International Journal of Engineering Business
and Social Science
Vol. 1 No. 02, December 2022, pages: 67-75
e-ISSN: 2980-4108, p-ISSN: 2980-4272
https://ijebss.ph/index.php/ijebss
67
Effect of Poor Implementation of Collection Development Policy
in Federal Polytechnic Library, Nasarawa State
Agbo Kate
1
, Gabriel Keghtor
2
, Doris Terkimbi
3
Benue State university, library
1,2,3
Benue State library Board, Makurdi
2
, University of Makasar.
Email: kateag83@gmail.com
1
, gabrielubw[email protected]m
2
, doriskeghtorubwa@gmail.com
3
Submitted: Nov, 29
th
2022 Revised:Dec, 10
th
2022 Publication:Dec, 15
th
2022
Keywords
Abstract
Acquisition; Collection
development; Library;
Policy; Selection and
weeding
This study examined the effect of poor implementation of collection development
policy in federal polytechnic library, Nasarawa state in central northern zone of
Nigeria. For research questions guided the study. A survey design was adopted in
carrying out the study. The total population for this study was (32) thirty-two
librarians. The major instrument for data collection was questionnaire. The entire
population of (32) thirty-two was sampled with questionnaires and only (26)
twenty-six were all returned. Data was analyzed using frequency tables, simple
percentages and means scores. From the analysis, the findings revealed that
collection development policy is available but encompasses only the area of
acquisition. resistance to change, worn out materials, inadequate
professionals/Librarians, lack of cooperation from parent organization, problem of
storage facilities, lack of funds, lack of collection development policy and
duplication of titles are some of the major problems encountered in developing
library collections. Based on the research findings, it was recommended that
libraries should have a written collection development policy that will embrace
selection, acquisition, weeding, gifts and exchanges, there should be constant staff
training/orientation, librarians should consult with user community in order to
have first-hand needs of their information, employment of qualified librarians,
provision of space to enable the library have archives where they can deposit
outdated materials. The study concluded that adequate and efficient evaluation of
acquisition practices and collection development in federal polytechnic library,
Nasarawa state and other libraries at large would effectively support librarians,
lecturers and students research output.
1. Introduction
An academic library is that which is attached to an institution of learning, which its major function
is research and advancement of knowledge in a wide variety of subjects (Alam, 2022). It main function is
to serve as an auxiliary to the parent institution in carrying out its objectives. It can also be seen a central
service or unit of operation set up to provide location, materials and facilities for study, teaching and
research carried out in the institution. The Library is an important intellectual resource of the academic
community, and helps them fulfill the curriculum requirements and to promote studies and research. The
library caters for the information needs of the community, through the provision of reading materials for the
various programmes of the institution (Horton, 2019).
According to (Shehu et al., 2022), the major obligation of the academic library with respect to its
book selection and book collection is to provide the materials which will now and in the future best
contribute to the fulfillment of these closely related functions of teaching, conservation and research.
(Ajibola & Kolawole, 2021) opined that the academic library is the “heart” of the institution. He contends
that what all academic libraries have in common, virtually regardless of country or history is their basic
68 e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 IJEBSS
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
position,
roles, aims and objectives. The reputation of libraries depends highly on the library facilities it
offers its clientele in terms of information resources. As information and research resources become more
varied, it places a challenge on academic libraries. (Barringer & Pryor, 2022) argued that the changes in the
nature of information, in research strategies, and in the structure of higher education are affecting academic
libraries. These changes define much of the shifting context within which academic libraries must operate.
It is absolutely essential for a library to possess the resources that will enable it meet its goals. Beautiful
buildings, well trained staff and modern information storage and retrieval system can only be appreciated if
excellent services are given to users. These services cannot be given without a collection of information
materials. The objective of any academic library is to support the teaching, learning and research activities of
the parent institution. It is an objective which is achieved through a systematic acquisition and organization
of all forms of recorded and undocumented information in all fields pertinent to the goals of the institution.
This can be realized by making such information available to the members of the academic community and
other scholars engaged in research and study (Nicolaidis et al., 2019).
Collection development is one of the fundamental functions of the library and information
profession. (McKenzie et al., 2019) described it to include all planning for the systematic and rational
building of a collection. In one sense, collection development includes assessing user needs, evaluating the
present collection, determining selection policy, coordinating selection of items, re-evaluating and storing
parts of the collection and planning for resources sharing. However, in a broader sense, collection
development is not a single activity, or a group of activities; it is a planning and decision-making process. In
order to play these vital roles effectively, academic libraries are supposed to be adequately funded by their
parent institutions to procure adequate information resources.
A library’s collection development efforts cannot be effective unless its policy efforts are
efficient. This practice that is responsible for selecting and acquiring information specialist to perform their
myriad function to the users effectively (Nagy et al., 2020). Academic librarians must strive to remain
competent navigators of acquisition and collection building in order to assist library users’ In addition,
acquisition practices includes a policy on the conservation and preservation of information materials as
well as the weeding of information materials. The policy is to provide guidance to staff when selecting and
deselecting resources for the local collection. The library’s main objective is to select, maintain and provide
access to relevant and representative information sources. In order to facilitate this, many authors agree on
the need for every library to have a written collection development policy. Buckland’s (2003) argues that
all library operations that primarily facilitate the exploitation of the collections and those directly consumed
by the end users of the library have
Response Rate
Their roots in the collection development policy (Björkdahl, 2020) perceives that this policy
(collection development policy.) is a sine qua non for any library that wants to build a functional collection
whether by traditional methods or in an information age. Therefore, a collection development policy is to
provide guidance to staff when selecting and deselecting resources for the local collection. In this case, it
serves as a guideline for each of the stages of material handling such as selection, acquisition, processing,
housing, weeding, retention, preservation, relegation and discarding of all types of library materials. This
reduces personal bias by setting individual selection decisions in the context of the aims of collection
building practice. It also clarifies the purpose and scope of local collections and allows selection decisions
to be evaluated. Activities associated with building and managing a library’s collection should be planned
and organized. A written Collection Development Policy is perceived to be an important part of good
collection management so the policy must be made available for effective management of library’s
materials.
2. Materials and Methods
The researcher used descriptive statistical methods to analyze the data. Frequencies, percentages
(%), and mean scores were used to analyze each item in the questionnaire for the purpose of answering the
research questions.
1. Data Presentation, Analysis And Interpretation
a. Introduction
This deals with data presentation, data analysis and discussion of findings from the research
questions of this work, “effect poor implementation of collection development policy in Federal
polytechnic Nasarawa.
IJEBSS e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 69
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
2. Response Rate
Table 1 No. of Response Rate
Respondents
No. of Questionnaire
No. used
Percentage (%)
Librarians of Federal
polytechnic Nasarawa.
32
26
81.25%
Table 1 indicates the response rate of those Librarians of Federal polytechnic, Nasarawa. It shows that thirty-two
questionnaires were administered to them and only twenty-six were successfully completed, retrieved and analyzed.
Research Question 1: What are the collection development policies available in the libraries?
Data Analysis
Table 2.
Responses of respondents on availability of Collection Development Policies.
S/N
Library
Practices
Strongly
Agreed
Agreed
Strongly
Disagreed
Disagreed
Means
scores
Decis
ion
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
1
Acquisition
15
57.69
5
19.23
-
-
6
23.07
3.11
Accep
ted
2
Selection
-
-
13
50
-
-
13
50
2.00
Rejec
ted
3
Gifts and
Exchanges
12
46.15
-
-
14
53.84
-
-
2.92
Accep
ted
4
Weeding
-
-
-
-
26
100
-
-
2.00
Rejec
ted
Cluster Mean
2.50
Accep
ted
Table 2 indicates that the Library under study have collection development policy in the area of acquisition with
(15) fifteen respondents with (57.69%) who strongly agreed to it and (5) five (19.23%). However, no respondent
strongly disagreed to it but (6) six (23.07%) disagreed. This makes the mean score 3.11 and it is acceptable.
According to the responses from librarians, selection, no respondent strongly agreed to the availability of selection
policy while (13) thirteen (50%) agreed to it, no respondent strongly disagreed and (13) thirteen (50%) disagreed
this makes the mean score 2.00 and it is rejectable. Gift and exchanges have (12) twelve respondents, (46.15%), no
one agreed to it but (14) fourteen respondents which makes (53.84) strongly agreed while no one disagreed to it.
This makes the mean score 2.92 and it is acceptable. In the case of weeding, the entire population strongly
disagreed to it.
Research Question 2: What are the effects of poor implementation of collection development policy?
Table 3.
Responses of respondents on Effect of Poor Implementation of Collection
Development Policy.
S/N
Effect of Poor
Implementation of
Collection Development
Policy
Strongly
Agreed
Agreed
Strongly
Disagreed
Disagreed
Means
scores
Decision
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
Accepted
1
No one is responsible for
building library collections
19
73.07
7
26.92
-
-
-
-
3.73
Accepted
2
Selection of library
collections is done
haphazardly
16
61.53
9
34.61
1
3.84
-
-
3.61
Accepted
3
Library budget is wasted
22
84.61
3
11.53
1
3.84
-
-
3.80
Accepted
70 e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 IJEBSS
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
4
Patrons are not satisfied in
search of
their information needs.
16
61.53
10
38.46
-
-
-
-
3.61
Accepted
5
The objectives of the
library are not
met.
10
38.46
14
53.84
2
7.69
-
-
3.30
Accepted
6
Some of the library
collections are
irrelevant
24
92.30
2
7.69
-
-
-
-
3.92
Accepted
7
Most collections are not
accessed
and utilized
4
15.38
7
26.92
13
50
2
7.69
2.50
Accepted
8
The library is abandoned
for another
17
65.38
9
34.61
-
-
-
-
3.65
Accepted
9
Less attention is given to
the library
18
69.23
8
30.76
-
-
-
-
3.69
Accepted
Cluster Mean
3.53
Accepted
Findings from table 3, shows the effects of poor implementation of collection development policy
and nineteen respondents with (73.07%) strongly agreed that no one is responsible for building library
collections while (7) seven respondents with (26.92%) agreed that no one is responsible for building library
collections while no respondent disagreed and agreed to it.On the other hand, (16) sixteen respondents with
61.53%strongly agreed that Selection of library collections is done haphazardly, (9) nine respondents with
34.61% also agreed that the Selection of library collections is done haphazardly while (1) respondent while
3.84% strongly disagreed that Selection of library collections is done haphazardly and no respondent
disagreed that Selection of library collections is done haphazardly, this made a mean score of 3.61 which is
acceptable. (22) respondents which indicated 84.61% strongly agreed that library budget is wasted while (3),
11.53% also agreed on the wastage of library budget, just (1)one, 3.84% strongly disagreed that library
budget is wasted and no respondent disagreed that library budget is wasted, made a mean score of 3.80
which is acceptable.
(16) Respondents which indicated 61.53% strongly agreed that patrons are not satisfied in their
information search while (10), 38.46% also agreed that patrons are not satisfied in their information search.
No respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed that patrons are not satisfied in their information search; this
item has a mean score of 3.61 which is acceptable. (10) Ten, respondents with 38.46% strongly agreed that
the objectives of the library are not met while (14) respondents with 53.84%only agreed that the
objectives of the library are not met, 7 respondents with 7.69% disagreed that the objectives of the library
are not met and no respondent disagreed that the objectives of the library are not met.(24) twenty-four
respondents with 92.30% strongly agreed that Some of the library collections are irrelevant and (2) two
respondents with 7.69% agreed thatsome of the library collections are irrelevant while no respondent
strongly disagreed and disagreed that some of the library collections are irrelevant.
The item which has a mean score of 3.92 is acceptable. (4) Four respondents with 15.38% strongly
agreed that most collections are not accessed and utilized, (7) seven respondents with (26.92%) agreed that
most collections are not accessed and utilized, (13) thirteen respondents with 50% strongly disagreed that
most collections are not accessed and utilized, while (2) two respondents with 7.69% disagreed that most
collections are not accessed and utilized. The item which has a mean score of 2.50 is acceptable. (17)
Seventeen respondents with 65.38% strongly agreed that the library is abandoned for another, (9) nine
respondents with 34.61% also agreed thatthe library is abandoned for another while no respondent strongly
disagreed or disagreed that the library is abandoned for another. The item which has a mean score of 3.65 is
acceptable. (18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly agreed that less attention is given library and
(8) eight respondents with 30.76% also agreed that less attention is given the library while no respondent
strongly disagreed or disagreed that less attention is given to the library. The item which has a mean score of
3.69 is acceptable. The result clearly indicated that with poor implementation of the collection development
policy, the objectives of the library are not met while most collections are not accessed and utilized and
Selection of library collections is done haphazardly.
Research Question 3: What are the factors responsible for poor implementation of collection development
IJEBSS e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 71
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
policy?
Table 4
Responses of respondents on Factors Responsible for Poor Implementation of Collection
Development Policy.
S/N
Factors of Poor
Implementation of
Collection
Development
Policy
Strong
ly
Agree
d
Agreed
Strongl
y
Disagre
ed
Disagreed
Mea
ns
Scor
es
Decision
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
1
Time to draw up
20
76.92
5
19.23
1
3.84
-
-
3.73
Accepted
2
Financial constraint
18
69.23
7
26.92
-
-
1
3.84
3.61
Accepted
3
lack of awareness of the
merits of
collection development
policy
12
46.15
10
38.46
4
15.38
-
-
3.30
Accepted
4
Lack of professional
librarians
16
61.53
8
30.76
2
7.69
-
-
3.53
Accepted
5
Other courses are
considered
Inferior
20
76.92
6
23.07
-
-
-
-
3.76
Accepted
6
Resistance to change
4
15.38
3
11.53
14
53.84
5
19.23
2.23
Reject
7
Personal interest
2
7.69
5
19.23
16
61.53
3
11.53
2.84
Accepted
8
Lack `of collection
development
policy
26
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.00
Accepted
9
Lack of cooperation from
parent
organization
13
50
8
30.76
5
19.23
-
-
3.30
Accepted
10
Lack of supervision of
Collection Development
Policy
1
3.84
7
26.92
12
46.15
6
23.07
2.11
Reject
Cluster Mean
3.24
Accepted
Table 4 depicts a picture of the factors responsible for poor implementation of collection
development policy. The table revealed that (20) respondents with 76.92% strongly agreed that there is no
time to draw up the collection development policy, (5) respondents with 19.23% also agreed that there is
no time to draw up the collection development policy, just (1) one respondent with 3.84% that strongly
disagreed with “There is no time to draw up” no disagreed to “There is no time to draw up”.The item which
has a mean score of 3.73 is acceptable,(18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly agreed the Financial
constraint, (7) Seven respondents with 26.92% agreedto financial constraint no one strongly disagreed to
financial constraint just (1) one respondent with 3.84% that disagreed to financial constraint.
The item which has a mean score of 3.61 is acceptable, (12) twelve respondents, (46.15%) strongly
agreed lack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy, (10) ten, respondents with
38.46% agreed lack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy, (4) Four respondents with
15.38% strongly disagreedlack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy, no respondent
disagreed lack of awareness of the merits of collection development policy. The item which has a mean
score of 3.30 is acceptable.(16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% strongly agreed lack of professional
librarians and (8) eight respondents with 30.76% also agreed lack of professional librarians, while (2) two
respondents with 7.69% strongly disagreed lack of professional librarians and no respondent disagreed lack
of professional librarians. The item which has a mean score of 3.53 is acceptable. (20) Respondents with
76.92% strongly agreed other courses are considered Inferior, (6) respondents with 23.07% agreed other
courses are considered Inferior and no respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed courses are
considered Inferior.
The item which has a mean score of 3.76 is acceptable. (4) Four respondents with 15.38% strongly
agreed resistant to change, (3) respondents with 11.53% also agreed resistant to change while (14)
respondents with 53.84%only strongly disagreed resistant to change and (5) five respondent with 19.23%
72 e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 IJEBSS
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
disagreed resistant to change. The item which has a mean score of 2.23 is rejectable. (2) Two respondents
with 7.69% strongly agreed personal interest and (5) five respondent with 19.23% agreed personal interest
while (16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% and (3) respondents with 11.53% strongly disagreed and
disagreed respectively. The item which has a mean score of 2.84 is acceptable. All the (26) respondents
with 100% strongly agreed lack of collection development policy. The item which has a mean score of 4.00
is acceptable. (13) Thirteen respondents with 50% strongly agreedlack of cooperation from parent
organization, (8) eight respondents with 30.76% also agreed lack of cooperation from parent organization
while (5) respondents with 19.23% also strongly disagreed lack of cooperation from parent organization
and no respondent disagreed lack of cooperation from parent organization.. (1) One respondent with 3.84%
strongly agreed lack of supervision of collection development policy, (7) Seven respondents with 26.92%
agreed lack of supervision of collection development policy while (12) twelve respondents, (46.15%) and
(6) respondents with 23.07% strongly disagreed and disagreedlack of supervision of collection
development policy. The item which has a mean score of 2.11 is rejectable
Research Question 4: What are the strategies to overcome poor implementation of collection development
policy in the library?
Table 5
Responses of respondents on Strategies of overcoming Poor Implementation of Collection Development
Policy
S/N
Strategies of
overcoming Poor
Implementation of
Collection
Development Policy.
Strongly
Agreed
Agreed
Strongly
Disagreed
Disagreed
Mean
score
s
Decisi
on
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
1
Adequate time to
draw up the policy be
made
20
76.92
4
15.38
2
7.69
-
-
3.69
Accept
ed
2
Adequate finance be
budgeted
21
80.76
5
19.23
-
-
-
-
3.80
Accept
ed
3
Awareness of merits
for collection
development policy
12
46.50
10
38.76
4
15.38
-
-
3.30
Accept
ed
4
Professional librarians
to draw the policy
18
69.23
4
15.38
4
15.38
-
-
3.53
Accept
ed
5
No course should be
considered Inferior
22
84.61
4
15.38
-
-
-
-
3.84
Accept
ed
6
The policy should be
flexible
2
7.69
3
11.53
18
69.23
3
11.5
3
2.15
Reject
ed
7
Patron’s interest be
considered
3
11.53
7
26.92
16
61.53
-
-
2.50
Accept
ed
8
Collection
development policy
should be available
8
30.76
4
15.38
14
53.84
-
-
2.76
Accept
ed
9
Cooperation from
parent organization
15
57.69
11
42.30
-
-
-
-
3.80
Accept
ed
10
Collection
Development Policy
should be supervised
16
61.53
10
38.76
-
-
-
-
3.61
Accept
ed
Cluster Mean
3.29
Accept
ed
The data analyzed in table 4 indicates that in order to overcome poor implementation of collection
development policy in Polytechnic libraries shows that Respondents with 76.92% strongly agreed adequate
time to draw up the policy be made, (4) Four respondents with 15.38% agreed adequate time to draw up the
policy be made while (2) Two respondents with 7.69% strongly disagreed while no respondent disagreed.
IJEBSS e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 73
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
The item which has a mean score of 3.69 is acceptable.(21) Twenty-one respondents which indicated
80.76% strongly agreed adequate finance be budgeted, (5) respondents with 19.23% also agreed while no
respondent strongly disagreed or disagreed adequate finance be budgeted.
The item which has a mean score of 3.80 is acceptable. (12) Twelve respondents, (46.15%)
strongly agreed awareness of merits for collection development policy be made, (10) ten, respondents with
38.46% agreed awareness of merits for collection development policy be made, (4) Four respondents with
15.38% disagreed awareness of merits for collection development policy be made and no respondent
disagreed to it. The item which has a mean score of 3.30 is acceptable. (18) Eighteen respondents with
69.23% strongly agreed, Professional librarians to draw the policy, (4) Four respondents with 15.38%
agreed Professional librarians to draw the policy, and (4) Four respondents with 15.38% also agreed
Professional librarians to draw the policy while no respondent disagreed to it.
The item which has a mean score of 3.53 is acceptable.(22) Respondents which indicated 84.61%
strongly agreed no course should be considered Inferior and (4) four respondents with 15.38% agreed no
course should be considered Inferior while no respondent strongly disagreed and disagreed on no
course should be considered Inferior. The item which has a mean score of 3.84 is acceptable. (2) Two
respondents with 7.69% strongly agreed the policy should be flexible and (3) respondents with 11.53%
agreed to it while (18) Eighteen respondents with 69.23% strongly disagreed and (3) respondents with
11.53% disagreed to it. The item which has a mean score of 2.15 is rejectable. (3) Respondents with
11.53% strongly agreed patrons interest be considered, (7) Seven respondents with 26.92% agreedto it
while (16) Sixteen respondents with 61.53% strongly disagreed and no respondent disagreed patrons
interest be considered. The item which has a mean score of 2.50 is acceptable. (8) Eight respondents with
30.76% strongly agreed collection development policy be made available, (4) four respondents with
15.38% agreed to it while (14) respondents with 53.84%strongly disagreed and no respondent disagreed
collection development policy be made available. The item which has a mean score of 2.76 is acceptable.
(15) Fifteen respondents with (57.69%) strongly agreed cooperation from parent organisation and (11)
eleven with 42.30 agreed cooperation from parent organisation while no respondent strongly disagreed and
disagreed to it. The item which has a mean score of 3.80 is acceptable. (16) Sixteen respondents with
61.53% strongly agreed and (10) ten, respondents with 38.46% agreed the supervision of collection
development policy while no respondent strongly disagreed and disagreed to it. The item which has a mean
score of 3.61 is acceptable.
3. Results and Discussions
From the results of the study, a collection development policy is available but encompasses only
the area of acquisition. This finding supports the view of (Gregory, 2019) who perceives that a functional
collection development policy is to provide guidance to staff when selecting and deselecting resources for
the local collection. He further opines that it serves as a guideline for acquisition. It was also discovered
that collection development policies are not very effective in these libraries. In other words, written
acquisition policies should be available in Polytechnic libraries and academic libraries at large and these
policies should strictly be followed when selecting and deselecting library resources.
The result of findings shows that Effect of poor implementation of collection development policy
ranges from No one is responsible for building library collections, Selection of library collections is done
haphazardly, Library budget is wasted, Patrons are not satisfied in search of their information needs, The
objectives of the library are not met, Some of the library collections are irrelevant, Most collections are not
accessed and utilized, The library is abandoned for another and Less attention is given to the library. The
issue of no one is responsible for building library collections supports (Kohlberger & Gadermaier, 2022)
when he noted Effective selection depends on a successful partnership between each academic department
and the Library. Faculty librarians, whose role it is to support academics, researchers and students, are
responsible for developing collections in all formats in their designated subject fields informed by the
collection development policy and collection analysis tools while the issue of selection of library
collections haphazardly supports the view of (Hallam et al., 2021) who noted that the Faculty Librarians
liaise with faculty members when making collection development decisions in line with the collection
development policy. Together they determine priorities, decide which material should be acquired, which
methods for delivery are most suitable, the number of copies to be purchased, and movement between
library locations. Where requests for material from a department come to less than anticipated, the librarian
may, in liaison with that department’s faculty, purchase materials for the department to support the
undergraduate curriculum and/or, in agreement with the relevant Dean and Heads of Department, transfer
funds to accounts that have orders pending. He also stated that when the management failed to implement
the collection development policy, it becomes a faculty or a man business and most times not having the
74 e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 IJEBSS
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
interest of the library users at heart but personal gains.
From the result of the study which invariably was derived from the respondents in research
question 3, the following factors were identified: Lack of funds, Lack of cooperation from parent
organization, inadequate professionals/librarians, lack of collection development policy, materials not
relevant to the polytechnics curricular and resistance to change. These findings are in consonance with
some of the problems pointed out by (Mace et al., 2018) which included poor funding, lack of collection
development policy, lack of written development policy, lack of equipment and facilities. He further
mentions that the obligations of libraries cannot be totally fulfilled unless there is adequate fund for the
library.
The problem of funding supports the view of (Wanjiku Ndungu & Wacuka Gikandi, 2018) who
concurs that lack of funds from various governments has been noted as one of the causes for poor
performance of academic libraries. This finding shows that serious attention should be made in these
libraries to correct these identified problems. These problems can be remedied if solutions are approached
through the above perspective. On the issue of strategies that can improve implementation of collection
development policy, the respondents agreed that all the strategies suggested ranging from adequate time to
draw up the policy be made, adequate finance be budgeted, awareness of merits for collection development
policy be made, Professional librarians to draw the policy, no course should be considered Inferior, the
policy should be flexible, patrons interest be considered, collection development policy be made available,
cooperation from parent organization. The issue of no course should be considered inferior supports
(Gregory, 2019) views that a collection development policy serves as a contract with users which
demonstrate the individual within what they can expect of the library both in terms of collections and of the
service. A thorough planning and execution by librarians in developing current and adequate information
resources that will embrace the curriculum of the Polytechnics is also recommended. The issue of patrons’
interest be considered supports (Henderson et al., 2020) who pointed out that is a necessity for any
meaningful library development if the librarian must also ensure that no race, nationality, profession, trade,
religion, school of thought, or local customer is overlooked during selection.
4. Conclusion
The study reveals that lack of collection development policy in the area of weeding, gifts and
exchanges and selection poses a lot of problems in collection building. The process of collection
development will not be fully implemented if there are no written policies guiding these library practices.
It was discovered that information materials are acquired mainly through gifts and purchase. This implies
that there is the need to embrace other avenues of acquiring information such as donations and exchanges
in order to enhance their collections. The implication is also that the libraries may be flooded with books
and information materials not relevant to the curriculum of the institutions.
Inadequate professionals/librarians, resistance to change, lack of cooperation from parent
organizations, worn out materials, and lack of collection development policy were among the major
constraints libraries faced as a result of poor implementation of collection development policy. The
implication is that if library administrators do not adequately plan for provision of sufficient funds,
employment of qualified librarians, this will lead to low quality of lecturers and students research
activities/output of the library.
5. References
Ajibola, S. G., & Kolawole, S. A. (2021). Review Of Academic Library Information And Human
Resources: Evidence From Osun State University, Nigeria. Annals of Spiru Haret University,
Economic Series, 21(3), 192–208.
Alam, A. (2022). Platform Utilising Blockchain Technology for eLearning and Online Education for Open
Sharing of Academic Proficiency and Progress Records. In Smart Data Intelligence (pp. 307–320).
Springer.
Barringer, S. N., & Pryor, K. N. (2022). Understanding Academic Structure: Variation, Stability, and
Change at the Center of the Modern Research University. The Review of Higher Education, 45(3),
365–408.
Björkdahl, J. (2020). Strategies for digitalization in manufacturing firms. California Management Review,
62(4), 17–36.
IJEBSS e-ISSN: 2980-4108 p-ISSN: 2980-4272 75
IJEBSS Vol. 1 No. 2, December 2022, halaman: 67-75
Gregory, V. L. (2019). Collection development and management for 21st century library collections: an
introduction. American Library Association.
Hallam, S., Reel, B., & Heisserer-Miller, R. (2021). Overdue: Collection development and deselection
projects for a faculty-selected collection. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 28(1), 51–66.
Henderson, J. W., Warren, K., Whitmore, K. F., Flint, A. S., Laman, T. T., & Jaggers, W. (2020). Take a
close look: Inventorying your classroom library for diverse books. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 747–
755.
Horton, J. (2019). Senior citizens in the twenty-first-century public library. Public Library Quarterly,
38(2), 179–192.
Kohlberger, M., & Gadermaier, G. (2022). SELEX: Critical factors and optimization strategies for
successful aptamer selection. Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, 69(5), 1771–1792.
Mace, G. M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N. D., Cornell, S. E., Freeman, R., Grooten, M., & Purvis, A. (2018).
Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 448–451.
McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., Ryan, R. E., Thomson, H. J., Johnston, R. V, & Thomas, J. (2019).
Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. Cochrane
Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 33–65.
Nagy, M., Radakovich, N., & Nazha, A. (2020). Machine learning in oncology: what should clinicians
know? JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 4, 799–810.
Nicolaidis, C., Raymaker, D., Kapp, S. K., Baggs, A., Ashkenazy, E., McDonald, K., Weiner, M., Maslak,
J., Hunter, M., & Joyce, A. (2019). The AASPIRE practice-based guidelines for the inclusion of
autistic adults in research as co-researchers and study participants. Autism, 23(8), 2007–2019.
Shehu, H., Imran, A. A., & Ojo, A. R. (2022). Challenges of utilizing library resources by students in
federal polytechnic Nasarawa state. Library Progress (International), 42(1), 11–18.
Wanjiku Ndungu, M., & Wacuka Gikandi, J. (2018). Strategic marketing of electronic resources in
academic libraries in Kenya. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 435–452.
© 2022 by the authors. Submitted
for possible open access publication
under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY SA) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
