College and Research Libraries MARGARET DOBBYN Approval Plan Purchasing in Perspective Approval plan purchasing is related to library goals of comprehen- siveness, pointing out the interrelated pressures of the university sys- tem which have contributed to making this method of purchasing possible and the defensive techniques used to justify it. Suggestions are made concerning future possibilities of continuing to build large collections in individual libraries in the context of present expecta- tions which neglect the all important factor of the use of these col- lections. APPROVAL PLAN PURCHASING of domes- tic current publications is dynamic evi- dence of the conditions which have de- veloped in academic libraries during a period of aflluence, conditions which have made this method of purchasing possible. In evaluating approval plan purchasing the questions to consider are whether it is economical compared to other methods, and whether it supplies the library with needed materials. Al- though the purposes behind purchasing books for libraries should be clearly de- fined on the basis of needs or goals, the goals are often described as "stated edu- cational objectives" and "established program goals,''1 or "maintaining cur- rent research strength,"2 or "most aca- demic librarians today agree .... "3 It has become an assumption without attempts at explanation (indeed, who can ex- plain it) among research librarians that the goals are to acquire everything pos- sible of a "scholarly nature." Even "scholarly" is often defined only nebu- Margaret Dobbyn is social science librar- ian at Kansas State University library, Man- hattan. 480 I lously due to the assumption that every- one knows what scholarly is. Another rationalization is reflected in the atti- tude that anything in print can be dis- cerned or distorted to have some mea- sure of research value to someone at sometime for some unknown reason which the future alone will disclose. In this way actions and explanations are based on remote possibilities removing the librarian further from the reality of decision-making. As goals become more difficult to de- fine, needs impossible to assess, and cri- teria for scholarship deteriorate into be- ing exemplified by what is published or printed, advances in understanding ap- proval plan purchasing are not evident although this simple method of pur- chasing came about due to stress situa- tions which developed in academic li- braries' acquisitions departments. 4 The most specific cause of this stress was, of course, the rapid increase in book funds which had placed heavy burdens on many acquisition departments. Although staffs had increased somewhat as the book funds had grown, the staff in- creases were often viewed to be insuffi- cient compared to the book fund in- creases. Others attribute the growth of approval plans to the pressures caused by poor business techniques and tech- nical services procedures. 5 Whatever the causes for the stress, approval plan pur- chasing of current domestic publica- tions gave promise of relieving this pres- sure on acquisition departments. Along with the immediate stress situ- ation, other factors contributing to the increase of funds can be traced to in- creases in expectations, all stemming from growth of population and affiu- ence. Colleges expanded to include grad- uate programs and universities expand- ed to include more and more subject areas of research and graduate pro- grams. Standards of criteria based on numbers of volumes per student and faculty were developed. 6 University ad- ministrations frequently assigned pres- tige and salary according to research and number of publications, thus creat- ing a climate in which graduates and faculty pressure the library to have ev- erything they might want immediately available in order to publish before they perish. Ironically, the tremendous influx of material in print is partly due to the pressures to publish ( along with an available market!) spurred on by an exaggerated reverence toward research, and competition among scholars to get the papers and books into print. The attitudes of the accrediting agen- cies have been sympathetic to the goal of supplying scholars with all needed materials. They produced systems of counting numbers of volumes and num- bers of subscriptions (and gaps in pe- riodical runs!) for each individual li- brary. In short, these agencies have ex- erted their own unique pressure on the academic system. 7 As the various pressures operate throughout the system, the library has become the machine for adding as many volumes and subscriptions to each li- brary as book funds will allow. Initiat- ing orders in such quantities became im- Approval Plan Purchasing I 481 possible for the busy faculty; conse- quently, the teaching faculty released more and more of the responsibility for selection 'to the librarian and thereby shifted this burden to another desk. The librarian in turn, as noted above, has generally centered the problem in the acquisitions department. From the agents' view, a plan to sup- ply books for libraries had to be based on the expectation of broad compre- hensive coverage in order to justify a li- brary adopting the approval concept and discontinuing the former procedure of placing bids or scattered orders among many suppliers. The book agent surveying the above conditions in aca- demic libraries in 1966 logically reached the conclusion that he would be able to capture the bulk of the domestic book market and make a profit by capitaliz- ing on the librarian's goals of compre- hensiveness, inefficient procedures, and a lowering of criteria toward judgment and selectivity. So he sold his approval plan package to librarians who were also anxious to move the problem onto an- other desk, thereby eliminating some of the pressures exerted on the acquisitions department. 8 The approval plan contract, once en- tered into, needs to be defended be- cause an acquisition program geared to an approval plan can no longer be based on needs or values. Discussions of ap- proval plan purchasing of domestic cur- rent publications generally center on the questions of economy, selection of ma- terials, and speed of availability of ma- terials. While some insist that it is an economically efficient way of procuring books, others insist that it is not. 9 Those who advocate that selection is more val- uable with the book in hand, know that very little selection takes place after the books arrive, and that redundancy, du- plication, and an increasing rate of ob- solescence are evident in the mass of print so purchased. The fact is ignored that the percentage of unscholarly rna- 482 I College & Research Libraries • November 1972 terial that is added during the process clutters the catalogs and shelves and is available to the unsuspecting student.10 The literature even presents various jus- tifications for turning over the selection of what is needed · by the university li- brary to a businessman, whose primary interest in the academic community is profit. Those who argue that the speed of availability is an important benefit of approval plan purchasing neglect the fact that this is actually not important for the great majority of books so pur- chased. Then too, after receipt many volumes are held up for cataloging and processing, negating in most instances the supposed value of speedy receipt. As economy and speed become the focal points on which to judge approval plan purchasing, the assumption that every academic library needs all of this material is difficult to bring to the fore- front and relate to goals, unless, of course, the goals of academic libraries have become truly broad, comprehensive coverage insofar as funds will permit with a deterioration of criteria on schol- arship. In other words, the goals seem to have become, in reality, "add vol- umes" and hope that if enough volumes are added, broad, comprehensive cover- age will result. It is interesting to view Price's logis- tics curve as related to the future addi- tions of vast quantities of volumes in libraries. Price states that "In the real world nothing grows and grows until it reaches infinity. Rather, exponential growth eventually reaches some limit, at which the process must slacken and stop before reaching absurdity."11 Hope may exist that something will happen in libraries to prevent the continuous addition of volumes toward absurdity.12 Leveling off may occur, but for a time the logistics curve will show signs of fluctuation due to efforts to preserve the status quo. Indications are that recent decreases in funds may have already af- fected the curve.13 If Mason is correct in regard to economies, attitudes toward approval plan purchasing will change as librarians begin to experience less af- fluence.14 Perhaps then we can get down to the business of examining more in- telligently Urquhart's first law: The li- brary exists to meet the needs of the user as economically as possible, and find more economical ways to serve the scholar.15 It is well known that problems pro- liferate as college libraries become re- search libraries. The undergraduate li- brary's needs can be more explicitly de- fined and provided for. 16 Suggestions are available for alternate systems of pro- viding research materials but they will be difficult to initiate due to the present system of expectations which has been created. Not to be overlooked is the competition which exists between li- braries, and the difficulty of organizing and implementing alternative patterns of organization and service. 17 In the meantime, while we wait for changes in values, attitudes, and behav- ior in order to effect institutional chan- ges,18 approval plans will continue to be a means of purchasing books for li- braries; library volume counts will con- tinue to escalate even though 50 to 75 percent of the books so purchased will be little or never used items.19 Approval plan purchasing is a simple, easy, expen- sive method used by some acquisitions departments to purchase materials, many of which prove to be unnecessary and thus create a drain on other aspects of library operations. REFERENCES 1. H. William Axford, "The Economics of a Domestic Approval Plan," CRL 32:368, 370 (Sept. 1971). 2. E. M. Grieder, "Letters to the Editor," CRL 31:344 (Sept. 1970). 3. Jasper G. Schad, Ibid., p. 346. While Schad states that "Most academic librarians agree, . . . thirty acquisitions librarians at an In- stitute on Acquisitions Procedures in Aca- demic Libraries in San Diego, Aug./Sept. 1969, from thirty different libraries through- out the country did not have acquisitions policies and could reach no agreement on how to set up such an animal. While one staff member recommended "Collection De- velopment Policies" another staff member discredited the idea. One participant stated that the only selection policy evident in his library was reflected in the distribution of funds, while another admitted that since funds were no longer assigned to depart- ments in his library, he "just spent it" as requests came in. Others were more or less silent about their practices, presumably in an effort to gain some guidance toward more meaningful procedures of expendi- tures. No guidance was given and no con- sensus arrived at except, "It depends on your library," which became a standard Institute quote. 4. Carol Schaafsman, "Reviews," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 15:557-58 (Fall 1971). Schaafsman reviews Advances in Understanding Approval and Gathering Plans in Academic Libraries, edited by Peter Spyers-Duran and Daniel Gore. Kala- mazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan Uni- versity, 1970, in which she indicates that there are more prejudices than understand- ings. 5. Much of the information used to sum- marize the present state of the art in this paper can be found in detail in the litera- ture and needs no repetition here. For more information concerning these statements see: (in chronological order). Perry D. Morrison, "A Symposium on Approval Or- der Plans and the Book Selection Responsi- bilities of Librarians," with reactions by LeRoy C. Merritt, Joseph P. Browne, Stan- ley A. Shepard, Library Resources & Tech- nical Services 12:133-45 (Spring 1968). Ian W. Thorn, "Some Administrative As- pects of Blanket Ordering," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 13:338-46 (Summer 1969). Norman Dudley, "The Blanket Order," Library Trends 18:318-27 (January 1970). Roscoe Rouse, "Automa- tion Stops Here: A Case for Man-Made Book Collections," CRL 31:147-54 (May 1970). Marion Wilden-Hart, "The Long-Term Ef- fects of Approval Plans," Library Resources & Technical Services 14:400-06 (Summer 1970). "Letters to the Editor," Comments and Rejoinders to Roscoe Rouse, by Grie- der, Rebuldela, Schad, Schnaitter, CRL Approval Plan Purchasing I 483 31:341-48 (Sept. 1970). Colin Steele, "Blanket Orders and the Bibliographer in the Large Research Library," Journal of Librarianship 2:272-80 (Oct. 1970). Ax- ford, "Economics of," p. 368-75. 6. While continuing attention is on standards for evaluating libraries (see Signe Otter- son, "A Bibliography on Standards for Evaluating Libraries," CRL 32:127-44 ( March 1971) ) , the National Advisory Commission on Libraries in 1968 found it impossible to evaluate existing standards adopted by the American Library Associa- tion which are based on numbers of vol- umes, and they also point out that "sweep- ing generalizations with respect to user needs are likely to be misleading through incompleteness and inaccuracy." See the Report of the National Advisory Commis- sion on Libraries, "Library Services for the Nation's Needs: Toward Fulfillment of a National Policy, October 1968," in ALA Bulletin 63:74, 72 (Jan. 1969). 7. It is presently a matter of fact that the university community has available to it on request through interlibrary loan facili- ties much more than is presently in the individual library locally. The complete list of holdings of all of the libraries from which any library may request material is the actual fact of the number of volumes and titles available. Accrediting agencies must be aware of this. Nevertheless, in May 1971 I was approached to assist in the purchase of $10,000 worth of "gaps" in runs of mathematical journals. The gov- ernment funds had to be spent in a short time and the "gaps" were chosen for pur- chase to gain "points" (Brownie points?) with the accreditation agency which, as the mathematics professor stated, "counts each gap as a point against the department with graduate programs." One issue may be a "gap" or many volumes may be a "gap"! And too, the "gaps" up for purchase rep- resented titles which had just been proven to be little used or never used titles in this library by a use study of mathematical periodicals completed three weeks earlier by this reviewer. 8. If ninety academic libraries were currently participating in one or more of one agent's approval plans in 1968 (see Morrison, "Symposium on Approval"), it might be estimated that sales amounted to over $7,200,000. What are the facts? 9. Again I refer you to the articles listed in footnote 5. However my figures do not agree with Axford's 7.16 percent average discount. Using a sample of invoice slips 484 I College & Research Libraries • November 1972 for science books here, the average dis- count was determined to be 3.07 percent; and a random sample of social science books gave an average discount of 5.62 percent. The stated percentage rates on the invoice slips did not check out to be mathematically correct. When this was dis- covered, a call to the agent verified an ex- tra charge of 2 percent for each invoice. 10. On looking through 150 invoice slips for current approval plan purchases in H to HX category, a sociology professor on this campus remarked that he would estimate about 25 percent of these titles as "junk," and also that he hoped his students did not get hold of any of it. See also Henry Voos, "The Information Explosion; or, Redun- dancy Reduces the Charge!" 32:7- 14 (Jan. 1971 ). 11. Derek J. DeSolla Price, Little Science Big Science. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 20. 12. It is interesting to note that the current Bowker Annual has rounded off volume counts to the millions of volumes since 1964- 65. . 13. In 1966 it was predicted that upper limits of growth of research libraries were un- likely to be approached during the "fifteen years immediately ahead. . . . All would agree that such growth cannot continue indefinitely. Nevertheless, no clues appear ( 1966) which adequately suggest an early deceleration of growth. If deceleration oc- curs, it can hardly be expected before 1980 and perhaps not for many years there- after." 0. C. Dunn, W. F. Seibert, and Janice A. Scheuneman, The Past -and Likely Future of 58 Research Libraries, 1951- 1980: A Statistical Study of Growth and Change. Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue Uni- versity, University Libraries and Audio Visual Center. Second Printing, March 1966, p. 76. 14. Ellsworth Mason, "The Great Gas Bubble Prick't; or, Computers Revealed-by a Gentleman of Quality," CRL 32:193 (May 1971 ). 15. D. J. Urquhart, "The Library User and His Needs," Research Into Library Services in Higher Education. London: Society for Research Into Higher Education Ltd., February 1968, p. 2. 16. Virgil F. Massman and David R. Olson, "Book Selection: A National Plan for Small Academic Libraries," CRL 32:271-79 (July 1971). A promising design if co- operation were possible! 17. Many writers come to mind. Pings, Kraft, Rose, Boutry, Voos, Ralston-to name a few. I found the most encouraging and yet the most discouraging to be Mason's "Li- braries and Change," PLA Bulletin (May 1971)' p. 141- 50. 18. Vern M. Pings, "The Library as a Social Agency, Response to Social Change," C RL 31:177 (May 1970). 19. No hard data has been found to prove or disprove these statements, however three years experience in two university libraries in acquisitions and in reference handling approval plan books gives one some insights to accompany review of the literature. Ax- ford's tables ("Economics of," p. 375) could easily be interpreted to indicate that four of the five libraries did not need but one- half of the material that Library 1 was accumulating. He gives no indication of how much the material is us~d or how much of the unacquired 50 percent is missed in Libraries 2 to 5. In a library with simple automation pro- cedures which correlate the acquisition of books with circulation records it would not be impossible to actually measure the use, over five or even ten years, of 13,000 volumes received in one year on a domestic approval plan contract. The expense and tedium of such a use study probably do not seem practical in view of signs which in- dicate that the results will yield evidence of waste and who wants to be shown up as wasteful? Besides, at this time it may be impossible to get a government grant to finance such a study.