Introduction
As a research library, the University of Sheffield Library is in possession of close to a million print volumes, provides access to a similar number of e‑books, subscribes to hundreds of specialist e‑resources using a multi‑million pound budget and holds numerous archival and special collections. Yet traditionally, all of this was referred to simply as The Collection. The differing purposes and responsibilities of this over‑arching collection made it a challenge to manage, and masked that research libraries collections have evolved alongside technological developments and the changing needs of the researchers which they serve.
When the Library wrote its Comprehensive Content Strategy in 2020‑2021 (University of Sheffield Library, 2025), it articulated its different responsibilities. This included separating out the responsibility to connect users with content from the need to keep collections for wider cultural reasons. The thinking for this was based upon prevailing themes in collection management at the time. This article will outline how that thinking has developed into the collections concept at the University of Sheffield.
The premise is that the multiple roles of The Collection have become muddled. A solution to this is to move away from a conception of the library having a single, multi‑faceted collection, but rather to think of it as managing multiple (related) collections with specific purposes. It is not intended as a universal model for collection development, but rather it is hoped that this might prove a useful way of thinking about collections that may be helpful for other research libraries.
Themes in collection management
Previous attempts to think about the categorization of library collections have tended to focus on archival material, and to think first about its provenance and status. Research Libraries UK (RLUK) developed a framework for identifying unique and distinctive collections in 2014, which essentially used significance as a means of categorizing collections. In this taxonomy Heritage Collections were the most important, being those with ‘internationally or nationally significant depth’, followed by Legacy collections that have a ‘historic strength’ and then Self‑renewing collections that are locally significant and ‘meet the needs of current research and teaching’ (Research Libraries UK [RLUK], 2014). It also included a definition for Finite collections that are those that can ultimately be ‘considered for withdrawal’ (RLUK, 2014). The framework is essentially a means of ranking the significance of collections. It has efficacy in prioritizing the attention of the library, but it does not take into account the wider purposes of research library collections towards the academic endeavour. It assumes that the purpose of a collection is to wait to be discovered, however, this is only one part of what a research collection needs to do. A more comprehensive categorization is needed.
The facilitated collection
The notion of an academic library collection, at least implicitly, remains wedded to the framework of print, and this alone is not sufficient. Electronic dissemination has had a profound effect on the scope and scale of scholarly content but the forms and vessels of print – journals in issues, books in chapters – have been recreated in the digital space. Thinking of a library ‘collection’ when applied to electronic content is part of this dogged attachment, whereas, in reality what is being referred to is a mix of content ‘acquired permanently, … acquired temporarily, ... linked [but] otherwise never part of a formal collection’ (Levine‑Clark, 2019). Of these methods of providing content, only ownership harks back to the analogue print collection. Before the advent of mass digital information, owning and collecting material was the same as providing access to content. In the last thirty years these purposes have diverged but often without explicit recognition.
Similarly, collection building and collection management used to be broadly synonymous terms, but the balance of a contemporary research library content budget reveals the increasing de‑prioritization of an owned and locally selected collection. At the University of Sheffield around 85% of the library content budget is spent on subscriptions, and the overwhelming majority of these subscriptions are for electronic content. This is largely typical for the spending of a research library. The nature of most licensed electronic content means that when the funds cease to be available, the amount of content a user can access diminishes. Under an ownership model reduced funding represents slower growth. This means that library expenditure is more about maintaining local access to content, rather than collection building. Part of maintaining access is also preservation but here the responsibility for the long‑term digital preservation of the licensed content is devolved to the publisher. The implied conservational role of research collections can thus be lost.
The idea that the library collection is now facilitated rather than held locally has become a widespread part of how libraries think about the supply of content (Dempsey, 2016). It allows libraries to think about their ‘collections [as] just one service among many that [are] cultivated’ (Bullingham, 2025), but the idea of the collection as a service has limits. While the brokering of access is an important function of collection development, it is not its sole purpose, and by focusing attention here it is possible to overlook the curatorial and conservational aspects of the practice. The facilitated collection is reflected in the models that vendors now use to supply libraries and culminated in Clarivate’s 2025 decision to exit the sale of print books and perpetual e‑book licences. While there are various underlying motivators, this decision represents a misjudgement of how far the idea of the facilitated collection can be taken. The attachment to owning content persists, as it provides a security that pure facilitation cannot. Especially when subscribed collections ‘have demonstrated – causing great frustration … [that] content can be removed without library input or prior announcement’ (Haimé, 2025). Therefore, with the logistical overheads of providing access to licensed content representing a barrier, it is possible to see the open access movement as the natural fulfilment of the idea of the facilitated collection, and consequently library budgets are being repurposed in this direction (Barr, 2023).
Homogenized collections
The fact that library content budgets are increasingly given over to subscriptions, and mainly the same major subscriptions, reveals another trend of collection development identified by Dempsey and Malpas (2018) as the isomorphic collection – from the Greek to ‘look the same’. As institutions became homogeneous, consequently so did the offer from publishers and vendors, exemplified by the trend of journal subscription lists coalescing into large bundle deals and then transformative agreements. Add these to a suite of ‘must have’ academic products and it can be seen that the majority of library money is spent on content replicated across institutions. The user experience, then, is influenced more by the spending power of their library than by proactive collection management choices. This reality clashes with the perceived ideal that local library collections should serve and reflect the unique concerns of their local communities.
Inside‑out collections
While the budget of research libraries is increasingly eaten up by the same subscriptions, the deployment of library staffing has become more focused on uniqueness. This is the notion of the inside‑out collection, where the endeavour is more on ensuring that the unique parts of the collection are pushed out and made discoverable to a wider audience, rather than the traditional outside‑in approach of collecting content from beyond the institution and making it accessible for a local user group (Dempsey & Malpas, 2018). Again, the open access movement informs this idea, in that the unique outputs of a research institution, held in local repositories, are part of what is prioritized in inside‑out collection building. It is also heavily concerned with the material held within archival collections, which would not be duplicated at other libraries.
Last copies
Both the inside‑out collection and the facilitated collection are concerned with the dissemination of material. However, implied in the traditional role of the collection is also the responsibility to maintain the content within it. In a pre‑networked age this responsibility was primarily to maintain the collection for a local user group, with a vague acknowledgement of the wider cultural value of preserving rare material. This situation has changed and it is normal for research libraries to think about their connection to the wider information universe. Modern library systems and technologies afford the ability to think about research collections in relationship to each other and even of collective collection management. While there have been some attempts to build fully collective collections, progress in this area has been slow. It has been the ability to share the conservational burden on research libraries where collective collection approaches have become most developed. In the UK we have the examples of the UK Research Reserve (UKRR) (Stubbs & Banks, 2020) and the nascent UK Print Book Collection (UK PBC) (RLUK, 2023). These initiatives are not true collective collection development, they exist notionally as data and as an administrative layer (Lavoie et al., 2020) but their role in local decision‑making is significant. They are a practical articulation of the conservational responsibility of research libraries and in their processes they allow libraries to focus resources when ‘earlier goals of comprehensive academic collection development have been heavily tempered by sobering economic realities’ (Levenson & Hess, 2020).
The Sheffield collections concept
The collections concept at the University of Sheffield is an attempt to rationalize the prevailing themes in collection development. Its categorization is based around the intended purpose of a collection:
‘operational collections’ that are facilitated
inside‑out ‘unique and distinctive collections’
a ‘conservational collection’ that adopts a collective approach to the long‑term conservation of last‑copy material.
The University Library possesses a large (print and electronic) collection that has been built up over the history of the institution, and has adapted and responded to the changing academic environment. The specific local context at Sheffield has seen the University Library move from operating multiple subject‑focused sites to centralized research and teaching libraries. This centralizing process, and requirement to integrate the print stock of smaller libraries into a larger coherent collection, was the overwhelming drive of earlier collection management activities. As the priority of that work declined, it became apparent that a new approach to collection management was required.
Changing approach to collection management
The predecessor to the collection concept was a programme of works called ‘Making the Library Easier to Use’. It sought to move the stock from collections that had often been personally curated by subject librarians in direct service of individual departments to a more uniform approach. The underlying goal of this approach was, effectively, to create one consistent library collection. Secondary motivators were to reach zero net collections growth and to free up space to be repurposed in the library sites. It was considered to be successful internally, but the scale of the collection remained an issue to manage and the specific roles it was playing were implied rather than articulated. When the University Library came to write its new Comprehensive Content Strategy in 2020‑2021 (University of Sheffield Library, 2025) there was a natural opportunity to review the collections management approach.
Comprehensive content strategy
The strategy was designed to encompass much more than a traditional collection development policy but, nonetheless, collections form a considerable part of its focus. It describes seven means of deriving value from a collection. These are: academic, cultural, symbolic, organizational and curatorial, conservational, operational, and financial. Of these, some can be seen as applying to all collections whereas others only relate to particular kinds of collection. In that, within a research library, all collections can be said to have some academic value, just as all collections will have some financial value and have been organized in such a way that requires the deployment of staff effort. The symbolism of how and where a collection is presented is recognized as well, not in the sense of high or low value, but as an acknowledgement that this must be considered alongside more quantifiable types of value.
The remaining three kinds of value correlate to a categorization that has arisen out of the dominant themes in collection development. Operational value is the principal role of the facilitated or useful collection, cultural value equates to the inside‑out collection and conservational value is within the rare items managed by collective initiatives.
The collections concept explicitly recognizes that the Library is managing multiple collections with focused purposes rather than one collection with multiple overlapping purposes. The concept is also seeking to resolve the relationship between electronic and print collection, and between the ‘main’ library collection and its special collections and archives. In previous conceptions of the collection these relationships were implied rather than articulated, and the ambiguity presented problems for library management. This lack of clarity was heightened by the fact that formal policies had often been overtaken by local practice. Replacing ‘Making the Library Easier to Use’ with the collections concept allows for a structured collections management approach in line with the Content Strategy.
Categorization of collections
The collections concept defines three categories of collections that the Library manages. Within each of these categories there may be multiple collections with individually documented collection development plans (CDPs), but the categorization is by the predominant purpose of the collection. It should be noted that there are issues around the appropriate naming of categories. The collections concept uses the same Unique and Distinctive term as used in the RLUK report, for example, and conservational and operational are not necessarily fully sufficient descriptions of those collections. However, as they are mainly for internal use, what is important is that they are clearly defined for library staff.
Operational collection
The purpose of the operational collection is to efficiently supply users with the content they need most often. The assumption is that this content will be supplied electronically if possible, therefore, the vast swathe of the libraries subscribed and perpetually licensed e‑resources are governed as part of the operational collection. However, the collections concept continues to recognize that circulated print remains a crucial tool in efficiently and appropriately supplying our users. The majority of the operational collection is governed by a single collection development plan, but it is recognized that for subject or format reasons some smaller collections will be governed separately (e.g. the music collection).
Conservational collection
The conservational collection is the material that is not required for everyday use but which the Library will maintain as part of a wider network of academic libraries and cultural organizations. Specifically, the conservational collection relies upon the two collective initiatives within the UK to preserve print journal stock – via the UKRR – and print books – via the UK PBC. Because there is no expectation of local use, this material can be housed away from the main library sites, if required, or be moved into a collective store should one arise.
Unique and distinctive collections
Unique and distinctive collections are those that are likely to be of significant interest beyond the purposes outlined for the operational and conservational collections. This can be because they have a particular importance to key stakeholder groups, would attract significant interest for research, or have a wider cultural value. They include all the collections currently managed as part of the Library’s special collections and archives and will also include parts of the wider library collection that are deemed to be of special interest beyond their operational use. These collections require a higher level of curation and management and, as such, this recognition and separation will allow the library to focus its resources effectively.
Collections transformation plan
To realize the collections concept there is an accompanying Collections Transformation Plan which is designed to move from the existing structure to represent the categories of the concept. The plan’s activities consist of writing individual CDPs for the new collections, then undertaking the work to change acquisitions, metadata and withdrawal processes and carrying out the stock moves on the physical stock. In an ideal situation this would be undertaken as a focused project, but with resource challenges it is necessary to carry it out as and when the staffing is available. As such, having guiding principles becomes more important. While this work goes on there will remain parts of collections that do not fall into the categorization of the collections concept but ultimately once the Collections Transformation Plan is complete all material that does not fall into a category will have been withdrawn. This should then allow the research library to fulfil its various functions with more clarity and more ability to focus resources appropriately.
Conclusion
The approach that has been adopted at the University of Sheffield is not presented as a universal plan for collection development. Necessarily, the institutional context affects the way library collections are managed and issues of local priorities and restrictions will influence the approach taken. To a large extent, its success is yet to be determined and will be dependent on the level to which the Collections Transformation Plan can remain a priority. If the timescale of the work drifts then the benefits of the clarity achieved in the collections concept may be lost. The argument would be that by dedicating time to this work now it will make the collection, particularly the large legacy print collection, easier to manage, but it is hard to prioritize this underlying, foundational work when resource issues mean that core library deliverables are under threat.
What is, perhaps, most useful about the collections concept is the practical benefit of thinking about how different elements of a library collection require different management based upon purpose. By thinking of multiple collections it is easier to conceive of the actions required, whereas the traditional multifaceted, large research library collection can be an overwhelming concept. This helps with decision‑making in a volatile environment. This subtle change in thinking is important in allowing libraries to think about their collections, particularly their print collections, as an asset for research and not a legacy burden whose decline needs to be managed.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insights articles can be accessed here – click on the following URL and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa.
Competing interests
The author has declared no competing interests.