College and Research Libraries Book Selection Policies in the College Library: A Reappraisal Charles A. Gardner Historically, faculty have been largely responsible for book selection in academic libraries. Not until the 1950s and early 1960s did university libraries, because of expanding budgets and publication output, alter this practice by adding staff bibliographers. Meanwhile, colleges still retain the older tradition of faculty control of book selection and book funds. Changing condi- tions make this practice increasingly suspect. It is time for librarians in colleges to follow the lead of their university colleagues by taking control of book funds and establishing authority over the selection process. persistent, largely unchal- lenged tenet of college library acquisitions policy is that which - assumes the dominance of teaching faculty in the book selection pro- cess. Historically, academic librarians have accepted not only that teaching fac- ulty would play an important role in li- brary acquisitions but also that they would be chiefly responsible for library book pur- chases and collection building. Until quite recently, this has been true regardless of library size and whether or not materials were intended for undergraduates or ad- vanced scholars and researchers. In recent years, however, university librarians have assumed the major role in book selection in their institutions. But in college li- braries, especially those in small under- graduate institutions, faculty dominance in book selection is still generally consid- ered the wisest way to build strong, rele- vant, and balanced collections. The time has come to challenge this particular or- thodoxy. Recently, the convergence of a number of factors has placed the acquisitions pro- cess under severe stress. These factors in- clude the relentless rise in book prices that yearly outstrips national inflation rates; the persistent trend toward smaller in- creases in most college book budgets; the virtual disappearance of grant funds for acquisition; the drying up of Title II-A fed- eral support; and the awesome annual leap in journal subscription prices that consumes an ever larger portion of an al- ready hard-pressed materials budget. In the final analysis, the acquisition of li- brary materials always has been the re- sponsibility of the librarian. It is the librar- ian who has been held accountable, and rightly so, for the growth, balance, and adequacy of the college library's collec- tion. Today, getting the right books on the shelves-those carefully selected materi- als that meet undergraduate needs and provide balance and strength throughout the collection-has never been more diffi- cult, particularly in the small college li- brary. Yet college librarians still apportion book funds to faculty and rely heavily on them for book selection. To coritinue to turn over to faculty a major portion of the book budget in these times of increasing budgetary stress is a practice that must be questioned. The history of American acquisition pol- Charles A. Gardner is director of libraries at Hastings College, Hastings, Nebraska 68901. 140 ides and practices was thoroughly re- searched by Danton in 1963. 1 In Book Selec- . tion and Collections, he demonstrates how American academic library acquisitions practices developed in the nineteenth cen- tury, were modeled closely on those of the German university libraries. Because it was common practice in German aca- demic libraries to tum over available book funds to the various faculties and faculty committees for selection purposes, this became the prevailing pattern in Ameri- can libraries as well. 2 The practice of vesting primary author- ity for academic library collection building in the teaching faculty was so widely ac- cept~d by 1926 that the editors of the American Library Association's survey of American libraries could state, "in li- braries reporting, practically complete control of departmental allocations is vested in the departments, subject to such centralizing supervision on the part of the library as may be necessary.' ' 3 A few years later the U.S. Office of Education reported that of forty-eight libraries reporting to a Suroey of Land Grant Colleges and Universi- ties, thirty-five stated that they divided their book fund among academic depart- ments.4 Randall, the author of one of the first widely used textbooks on college li- brarianship, endorsed this practice stating that ''the initiating of the purchase usually comes from the faculty, who indicate to the librarian the titles to be acquired on their individual budgets. " 5 Although an occasional voice questioned this ortho- doxy or warned of the dangers of faculty predominance, 6 the literature of the 1930s centers not on the rightness or wrongness of the practice but on how best to allocate funds. Through the 1940s and 1950s, conven- tional wisdom continued to accept the preeminent responsibility of faculty in book selection. Writers of the period wres- tled with the problem of equitable alloca- tion while acknowledging that the major role of librarians in the selection process was that of filling gaps, acquiring basic ref- erence materials, and purchasing general and recreational reading. Shortly after World War II, in a ''state of the art'' pro- nouncement, leaders in the field of aca- Book Selection Policies 141 demic librarianship stated that the ''policy of book selection by members of the fac- ulty . . . is well established in American colleges and universities .... This has been, and is, sound and sensible practice even though faculty members sometimes lack information about the literature of their fields and knowledge of book selec- tion.''7 Although there were some who were beginning to question the wisdom of this traditional split in acquisitions responsi- bilities, university as well as college li- braries confirmed the accepted ortho- doxy. Of thirty-one universities responding to Felix Reichmann's survey, only four reported that their libraries did not participate in the selection process. But the majority acknowledged their pro- fessional staffs' chief responsibility to be that of filling gaps in serials and purchas- ing general reading materials. Only two of the thirty-nine reported that libraries su~­ gested titles and purchased in all fields. The lean times of the 1930s and the hia- tus in collection building caused by World War II were followed by a period of accel- lerated collection growth. Throughout the 1950s, and particularly in the early 1960s, some were wondering about the necessity of a new role for professional librarians in light of swelling acquisitions budgets. In 1953, Fussier said, "It is my impression that the number of faculty members who are both able and willing to carry this par- ticipation in the actual detailed selection is a diminishing one.''9 In a prophetic state- ment he added, "In many, if not most, of the larger university libraries, the library staff, rather than teaching faculty will in- creasingly carry the burden of implement- ing acquisition policy.' 110 Speaking for smaller libraries, Thornton suggested that ''while the arbitrary and self-perpetuating allocation of the budget to departments has perhaps kept a sort of peace and as- sured a rough equity, . . . this process may also need careful review." 11 One of the earliest and strongest dis- senters to prevailing patterns of selection was Bach. His 1957 article divided book se- lection policies into three 'types: those which relied principally on faculty for se- lection; those-the majority-which speci- 142 College & Research Libraries fied that materials be selected by faculty with the aid and advice of library staff; and those-the minority-which put selection responsibility in the hands of librarians with aid and advice from faculty. Bach ap- plauded the minority in the latter cate- gory, calling them the avant-garde of li- brarianship. u Later, in an essay entitled, "Why Allo- cate?,'113 Bach flatly recommended an end to departmental budgetary allocations. Here he marshalled evidence summariz- ing the disadvantages of the current sys- tem and sparked a lively debate in the lit- erature. But librarians in the 1960s were slow to abandon major faculty involve- ment in book selection. What did begin to emerge as a patt~rn was the appointment of staff bibliographers and subject special- ists in the larger libraries. As Edelman and Tafum point out in their excellent survey of academic library acquisitions practice, ''By the 1960s the scope and size of the se- lection process had grown well beyond the capabilities of part-time faculty selec- tors, and one by one each of the larger li- braries appointed an in-house selection staff. " 14 Haro, in his survey of university libraries, found that by 1967, 69 percent of large libraries used bibliographers or sub- ject specialists. 15 Clearly a shift was under way-at least in larger libraries. The sheer volume of publication and the growth of acquisitions budgets was forcing a change in librari- ans' perceptions of their role in book selec- tion. A new stance, one of shared respon- sibility for adding to subject collections, began to emerge. Librarians began to be concerned with the role of staff bibliogra- phers, creative and cooperative ways of utilizing both library and teaching faculty in the selection process, and joint decision making on purchases. This concern was typified by Schad and Adams who advo- cated a shared faculty-library strategy to build collections in specific library identi- fied subject areas as an alternative to sim- ply allocating funds to departments. 16 Wulfekoetter, in her text on acquisitions work, articulated this new viewpoint as well as any, stating that, ''book selection is now increasingly a responsibility of the librarian and his staff in conjunctio~ with March 1985 the faculty in academic libraries.'' 17 Lane, in his 1968 survey of the literature, noted a definite shift of opinion from a faculty- dominant to a library-dominant position in large academic libraries. 18 In most larger libraries, this idea of shared selection and expenditure respon- sibilities has become a cornerstone of ac- quisition policy. Recent literature reflects this thinking, particularly as it relates to university libraries, even though the bountiful flow of funds in the 1960s greatly slowed in the 1970s and 1980s. But what of smaller academic institu- tions? The results of a survey conducted by Scherer of library-faculty cooperation in 275 small, private, liberal arts colleges documented a 11 common practice of allo- cating definite amounts to departments who then made requests for book pur- chases. 1119 While staffs in university li- braries were enlarging to accommodate bibliographic specialists, college library staffs remained static. Perhaps this is why college libraries, without an infusion of subject specialists, have continued to par- cel out book funds to academic depart- ments despite the shift in the philosophy and practice of their larger sister institu- tions. An examination of the recent litera- ture reveals that the old selection ortho- doxy still prevails in small college libraries. Articles by Helling a, 2° Carlson, 21 and Werking and Getchell22 illustrate current thought on small college selection proce- dures. Hellinga concludes that II a small college library, which cannot rely on a staff of trained bibliographers, must either depend upon one or two librarians to keep abreast of all fields (an impossible task!) or it must depend upon the faculty. 1123 Carlson states that 11 a successful library program . . . should be centered about the educational program, which means the acquisitions effort must be faculty cen- tered rather than librarian centered. 1124 Werking and Getchell assume allocation of funds to faculty and suggest using Choice magazine as a means of determin- ing literature size for allocation purposes. Recent textbooks on college librarian- ship and acquisitions, with a single excep- tion, reflect the same thinking. In The Small College Library, Sister Helen Sheehan states that, "As soon, however, as the book budget and the number of faculty in- crease beyond the very minimum, it is necessary to have formal division of funds and some formal arrangements with the faculty for book selection in their sub- jects. 1125 In what is perhaps the most com- monly used textbook on college librarian- ship, Lyle states that "in the subjects taught in the college, the job of critical evaluation of specialized books may best be left to scholars in each field. 1126 He fur- ther notes that ''The concern of the librar- ian and library staff in selection is princi- pally with reference books, recreational reading, and general books. 1127 Although Bonk and Magrill, in their work on collec- tion development, advocate shared selec- tion responsibility, they state that "col- lege selection should lean heavily on all faculty members, and full participation should be encouraged by the heads of de- partments.' ' 28 The single exception to this prevailing opinion is that expressed by Miller and Rockwood in a recent collection of essays on college librarianship. They hold that li- brarians ''should secure control of their acquisitions budget if they do not already have it. In too many colleges, academic departments control and expend their budgets to no discernable criteria. " 29 Challenged on this point by another con- tributor, Miller responded by stating that while the authors endorsed the idea of al- location of library funds, librarians should stand ready "not only to expend depart- mental funds, but also to exercise judg- ment on all departmental orders. We do think," he continued, "that librarians should reserve the right to approve every request.' ' 30 To judge by recent research, however, Miller's point of view is a minority one. Small and medium-sized colleges still de- pend heavily on faculty selection. Futas' 1976 survey of 175 academic libraries of all sizes revealed that ''a simple count shows overwhelmingly that facul~ are prime ini- tiators [of book orders]. 113 Her evidence confirms that while in universities book selection is a shared responsibility and in junior colleges librarians tend to do most Book Selection Policies 143 of the selection, in small and medium- sized colleges, librarians still rely heavily upon facul~ selection as a matter of writ- ten policy. 3 Over the years, arguments for giving faculty primary selection responsibility generally boiled down to three: teaching faculty know the· literature of their own subject fields best; only faculty can iden- tify those materials most appropriate for their own study and research; and faculty who teach are best prepared to select course-related materials. There is, of course, some truth to each of these argu- ments. But all are open to challenge when examined from the perspective of the small college library. First, it must be remembered that the primary mission of smaller academic insti- tutions is undergraduate instruction, not research. College faculty are primarily teachers, not researchers. Furthermore, the longer they teach at the college level and remain away from graduate schools and research facilities, the more likely they are to lose touch with the scholarship of their fields. This is not an indictment. It simply means that their talents and ener- gies are devoted more to undergraduate teaching than to other scholarly pursuits, including staying abreast of the flood of publications in their subject areas. Because these faculties do not work with graduate students and because they are most often full-time instructors, their per- sonal need for research materials is less than that of their colleagues at schools with graduate programs. Further, the pressure for publication is less intense at the college level and the corresponding need for library research and graduate- level materials is modest. Another important consideration is that in smaller institutions where two, three, and four person departments are com- mon, it is impossible to expect of even the most knowledgeable and diligent faculty currency in all subfields of their respective disciplines. Yet departmental allocation of book budgets assumes this by making them responsible for broad subject areas. Concerning student book needs, it is clear that teaching faculty know what their students need as assigned reading. 144 College & Research Libraries But librarians are in a far better position to observe what materials students actually use in the library. Most reference librari- ans would confirm that actual student needs and usage are sharply different from their needs as perceived by their pro- fessors. The more intimate and informal student-librarian relationships enhance li- brarian awareness of student library us- age, and circulation records add to their knowledge. Over the years, a number of librarians have questioned the conventional wis- dom that suggests that primary responsi- bility for book selection ought to reside with teaching faculty. They have cited fac- ulty disinterest, a tendency for faculty to select avidly only in their own narrow fields of study or areas of special interest, the laziness or procrastination of a few, and the inevitable gaps and weaknesses that result from inadequate coordination of acquisitions. Also commonly men- tioned are the inflexibility of the allocation process that does not respond quickly to major shifts in curricular need; the touchy problem of having to shrink some alloca- tions and expand others yearly; and the waste that results from the "crash" selec- tion that is required to prevent the loss of funds when some departments fail to ex- pend their allocation by the end of the fis- cal year. No stronger reason for questioning the allocation process has been offered, how- ever, than the one relating to professional responsibility. Many have spoken to this point, but none more cogently than Dan- ton, who asserts, ''allocation tends to re- move responsibility for book selection from the library where it administratively, philosophically and usually legally be- longs, and places it on the faculty, who cannot be responsible or accountable .''33 Continuity as well as professional re- sponsibility obliges the library to assume selection leadership. It has become in- creasingly common for colleges to employ part-time and short-term teaching faculty. Continuity in collection building in such situations is very difficult unless the li- brary provides it. Nor can part-time and transient faculty be expected to involve themselves in the ongoing collection eval- March 1985 uation and preservation efforts so crucial to the maintenance of a strong, up-to-date undergraduate library. Even permanent and full-time faculty who can find the time for consistent attention to evaluation and weeding of the collection are rare. These reasons for questioning the allo- cation of book funds remain valid today. In addition, developing circumstances in academic librarianship call ever more ur- gently for a reexamination of faculty- library relationships and the role each plays in the book selection process. To- day, even very small college libraries are involved in some way with_computer ap- plications to technical processes. Many are linked to OCLC for cataloging and in- terlibrary loan. Others use automated processes for acquisitions. It is highly likely that shared databases and comput- erized handling of all basic in-house chores soon will be commonplace in all small academic libraries. These technological changes will have an impact in all areas of library activity, in- cluding collection development. Already libraries are linked in sharing networks with instant electronic access to each oth- er's holdings. Networking arrangements and formal resource-sharing agreements will continue to grow, accelerated by ex- panding electronic and telecommunica- tion capabilities and out of financial neces- sity. Librarians must concern themselves with network holdings strengths and weaknesses, agreed-upon network acqui- sition policies, and protocols on collection building commonly arrived at in network compacts. This dynamic and active re- sponsibility cannot be realized if librarians are unwilling to change their historic pos- ture on selection. Common databases and networking mean new selection responsi- bilities that must be largely incumbent upon librarians. One would expect that as new technologies are put into place, time will become available for them to assume this new role. · It has not been the intent of this essay to minimize the assistance of teaching fac- ulty in the selection process. Their partici- pation is as vital now as it has always been. What is urged is a reevaluation of their role. The selection process must be seen as the responsibility of the library fac- ulty, aided and assisted by the teaching faculty, not the other way around. Shifting this focus will not be easy. The first step must be an abandonment of the departmental apportionment process. There is no reason why the book budget cannot be allocated internally by the li- brary as a means of balancing acquisitions. But such allocation does not have to mean the actual apportioning of funds to depart- ments. There are other means of involving faculty in the selection process, including selection review committees made up of teaching and library faculty, individual bibliographic conferences with faculty, shared use of book reviewing media, sub- ject bibliographies, and annual literature review sessions with individual academic departments. While finding new ways to involve the teaching faculty in the acquisition recom- mendation process, librarians must also find ways to convince college adminis- trators of the importance of centering selection decision-making responsibility within the library. With administrators, fiscal and collection quality accountability are beginning points in any statement of rationale. These should be reinforced with an exposition of the new imperatives of shared resources and the impact of new technology. Finally, a written acquisitions policy, arrived at in concert by librarians, teaching faculty, and administrators, can form the solid basis of a new approach to collection building. Such an approach accords fully with the "Standards for College Libraries" ap- Book Selection Policies 145 proved by the Association of College and Research Libraries in 1975. The commen- tary on Standard 2 states that, ''although in the last analysis the library must be re- sponsible for the scope and content of the collections, it can best fulfill this responsi- bility with the help and consultation of the teaching faculty and from students. " 34 Clearly, the Standards imply selection leadership and fiscal responsibility by li- brarians with teaching faculty in a sup- porting role. A fundamental goal of academic li- braries is the acquisition of materials to meet all reasonable instructional and re- search needs of faculty and students as well as resources for their general reading. The increasing number and cost of books, the tightening of acquisition budgets, and the widening scope of academic curricula are making the book acquisition process more difficult every year. The appropriate use of available technology and the full utilization of networks and other sharing arrangements will make this task less so. But college librarians, like their colleagues in university libraries, also need to begin to take control of their own book budgets. When a one-hundred-dollar bill scarcely will purchase four monographic works, and when every book selected also means one not selected, we must exercise increas- ingly careful stewardship over our pre- cious monetary resources. Surely such stewardship does not include putting a large share of our funds and the accompa- nying selection authority into other hands. REFERENCES 1. J. Perian Danton, Book Selection and Collections: A Comparison of Gennan and American Universities (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1963). 2. Ibid., p.30. 3. American Library Association, Survey of Libraries in the United States, V .1 (Chicago: American Li- brary Assn., 1926), p.237. 4. U.S. Office of Education, "Survey of Land Grant Colleges and Universities," Bulletin, no.9 (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1930}, p.652. 5. William M. Randall, The College Library (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1932), p.106. 6. Danton, ''The Faculty, the Librarian, and Book Selection,'' Library Journal61:715-16 (Oct. 1, 1936); Nathan Van Patten, "Buying Policies of College and University Libraries," College and University Libraries 1:64-71 (Dec. 1939). 7. American Library Association and Association of College and Reference Libraries, College and 146 College & Research Libraries March 1985 University Post-War Planning Committee, College and University Libraries and Librarianship (Chi- cago: American Library Assn., 1946), p.36. 8. Felix Reichmann, "Management and Operation," Library Trends 3:463 (April1955). 9. Herman H. Fussier, "Acquisition Policy: Larger University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 14:365 (Oct. 1953). 10. Ibid. 11. Eileen Thornton, "Acquisition Policy: The Small College Library," College & Research Libraries 14:371 (Oct. 1953). 12. Harry Bach, "Acquisition Policy in the American Academic Library," College & Research Libraries 18:441-51 (Nov. 1957). 13. Bach, "Why Allocate?," Library Resources & Technical Services 8:161-;65 (Spring 1964). 14. Hendrick Edelman and G. Marvin Tatum, Jr., "The Development of Collections in American Uni- versity Libraries," College & Research Libraries 37:236 (May 1976). 15. Robert P. Haro, "Book Selection in Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 28:104-106 (March 1967). 16. Jasper G. Schad and Ruth L. Adams, "Book Selection in Academic Libraries: A New Approach," College & Research Libraries 30:437-42 (Sept. 1969). 17. Gertrude Wulfekoetter, Acquisition Work: Processes Involved in Building Library Collections (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Pr., 1961), p.21. 18. David 0. Lane, "The Selection of Academic Library Materials, A Literature Survey," College & Research Libraries 29:371 (Sept. 1968). 19. Henry Scherer, "The Faculty and the Librarian," Library-College ]ournal3:41 (Fall1970). 20. Robert R. Hellinga, "Departmental Acquisitions Policies for Small College Libraries," Library Ac- quisitions 3:81-84 (1979). _ 21. James F. Carlson, "Book Selection and the Small College Library," Learning Today 4:37-43 (Fall 1971). 22. Richard H. Werking and Charles M. Getchell, Jr., "Using Choice as a Mechanism for Allocating Book Funds in an Academic Library," College & Research Libraries 42:134-38 (March 1981). 23. Hellinga, "Departmental Acquisitions Policies for Small College Libraries," p.82. 24. Carlson, "Book Selection and the Small College Library," p.38. 25. Sister Helen Sheehan, The Small College Library, rev. ed. (Washington, D.C.: Corpus Books, 1969), p.41. 26. Guy R. Lyle, Administration of the College Library, 4th ed. (New York: Wilson, 1974), p.177. 27. Ibid., p.179. 28. Wallace John Bonk and Rose Mary Magrill, Building Library Collections, 5th ed. (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1979), p.38. 29. William Miller and Stephen Rockwood, ''Collection Development from a College Perspective,'' in College Librarianship, William Miller and Stephen Rockwood, eds., (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1981), p.144-45. . 30. William Miller, "Collection Development: A Response/' in College Librarianship, Miller and Rock- wood, p.153. 31. Elizabeth Futas, Library Acquisitions Policies and Procedures (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1977), p.xxi. 32. Ibid., p.159-248. 33. Danton, Book Selection and Collection, p.69. 34. ACRL Ad Hoc Committee to Revise the 1959 Standards, "Standards for College Libraries," Col- lege & Research Libraries News 36:290 (Oct. 1975).