded editions and titles containing outdated information 
should be withdrawn. Classic or standard retrospective materials 
may be retained.

Barbour Library:

• Humanities
• Social sciences
• Professional library literature
• Pittsburgh history and news
• Fiction and poetry with religious themes

2 — Basic Information Level
Collections that serve to introduce and define a subject, to indicate 
the varieties of information available elsewhere, and to support the 
needs of general library include:

• A limited collection of monographs and reference works.
• A limited collection of representative general periodicals.
• Defined access to a limited collection of owned or remotely-

accessed electronic bibliographic tools, texts, data sets, journals, 
etc.

The collection should be frequently and systematically reviewed for 
currency of information.



Panel Discussions  99

Superseded editions and titles containing outdated information 
should be withdrawn. Classic or standard retrospective materials 
may be retained.

Barbour Library:

• American sects
• World religions
• Sociology of religion
• Apologetics and philosophy of religion
• Mythology and the occult/supernatural
• Philosophy (hermeneutics, ethics, ontology, cosmology, epis-

temology, aesthetics, language analysis, logic, and history of 
philosophy)

• Anthropology
• Psychology
• Communication
• Leadership
• Popular Christian and devotional works by select authors/

publishers

3 — Study or Instructional Support Level
Collections that provide information about a subject in a systematic 
way, but at a level of less than research intensity, include:

• An extensive collection of general monographs and reference 
works and selected specialized monographs and reference 
works.

• An extensive collection of general periodicals and a representa-
tive collection of specialized periodicals.

• Extensive collections of the works of well-known authors and 
selections from the works of lesser-known authors. 

• Defined access to an extensive collection of owned or remotely-
accessed electronic resources, including bibliographic tools, 
texts, data sets, journals, etc.

The collection should be systematically reviewed for currency of 
information and for assurance that essential and important infor-



100  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

mation is retained, including significant numbers of classic retro-
spective materials.

Barbour Library:

• Classic literature of Christianity
• Protestant denominations
• Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy
• The church and special groups (i.e., women, African Americans, 

people with disabilities, youth, etc.)
• The church and social issues (poverty, politics, education, civil 

rights, etc.)
• Science and theology
• Ecumenism and dialog
• Intersection of special topics and Christianity/religion (art and 

religion, etc.) 
• Writing and research methods, information literacy

4 — Research Level
A collection that contains the major published source materials 
required for master’s-level study and independent research includes:

• A very extensive collection of general and specialized mono-
graphs and reference works.

• A very extensive collection of general and specialized periodi-
cals.

• Extensive collections of the works of well-known authors as 
well as lesser-known authors.

• Defined access to a very extensive collection of owned or 
remotely accessed electronic resources, including bibliographic 
tools, texts, data sets, journals, etc.

This includes older material that is retained and systematically 
preserved to serve the needs of historical research.

Barbour Library:

• Biblical studies 



Panel Discussions  101

 ˏ Language tools for Greek and Hebrew
 ˏ Criticism and interpretation
 ˏ Biblical archaeology

• Historical studies

 ˏ Church Fathers
 ˏ Medieval church history
 ˏ Protestant Reformation
 ˏ United States church history
 ˏ World Christianity
 ˏ Christian denominational history
 ˏ Reformed/Presbyterian history

• Studies in theology

 ˏ Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theological traditions
 ˏ Intersectional theologies (feminist, black, liberation, woman-

ist, etc.)
 ˏ Reformed/Presbyterian theology

• Theology in ministry

 ˏ Worship
 ˏ Church administration and polity
 ˏ Homiletics/preaching
 ˏ Christian education
 ˏ Christian ethics
 ˏ Pastoral care and counseling
 ˏ Protestant missions and missiology
 ˏ Social issues  (i.e., non-religious treatments of poverty, racism, 

urbanization, women’s issues, political and governmental  
issues)

 ˏ Spiritual formation

5 — Comprehensive Level



102  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

A collection in a specifically defined field of knowledge that strives to 
be exhaustive, as far as is reasonably possible (i.e., a “special collec-
tion”), in all applicable languages includes:

• Exhaustive collections of published materials.
• Very extensive manuscript collections.
• Very extensive collections in all other pertinent formats.
• A comprehensive-level collection may serve as a national or 

international resource.

Barbour Library: There are no programs or special collections at PTS 
that merit this level of collection depth.

The following table summarizes the subjects collected and their 
corresponding conspectus levels:

SUBJECT CONSPECTUS LEVEL LC CLASSIFICATION

American religious sects 2 BL, BR, BX

Anthropology 2 GN

Apologetics, Christian 2 BT

Biblical studies: Biblical 
archaeology 

4 BS, DE, DS

Biblical studies: Criticism 
and interpretation 

4 BS

Biblical studies: Greek 4 BS, PA

Biblical studies: Hebrew 4 BS, PJ

Christian ethics 4 Multiple 

The church and social issues 3 Multiple

The church and special 
groups 

3 Multiple

Classic/devotional literature 
of Christianity 

3 Multiple

Communication 2 BV, P

Eastern Orthodoxy 3 BR, BT, BV, BX

Ecumenism and dialog 3 BX



Panel Discussions  103

SUBJECT CONSPECTUS LEVEL LC CLASSIFICATION

Fiction and poetry with 
religious themes 

1 Multiple

Historical studies: Christian 
denominational history 

4 BR, BX

Historical studies: Church 
Fathers 

4 BR

Historical studies: Medieval 
church history 

4 BR

Historical studies: Protestant 
Reformation 

4 BR, BX

Historical studies: 
Reformed/Presbyterian 
history

4 BX

Historical studies: United 
States church history 

4 BR, BX

Historical studies: World 
Christianity 

4 BR

Humanities 1 Multiple

Intersection of special topics 
and religion 

3 Multiple

Leadership 2 BV, HD, HM

Mythology and the occult/
supernatural 

2 BF, BL

Philosophy 2 B, BC, BD, BH, BJ

Philosophy of religion 3 BL

Pittsburgh history and news 1 F

Professional library 
literature 

1 Z

Protestant denominational 
resources 

3 BX

Psychology 2 BF

Roman Catholicism 3 BR, BX

Science and theology 3 BL, BT



104  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

SUBJECT CONSPECTUS LEVEL LC CLASSIFICATION

Social issues 4 Multiple

Sociology of religion 2 BL

Social sciences 2 H

Studies in theology: Catholic 
tradition 

4 BT, BX

Studies in theology: Eastern 
Orthodox tradition

4 BT, BX

Studies in theology: 
Intersectional theologies 

4 Multiple

Studies in theology: 
Protestant traditions 

4 Multiple

Studies in theology: 
Reformed/Presbyterian 
theology 

4 BT, BX

Theology in ministry: 
Christian education 

4 BV

Theology in ministry: 
Church administration and 
polity 

4 BV

Theology in ministry: 
Homiletics/Preaching 

4 BS, BV

Theology in ministry: 
Pastoral care and counseling 

4 BF, BV

Theology in ministry: 
Protestant missions and 
missiology 

4 BV

Theology in ministry: 
Spiritual formation 

4 BV

Theology in ministry: 
Worship 

4 BV

World religions 2 BL, BM, BP, BQ

Writing and research 
methods, information 
literacy 

3 BL, BR, HM, LB



Panel Discussions  105

Works Cited

Wood, Richard J. and Katina Strauch, eds. 1992. Collection Assess-
ment: A Look at the RLG Conspectus. New York, NY: Haworth 
Press, Inc.

IT TAKES A VILLAGE: COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT IN SUPPORT 
OF FACULTY AND STUDENT RESEARCH
Katie Benjamin, Duke Divinity School

My comments on collection development will be from my perspec-
tive as the director of the Duke Divinity School Library, and so from 
the perspective of a seminary library collection that is housed within 
a larger academic institution. Within that framework, I will be gestur-
ing broadly toward some of the collection development strategies we 
have as a result of that relationship, both as a seminary within Duke 
and as a seminary within the larger context of regional research 
universities. Then I will be unpacking a highly specific project we 
have been working on in terms of collection development to support 
faculty and student research in the area of the history of contempo-
rary worship movements.

To get a sense of scale and context, the way the libraries are struc-
tured at Duke is with a centralized university library that serves our 
general student body and four professional school libraries, one of 
which pertains to the Duke Divinity School. And so, while our primary 
constituents are the divinity school students and faculty, we also 
support Duke’s religious studies department, as well as the interdis-
ciplinary work of students in other departments, particularly history, 
political science, English, art, and so on. So already it can be seen that 
we have a duty to collect in support of a wider range of disciplines 
across the university than just Christianity and its sub-disciplines, 
but we also have a duty not to duplicate materials held elsewhere. 
Hence, if you were to visit our main university library, you would 
find the B to BX call numbers wedged in a very tiny corner of their 
basement; whereas if you were to visit my library, you would learn 
that we have a corresponding very tiny corner of our basement dedi-
cated to C through Z.

Duke is also involved in a number of reciprocal borrowing agree-
ments with area libraries; and here I will just touch on the Triangle 
Research Libraries Network, which brings together the area research 



106  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

libraries at Duke and North Carolina Central University, both local to 
Durham, as well as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and 
North Carolina State University in Raleigh. In addition to shipping our 
books back and forth upon request, TRLN supports working groups 
from its member libraries that focus on collection development. In 
past years, these efforts have been focused on a Shared Print Collec-
tion program, under which books are owned jointly by the participat-
ing libraries and stored offsite at the Library Service Center (a Duke 
Library location that is cost-shared among other members, which 
currently houses over 3 million books in dense storage and can, at 
its projected capacity, house 15 million). However, the result of this 
initiative was that all libraries owned the books and therefore none 
of them did; and all of our end users had to be annoyed equally to find 
that a book they wanted was offsite and needed to be requested for 
delivery to their campus library of choice. As such, the Shared Print 
Collection initiative was disbanded in 2018 in favor of the Cooperative 
Print Retention working group, which aims to encourage appropri-
ate duplication of the collections. The best example to reflect these 
strategies is the East Asian Collection agreement between Duke and 
UNC. Both institutions have strong East Asian studies departments 
but, since the 1960s, their libraries have agreed that Duke will collect 
with a focus on Japanese studies, while UNC will collect with a focus 
on Chinese studies. Each university has access to the other’s collection, 
each library buys for the other’s faculty upon request in its own area 
of concentration, and each library duplicates the other’s collection in 
terms of books most frequently drawn on for classroom instruction. 
The Duke Divinity School Library’s contribution to this can be seen 
especially in our robust collection in Japanese Buddhism.

All of this is context for the general collection development strat-
egy we have at the Duke Divinity School Library, where, since we 
cannot own everything ever published from B–BX, we focus our 
work under four main headings. The first, and the most immediate 
and urgent, is always to make sure we own everything our faculty 
has elected to teach in a given semester and, these days, to make sure 
we own as much of that as possible in a multi-user electronic format. 
A second layer of our collection development strategy is general 
research support, mostly through approval profiles, in order to keep 
up with the field by automatically receiving books in designated 
areas and from designated presses. A corresponding third layer is 
denominational publications: because, as important as the conversa-



Panel Discussions  107

tion in the field is among academic voices, so too is the conversation 
in the various church bodies for whom we train pastors. While Duke 
Divinity remains an official United Methodist theological school, our 
student body population has been trending ecumenically for years 
now, and we support Houses of Study in the Anglican/Episcopal tradi-
tion, as well as Presbyterian, Baptist, and more.

I name the fourth category of our collection development strat-
egy as particular research support, in contrast to general. If “general” 
research support means to reflect where the field has been and is, 

“particular” research support intends the not un-ambitious goal of 
reflecting where the field is going—or at least, where the faculty we 
have the pleasure of collaborating with are headed in their particu-
lar research agendas. No approval profile in GOBI is going to help 
with this. However, to begin to unpack our strategies in this regard, 
I will use a specific example: one of our faculty is doing his work in 
the utterly undefined field of the history of contemporary worship 
movements. No one is collecting for that; I certainly was not when I 
learned about his current book project. But to make things even more 
urgent, now the same faculty member has doctoral students, focusing 
their work on these movements in America as well as in international 
contexts, particularly Southeast Asia.

So what does collection development look like for these purposes? 
For one thing, it involves many, many firm orders. This also helps us 
back-fill the collection with academic materials we have managed to 
miss. Other purchase requests are for titles I would never in a million 
years find on GOBI—the complete, published-in-house works of this 
or that megachurch pastor or manuals of how to do contemporary 
worship, also published in-house, that are frankly not something I 
would ever think to order for an academic library. But for these mate-
rials, at least we can say we are still “in print” here. We have not yet 
gotten to the truly ephemeral. In this case, collecting ephemera means 
tracking down charismatic worship magazines from the 1970s. These 
are a gold mine for this kind of work, and not just for the articles—for 
the advertisements as well. The first magazine I was asked to track 
down in this regard was New Wine, a Pentecostal magazine that ran 
from the 1960s to the 1980s. Believe it or not, Duke Divinity School 
did not deign to receive this print subscription in the 70s. However, 
in the case of New Wine, the publisher still exists in some format and 
hosts past editions in a beautifully stable, open access format. Here 
we can do two things: the first is to make an internal contact with 



108  AT L A 2020 PROCEEDINGS

Duke Libraries’ electronic resources management team and request 
that we add this to our knowledgebase. This would mean that, if you 
search for the title or ISSN in the Duke Libraries catalog, it will come 
up together with a link to the external site, through our “Freely Acces-
sible Journals” tool. In other words, this process makes the maga-
zine discoverable, or more easily discoverable, to our patrons. On 
the other hand, the link is only good as long as the original publisher 
decides to keep hosting the material. The second recourse available 
is to reach out directly to the publisher and request permission to 
download these items from their website and host them in our own 
digital repository in the interest of preservation. In the case of this 
resource, we have only undergone the first process.


