College and Research Libraries BARBARA A. RICE The Development of Working Collections in University Libraries An outline of the activities necessary to convert from comprehensive- ness of collection to selectivity of collection in university libraries is presented. These ar.e the development of ( 1) written collection poli- cies, (2) deselection programs, (3) cooperative storage and acquisition programs, and ( 4) the criteria necessary to evaluate the resulting col- lections. Responsibility for these activities is currently too diffuse and must he consolidated within the library. AcADEMIC LIBRARIES are currently eval- uating every aspect of their operations. De Gennaro ably summed up the situa- tion in "Austerity, Technology, and Re- source Sharing: Research Libraries Face the Future."1 He calls for an end to the correlation of "high expenditures, high growth rates, and large collections with library effectiveness." Speaking of col- lection development, he states that "the traditional emphasis on developing large local research collections must be shifted toward developing excellent lo- cal working collections and truly effec- tive means of gaining access to needed research materials wherever they may be." He does not specify how research li- braries are to accomplish this abrupt about-face, this transition from com- prehensiveness in order to achieve self- sufficiency to high selectivity with reliance on access. I believe that the transition is necessary and here outline an approach to the development of working collections. PRESENT COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Before proceeding to the outline, let's Barbara A. Rice is assistant librarian , State University of N ew York at Albany. examine the present collection develop- ment situation. Prior to 1960, responsi- bility for building comprehensive col- lections was vested in the faculty, with faculty meaning almost everyone but librarians. 2• 3 During the 1960s there was a shift in responsibility from the facul- ty to librarians (who had also in many cases become faculty). In 1967 Haro surveyed book selection in academic li- braries and found that there was a noticeable trend to selection by librari- ans, primarily by bibliographers (in acquisitions or a separate department) or heads of divisional subject libraries.4 This was also reported at about the same time by Danton and Lane. 5• 6 After this time, collection develop- ment literature shifted from discussion of responsibility to the use of blanket order and approval plans. A recent com- prehensive evaluation by Evans and Argyres summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of such plans and points out the lack of objective data by which blanket order plans can be evaluated. 7 At present, current book selection is usually being performed automatically by blanket order with the remainder of titles being selected by library faculty. In certain subject fields serials and periodical literature are of greater im- portance to research than monographs. I 309 310 I College & Research Libraries • July 1977 How are these selected? In 1962 Orr sur- veyed academic serial selection proce- dures and found that the pattern followed that of books. 8 Funds were allocated to academic departments, which had responsibility for selection. Approval was given by a library admin- istrator, acquisitions chief, or serials head. Only four out of sixty-six li- braries reported written acquisitions policy statements for serials. Whether selection of serials also shifted to li- brarians as did book selection is not clear from the literature. The picture for audiovisual mate- rials; technical reports; federal, state, and international documents; and other research materials is even more unclear than that for serials and periodicals. In most cases they are not selected by the same librarians who select books or serials. DEVELOPMENT OF WoRKING COLLECITONS Working collections cannot be devel- oped where selection responsibility is diffuse and ill-defined. To develop a working collection, it is first necessary to designate a working group which will have responsibility for and authority to make decisions relating to the acquisi- tion of all types of research materials. At present most book selection is done by bibliographers or by heads of subject divisional libraries. These individuals are the logical candidates to be delegat- ed the expanded responsibilities neces- sary to the development of working collections. Hereinafter, to simplify discussion, the collection development agents will be designated bibliographers and will be defined by their responsi- bilities. Their actual titles in different libraries will undoubtedly vary. Responsibilities The bibliographers' responsibilities should be: ( 1) development of written collection policies covering acquisition of all instructional and research ma- terials; ( 2) development of a collection deselection program; ( 3) development of cooperative acquisition and storage programs; and ( 4) development of cri- teria for the evaluation of working col- lections. This list of responsibilities makes it clear that the bibliographers need deci- sion-making authority both within and without the library. The preferred or- ganization would be a separate depart- ment of bibliographers (or branch li- brary heads under a coordinator) so that individual decisions could be coor- dinated and so that the unit head could go directly to other departments in the library. Sloan's analysis of collection development in university research li- braries shows it to be a boundary-span- ning activity. 9 It would be more difficult to span the requisite boundaries if the bibliographers were a subunit of anoth- er department. Bibliographers have traditionally in- "? teracted closely with technical services and reader services personnel and with university-wide faculty. They would have to carry on these interactions in developing collection development poli- cies and deselection programs. They would have to extend their boundaries in the development of cooperative ac- quisition and storage programs and in the development of evaluative criteria. Development of Written Collection Policies Academic libraries have traditionally paid lip service to the concept of writ- ten acquisition policies, but few li- braries have them. Given current publication rates and current acquiSI- tion budgets, each library must define its collection scope. The definition should be by subject field or area study. The subject fields chosen would be those educational and research programs which each library must support. The types of materials-serials, newspapers, ( data, technical reports, manuscripts, etc. -necessary to support each program should be specified along with language of publication, level of collection, and date coverage. ALA's Collection Development Com- mittee of the Resources Section, Re- sources and Technical Services Division, has developed guidelines for the formu- lation of collection development poli- cies.l0 They are extremely well orga- nized and specific and can serve as a base for the long-term task of generat- ing a working collection development policy. Although the responsibility for gen- eration of the document rests with the bibliographers, it must be prepared in close cooperation with university-wide faculty and those campus governing bodies which have 'the closest involve- ment with the library. This is essential to ensure that the policies support pres- ent programs. It also serves a publicity function in drawing the attention of the university community to the fact that a transition from comprehensive- ness to selectivity is taking place. New programs can no longer be planned with the assumption that the library will have the requisite resources to support them. Collection Deselection A logical consequence of the writing of a collection policy is the identifica- tion of materials which are candidates for weeding, i.e., removal from the col- lection. This is an area where very close coordination will be required with technical services. A program for the identification of weeded titles must be developed with this unit, and the time needed to revise or delete records must be integrated with the other technical services activities. The decisions on how to . dispose of the weeded materials will depend on how frequently it is expected that they wil1 ever be used. Most recent literature Working Collections I 311 on weeding discusses the removal of monographs or periodicals from the col- lection to a library controlled storage area. 11- 14 This should not be the only option. All materials not specified in the collection policy should be considered- whether books, documents, etc. The weeded titles may be discarded, ex- changed with another institution, traded for microfilm ( especially in the case of periodicals), or sold to help support current acquisitions. The decisions for various types of materials will obvious- ly vary. If storage is necessary, cooperative rather than simply local storage should be explored. Until national planning reaches the point where there are desig- nated regional last-copy depositories for books, serials, documents, etc., 15 such storage should follow the lines of exist- ing interlibrary loan networks. These , networks have the document delivery systems and communication mechanisms necessary to deliver the materials in a reasonable amount of time. Deselection involves not only weed- ing, but a review of materials being received on standing order or blanket order. Perhaps some subscriptions can be canceled or blanket order profiles re- vised. This process too depends to a certain extent on whether the materials are available elsewhere, e.g., Center for Research Libraries or within an existing interlibrary loan network. Cooperative Acquisitions Although cooperative acquisitions pro- grams have existed in this country since the mid-1940s, there has not been any great economic impetus to develop them. Again, once collection scope has been defined in detail, those peripheral areas where materials can perhaps be shared are identified. The budget com- plexities are no less than they have ever been. One other important factor does place shared acquisitions in a more favorable light, and that is the fact that I 312 I College & Research Libraries • July 1977 most libraries now have bibliographic access ( OCLC, NELINET, etc.) to whatever they decide to share. Criteria for the Evaluation of Working Collections This section can only be brief and speculative. Procedures to evaluate whether collections are working will evolve as we begin to develop them and experience the problems which will cer- tainly occur. Once collection policies have been defined, deselection programs initiated, and some cooperative storage and acquisition programs begun, we shall be better able to evaluate where we are. If number of volumes is no longer a criterion, what is? Perhaps we shall have to measure what percent of requests are filled locally, what percent within a week, or within two weeks. We shall need to inquire whether these de- livery times are satisfactory. EDUCATION OF THE USER As the processes needed to develop working collections get under way, edu- cation of the library user will also be re- quired. This education process, begun with the users' involvement in the devel- opment of the collection policy, must be carried through all the subsequent activities by the bibliographers. The university community, especially the faculty, must be aware of the impact that these changes will have on library service. Failure to embark on such long-range planning and programs will result in randomly hacked-up collections. Action begun now should result in the defini- tion and evolution of working collec- tions. HEFERENCES 1. Richard De Gennaro, "Austerity, Technolo- gy, and Resource Sharing: Research Li- braries Face the Future," Library Journal 100:917-23 (May 1975). 2. J. Periam Danton, "The Subject Specialist in National and University Libraries with Special Reference to Book Selection," Libri 17: 42-58 (1967 ) 3. Elaine Sloan, "The Organization of Collec- tion Development in University Research Libraries" (Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Maryland, 1973). 4. Robert Haro, "Book Selection in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 28:104-6 (March 1967 ). .5. Danton, "The Subject Specialist." 6. David Lane, "The Selection of Academic Library Materials, a Literature Survey," College & Research Libraries 29:369-72 (March 1968). 7. G. Edward Evans and Claudia Argyres, "Approval Plans and Collection Develop- ment in Academic Libraries," Library Re- sources & Technical Services 18:35-50 (1974 ). 8. Robert Orr, "The Selection, Ordering and Handling of Serials," in University of Illi- nois, Allerton Park Institute, Selection and Acquisition Procedures in Medium-Sized and Large Libraries (Champaign: Illini Union Bookstore, 1963), p.71-78. 9. Sloan; "The Organization of Collection De- velopment." 10. American Library Association, Resources and Technical Services Division, Resources Section, Collection Development Commit- tee, "Guidelines for the Formulation of Col- lection Development Policies," Library Resources & Technical Services 21:40-47 (Winter 1977). 11. Herman Fussier and Julian Simon, Patterns in the Use of Books in Large Research Li- braries (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1969 ). 12. Daniel Gore, ''Zero Growth for the College Library," C allege Management 9: 12-14 (Aug. 1974). 13. Carol Seymour, "Weeding the Collection: A Review of Research on Identifying Obso- lete Stock," Libri 22:137-48, 183-89 ( 1972). 14. Stanley J. Slote, Weeding Library Collec- tions (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1975). 15. Vernon Palmour and others, Resources and Bibliographic Support for a Nationwide Library Program. Westat Corporation Re- port to National Com mission for Libraries and Information Science (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974). J I