College and Research Libraries Approval Plans: Politics and Performance Robert F. Nardini Approval plans, controversial when introduced as a gathering technique during the 1960s and 1970s, have evolved into a focused acquisitions device commonly used in academic libraries. Yet approval plans remain controversial within some libraries because they are inherently political in nature. Approval plans chal- lenge library boundaries, requiring consensus on collection development and acquisitions priorities, cooperation among library departments, cooperation between the library and teaching faculty, and a close partnership with the vendor. Since few concrete performance standards exist, approval plan effec- tiveness is difficult to measure. Perceived difficulty of measurement contributes to the political nature of an approval plan. As in the past, vendors will play an active role in the evolution of approval plans during the 1990s, when libraries may establish cooperative profiles and add a new dimension to approval plan politics. "Approval and gathering plans are here to stay," predicted Peter Spyers- Duran, who in 1968 organized the first conference on this newly developed ac- quisitions method.1 Norman Dudley sec- onded Spyers-Duran with his 1970 observation, "[I]t seems very clear that ... approval plans are with us to stay."2 The following year a third librarian repeated the comment: "It seems obvious," re- marked H. William Axford at the third approval plan conference in 1971, "that the approval plan technique ... is here to stay."3 In fact it wasn't obvious in 1971 that approval plans were here to stay. The con- cept had been established by the Richard Abel Company during the 1 %0s. Yet in 1%9 Norman D. Stevens spoke for many librarians opposed to approval plans when he described them as symptomatic of "a more casual attitude toward the expenditure of funds." 4 His words were mild compared to others. In 1960 Eli Oboler had described librarians using publisher blanket orders, a forerunner of the approval plan, as having "no sense of values." 5 Stevens himself noted book ven- dors' "greedy demand for the library dol- lar."6 ~kepticism grew when the Abel Company failed in 1974.7 Other vendors took up the practice after the demise of Abel, sustaining the approval plan and thus the debate. In 1978 Rose Mary Magrill and Mona East wrote of lowered selection criteria and of booksellers who "set up plans to exploit the situation."8 Margaret Dobbyn's dis- sent was anthologized in a 1979 reader: "The literature even presents various justifications for turning over the selec- tion of what is needed by the university library to a businessman, whose primary interest in the academic community is profit."9 Given opinions like these, Spyers- Duran, Dudley, and Axford weren't simply reporting fact. They were argu- Robert F. Nardini is Codirector, Collection Management & Development Group, Yankee Book Peddler, Contoocook, New Hampshire 03301. 417 418 College & Research Libraries ing in favor of approval plans. Despite the hardy strain of criticism, many librarians agreed with them and the case clearly was won, to the degree that Dob- byn's statement has been the last out- right published attack on the approval plan idea.10 Certainly today's evidence indicates that approval plans are an accepted way to buy books. When the 1988 volume of H. W. Wilson's Library Literature fixed "Approval plans" as a subject heading, ending seclusion of the topic under "Ac- quisitions--order processes," a minor badge of legitimacy was awarded. Also in 1988, an Association of Research Li- braries (ARL) survey found that over 90 percent of respondents used approval plans. 11 While statistics are difficult to find, smaller academic libraries also show significant approval plan activity. 12 The ARL found "striking," nonethe- less, a "remarkable diversity of practice." The number of domestic approval plans varied from one to twenty-seven per li- brary. Libraries reported an assortment of approval plan types: comprehensive; uni- versity press; specialized plans for certain publishers, subjects, or formats; and other variations. Six ARL members re- ported no approval plans at all. 13 The ARL's findings hint that the ques- tion of how to use approval plans, even whether to use them, remains alive. Twelve years ago Jennifer Cargill's sum- mary report on the fourth, and most re- cent, approval plan conference said that they were "now regarded as a reliable and efficient tool." 14 Yet one 1988 ARL respondent said that a "vendor's busi- ness is selling, not selecting." 15 Another reported, "We have found there are no benefits for us and are considering discon- tinuing the one plan that we now have." 16 "It is apparent," the 1988 ARL report very cautiously allowed, "that in certain important respects, approval plans are a stable institution." 17 Caution had earlier been displayed in a 1982 report. "Ap- parently," concluded the ARL, echoing Spyers-Duran, "approval plans are here to stay." 18 With consensus in the litera- ture reached long ago and with wide- September 1993 spread approval plan use clearly docu- mented, why these refrains from an old debate? Two decades removed from the original words, the ARL's restatements were less a continuation of Spyers- Duran' s argument than a symptom of librarians' persistent unease with ap- proval plans. In fact, the debate once published in the literature takes place now more pri- vately, within the walls of some libraries. Approval plans remain controversial be- cause by nature they are inherently political. They raise questions about how library decisions are made and who has authority to make them. Approval plans trespass upon library boundaries: boundaries between teaching faculty and library, between administration and staff, between acquisitions and collec- tion development, between one subject selector and another, and between li- . brary and book vendor. Never easily drawn, these lines all may be challenged by a new approval plan or by change in an existing one. THE POLITICS OF APPROVAL PLANS The term library politics acknowledges that approval plans exist in a complex organizational landscape. To avoid the phrase is to slight the talents of the librar- ians responsible, sometimes in the face of opposition, for running approval plans. Despite a vendor's best work, no library will have a fully effective approval plan without having staff able to forge and maintain consensus on priorities and procedures. Approval plan politics is nothing more than that. · Boundaries between Library Administration and Staff One source of tension is disagreement between library administration and staff. "If the staff is opposed to it," re- called former Abel representative Jim Cameron, "you should just say thanks to the library and walk away. It won't work otherwise. If the director make the deci- sion that 'we want the approval plan' and the staff is not in favor of it, the plan won't work in that library." 19 A 1977 survey found administrators responsible more often than any other library group for the initiation of an ap- proval plan.20 In the ARL's 1988 report, savings in staff time was the most com- mon reason stated for having a plan.21 Demands upon academic libraries in the 1990s outpace growth in staff, one rea- son for the continued strength of ap- proval plans in a time of lean budgets.22 As in the days of the Richard Abel Com- pany, staff cooperation remains essential to approval plan success. Boundaries between Teaching Faculty and Library Hugh Atkinson, at the first approval plan conference in 1968, reported that a new approval plan at Ohio State had caused professors to feel the library "was somehow pulling a 'fast one' on them." 23 In a sense the professors were right, since librarians often have seen in approval plans a tactic to gain control over book funds, and, as a 1982 ARL respondent stated, a way "to assert [their] role in collection development over faculty." 24 Particularly institutions with no strong history of book selection by librarians might expect questions when teaching faculty learn that a portion of the usual funding-often viewed as "theirs"-will be diverted toward a pro- gram they barely understand. 25 "Ap- proval plans," remarked a physicist addressing a library conference, only partly tongue-in-cheek, "are schemes designed by librarians to frustrate the faculty and get librarians out of work." 26 In this second arena of approval plan politics, librarians must gain the cooperation of academic departments. Boundaries between Acquisitions and Collection Development Opposition to approval plans often comes from collection development librarians' sensing a loss of control in shipments of books that may anticipate their orders, that may be late in arriving, that a selector may dislike, or that may be wholly unfamiliar. Worse still is the time when a desired book fails to arrive Approval Plans 419 at all. Selecting books in tandem with a distant vendor's staff, and with foreign procedures and standards, may seem an alarming prospect to librarians who con- sider book selection "the quintessential professional act," as William A. Wort- man recently wrote. 27 Yet there are always skeptics like Daniel Gore, who referred to "the old myth that only they [selectors] were truly qualified to select books for their library." 28 Acquisitions librarians, apt to hold this less reverent view of selection, often see approval plans as a means to reduce the number of orders their de- partment must process.29 But to some acquisitions librarians, approval plans are an avenue through which others can intrude upon their domain. Workflows must accommodate the needs and schedules of selectors visiting the ap- proval review shelf. Returns must be processed, and the most discriminating selectors cause the most work for acqui- sitions. Vendor selection, a traditional acquisitions prerogative, can change radically, as the lion's share of the mon- ographs budget may go to a vendor chosen by committee. Certainly today's evidence indicates that approval plans are an accepted way to buy books. One approval plan advantage, accord- ing to a 1982 ARL respondent, is that the process "forces dialogue between acqui- sitions staff and selecting librarians." 30 The dialogue isn't always friendly. Achieving balance between acquisitions and collection development priorities is a third element in the politics of ap- proval plans.31 Boundaries among Selectors When a library buys monographs through firm orders, selectors may be free-constrained only by budget-to define the library's collecting interests as they see fit. But an approval plan re- quires that the library's needs be expli- citly stated in the form of a profile. 420 College & Research Libraries Reaching agreement on profile specifica- tions such as publisher or subject coverage will require negotiation and compromise, since most decisions will affect several selectors and many will affect all. 32 Budget is another issue. If an approval plan is funded as a single line item, wary selectors will try to prevent too much money from being transferred from their discretionary funds. If approval plan books are charged to selectors' lines, esti- mating the allotments may be difficult, especially for a new approval plan, since this means predicting how much the vendor will ship. Despite a vendor's best work, no library will have a fully effective approval plan without having staff able to forge and maintain consensus on priorities and procedures. Approval plan politics is nothing more than that. Collection development is a young function in many libraries. Authority lines may be weak for the collection develop- ment head. Nonetheless, the need for some means to achieve consensus within the selecting group comprises the fourth sphere of approval plan politics. Boundaries between Library and Vendor A fifth area of consequence intersects all the rest. Approval plans require that the library and vendor share professional ac- quisitions and collection development re- sponsibility. No other book-buying method puts the two in such an intimate relationship. Some librarians question that a partnership is possible. How compatible are business values and those of a li- brary? What part does the profit motive play in a vendor's individual and aggre- gate book selection decisions? Which party truly controls the approval plan? Competition among vendors for busi- ness is another factor in library politics. When vendors compete for a new ap- proval plan or attempt to displace an incumbent rival, the stakes can be high. Beyond financial reward is the less tan- September 1993 gible prize of prestige; i.e., the satisfac- tion of winning an important account. Bound up with the vendors' persuasive efforts may be staff's inclinations toward one vendor or another. Vendors will try to use these inclinations to their own advantage.33 EVALUATION OF APPROVAL PLAN PERFORMANCE "I have had frequent opportunity to ask and be asked," reports Dennis R. Brunning, "how is the approval plan doing?"34 Many librarians might say the same thing. Despite the prevalence of the question, answers will draw nearly al- ways upon impressions, not upon data. Approval plan performance, in compari- son to firm order service, is difficult to analyze quantitatively.35 Concrete and widely accepted performance standards hardly exist. Therefore, the case for or against approval plans may proceed on any. number of levels, many of them with political overtones. At the same time, the political nature of approval plans is a contributing rea- son for the lack of an adequate means of quantifying them. While consensus may have been reached that approval plans are good, the question of why they are good is less easily settled.36 Statements in the literature variously assert that speed of delivery is not important, that discount is overemphasized, and that a plan with a 43 percent rejection rate was performing well. 37 Librarians on the same staff, even within a department, may view an ap- proval plan in an entirely different :way. Setting aside staff who participate with reluctance, those who join willingly may do so for differing reasons and may bring their own priorities with them. Whose priorities will prevail? Should librarians seek depth and breadth of coverage (one area of possible disagree- ment), or should profile precision and a low return rate be the goal? Librarians aren't likely ever to have a ready equation to calculate approval plan success. Which factors should be ·rated, and what weight assigned to each? Return rate is often cited, since it is easy to measure. But the list of other variables is formidably long: speed of delivery by the vendor, breadth of cover- age, depth of coverage, accuracy in observ- ing the profile, billing and shipping accuracy, quality of bibliographic records, quality of management reports, customer service responsiveness, technical serv- ices, and discount. The relative impor- tance of these will vary from library to library, and from librarian to librarian. The political nature of approval plans is a contributing reason for the lack of an adequate means of quantifying them. While the need for regular monitoring of approval plans has long been recom- mended, putting an approval plan under formal study will certainly erase any time savings the plan may have won for the staff. Brunning recalls the "count- less hours" spent on his study, and Linda Ann Hulbert and David Stewart Curry concluded their research by warning that "the memory of the work involved ... will temper our enthusiasm for embarking on another." 38 In addition, researchers face a moving target. Since vendor service levels may rise or fall at any time with improvements or disruptions involving staff, facilities, or equipment, results can quickly become obsolete. A Case Study in Approval Plan Evaluation One approach to formal approval plan evaluation is to compare a working plan to a parallel system of selection, the method chosen by Linda Ann Hulbert and David Stewart Curry in their study of a new approval plan at the Health Sciences Library at the University of Iowa.39 The library had canceled an ear- lier plan because "coverage ... appeared unsatisfactory," and the new one faced skepticism.40 Alongside the new plan, staff continued to select from book re- views, publisher fliers, and other sources. After three months, their choices were compared to approval receipts. The ap- Approval Plans 421 proval plan brought in 38 percent of selections from fliers and 20 percent from reviews. The record varied widely by publisher and journal.41 Did the plan perform poorly or well? The authors concluded: ''We have assured ourselves that the approval plan ... works well for our library."42 A year later Hulbert, who by then had moved to a different library, repeated the study. She wrote a letter to College & Research Libraries, acknowledging an ab- sence of benchmarks to put her results in context: "Because the results from the original study could be taken by some as good and by others as mediocre, and, therefore, not conclusively in favor of approval plans, I felt the need to affirm that a good vendor can support a grow- ing collection and that dependency on that vendor is not an abrogation of the collection development responsibility of a library." 43 Comparing Vendors Another approach to approval plan evaluation is to compare an incumbent vendor to the competition, by asking one or more firms to operate a shadow ap- proval plan by supplying bibliographic records under specifications as close as possible to the live plan. Because ven- dors use different methods to construct profiles, it is hard to devise instructions that will have competitors doing exactly the same thing. In addition, researchers must contend with explaining what doesn't happen in a study, as well as describing what does happen. Thus it is far easier to compare speed when all vendors under study treat a given book, than to account for a title handled by one and not another.44 Did one vendor miss the title? Or did the profile, as understood by the vendor, exclude it? Or, did the vendor treat the title before or after the study's time par- ameters? In their 1989 study of sci/tech approval plans at Texas A&M University, Gloriana St. Clair and Jane Treadwell de- monstrate by their data that these ques- tions will need to be addressed. St. Clair and Treadwell asked four vendors to provide the same subject coverage over 422 College & Research Libraries the same period of time, to find that only 77 of 1,892 titles-4 percent-would have been supplied by all four vendors.45 . Study design aside, the question per- sists: how to interpret results? When one vendor supplied 67 percent of the titles treated by another, as Hugh Franklin found at Oregon State University, was this success or failure?% Or was 72 percent, as reported in 1982 at Texas A&M, a success?47 The respective test vendors might have seen things differently, but both results were in- terpreted favorably toward the incum- bents who had treated the smaller number of titles in both instances. An incumbent vendor-at the very least a familiar name in the library-has every chance to build trust, to form working relationships with all levels of staff, and to defend its approval plan against competing firms by influencing library decisions. Librarians often invest considerable time and effort to establish and maintain an approval plan with their vendor of choice. How many per- centage points better will a competing vendor need to be before the original investment is discarded? Communication between Library and Vendor The experience of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, described by Kay Womack et al., suggests what may happen to a neglectful incumbent. Womack re- ported persistent dissatisfaction among some staff, yet reluctance from others to part with their vendor of ten years. With a new dean and new acquisitions head, though, the library conducted a review of five vendors and made a decision to change. One lesson learned was "that vigilance must be maintained if the serv- ices of the vendor are to be used with skill. It was obvious from the vendor presentations that the Acquisitions staff had not understood the full capabilities of the vendor services. The presentations also revealed the importance of good communication between the vendor and Acquisitions."48 "Good communication" between ap- proval plan vendor and library has been a byword in the literature from the start. September 1993 When staff confess not to understand vendor capabilities, blame is placed clearly upon the vendor, who cannot have taken advantage of incumbent position to correct this, who must not have formed strong relationships with key staff, and who may have assumed that an arrangement of ten years' stand- ing would stand for ten more. As vendors compete in a market that is static at best, and as libraries search for efficiencies, the cooperative approval plan may arise. An attentive vendor is far more likely to pass review. Even if a study uncovers a usually responsible vendor's failure to ship one-third of the titles in a sample of desired new books, a librarian may still conclude that the approval plan "works as it should."49 More than once the bond between library and approval plan ven- dor has been compared to marriage.50 As the metaphor suggests, the two share a union in which much may be forgiven. Has trust been achieved? The answer to this question, above any other, is the test of approval plan success or failure. Has trust been achieved within the li- brary? Staff must work closely and com- municate clearly for any approval plan to do its job. And has trust been achieved between library and vendor? Each must feel, as the measure of success, that the other has fully invested in a partnership requiring a remarkable level of interaction. APPROVAL PLANS, PAST AND FUTURE Thirty years ago, the approval plan was invented for the mass acquisition of books. Twenty years ago, as library budgets began to shrink, the survival of approval plans was doubtful. But ven- dors and librarians retooled the ap- proval plan by focusing profiles upon core areas of interest, a shift so successful that published dissent on the method vir- tually disappeared over ten years ago. While use today is widespread, there is no reason to think the approval plan's evolution is complete. As vendors com- pete in a market that is static at best, and as libraries search for efficiencies, the cooperative approval plan may arise. The cooperative approval plan may in- clude two or more libraries and a vendor who designs integrated profiles, thus adding a new dimension to approval plan politics. 51 Joint profiles could only Approval Plans 423 invite joint evaluation and monitoring. That, perhaps, would suggest new yard- sticks for performance, fashioned from data jointly gathered on the concrete ex- perience of peer libraries. Whether or not changes like these come about, it is clear Peter Spyers-Duran and all who agreed with him were correct, that approval plans are here to stay. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Peter Spyers-Duran, "Preface," Approval and Gathering Plans in Academic Libraries, ed. Peter Spyers-Duran (Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited for Western Michigan Uni- versity Libraries, 1969), 1. 2. Norman Dudley, "The Blanket Order," Library Trends 18 (Jan. 1970): 326. 3. H. William Axford, "Economics of Approval Plans," in Economics of Approval Plans, ed. Peter Spyers-Duran and Daniel Gore (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1972), 21~ 4. Norman D. Stevens, "The Resources and Technical Services Division of ALA," Library Resources & Technical Services 13 (Summer 1969): 334. 5. Eli Oboler, Reply to survey in "The 'Get-' em-all' Theory of Book Buying," Library Journal 85 (Oct. 1, 1960): 3391. 6. Stevens, "The Resources and Technical Services Division of ALA/' 334. 7. Jane Maddox, "Approval Plans-Viable?" Journal of Academic Librarianship 1 (Jan. 1976): 22. For a 1975 case study in approval plan opposition, see Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, Systems and Procedures Exchange Center, Approval Plans in ARL Libraries, SPEC Kit, no. 83 (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1982), 79-84. On the Abel Company's history, see the three-part interview by Dora Biblarz, "Richard Abel," Against the Grain 4 (June 1992): 24-27; 4 (Sept. 1992): 20-24; 4 (Nov. 1992): 35-39. See also Lyman W. Newlin, "The Rise and Fall of Richard Abel and Co., Inc.," Scholarly Publishing 7 (Oct. 1975): 55-61. 8. Rose Mary Magrill and Mona East, "Collection Development in Large University Libraries," in Advances in Librarianship, vol. 8, ed. Michael H. Harris (San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 1978), 6. 9. Margaret Dobbyn, "Approval Plan Purchasing in Perspective," in Background Readings in Building Library Collections, 2d ed., ed. Phyllis Van Orden and Edith B. Phillips (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1979), 194. 10. Acknowledgment is due on this and other points to Gary J. Rossi, "Library Approval Plans: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 11 (1987): 3-34. Approval plans in a specific type of library were recently criticized by William J. Hook, "Approval Plans for Religious and Theological Libraries," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 15 (1991): 215-27. 11. Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, Systems and Pro- cedures Exchange Center, Approval Plans, SPEC Kit, no. 141 (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1988), 6. 12. See, for example, L. Hunter Kevil, "The Approval Plan of Smaller Scope," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 9 (1985): 13-20; Thomas W. Leonhardt, "The Importance of Approval Plans When Budgets Are Lean," in Acquisitions, Budgets and Material Costs: Issues and Approaches, ed. Sui H. Lee, Monographic Supplement no. 2 to Journal of Library Administration (Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth, 1988), 2; Bart Harloe, "Achieving Client- Centered Collection Development in Small and Medium-Sized Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 50 (May 1989): 344-53. 13. Association of Research Libraries, Approval Plans, 6-9. 14. Jennifer Cargill," A Report on the Fourth International Conference on Approval Plans," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 4 (1980): 111. 15. Association of Research Libraries, ApJ'roval Plans, 15. 16. Ibid., 13. 424 College & Research Libraries September 1993 17. Ibid., [flyer]. 18. Association of Research Libraries, Approval Plans in ARL Libraries, [flyer]. 19. Brian Alley, "A Conversation with Jim Cameron," Technicalities 4 (July 1984): 4. 20. Kathleen McCullough, Edwin D. Posey, and Doyle C. Pickett, Approval Plans and Academic Libraries: An Interpretive Survey, Neal-Schuman Professional Books (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1977), 30. 21. Association of Research Libraries, Approval Plans, 11. 22. The trend is graphically portrayed in Sarah M. Pritchard's and Eileen Finer's, ARL Statistics, 1990-91, Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1992,6. 23. Hugh C. Atkinson, "Faculty Reaction to New Approval Plan at the Ohio State Univer- sity," in Approval and Gathering Plans in Academic Libraries, 35. 24. Association of Research Libraries, Approval Plans in ARL Libraries, 4. 25. For a case study of an approval plan involving faculty, see Ann Niles, "An Approval Plan Combined with Faculty Selection," in Collection Development in College Libraries, ed. Joanne Schneider Hill, William E. Hannaford, Jr., and Ronald Epp (Chicago: ALA, 1991), 163-69. 26. Robert J. Dukes, Jr., "Faculty /Library Relations in Acquisitions and Collection Develop- ment: The Faculty Perspective," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 7 (1983): 223. 27. William A. Wortman, Collection Management: Background and Principles (Chicago: ALA, 1989), 140. 28. Daniel Gore, "Adopting an Approval Plan for a College Library: The Macalester College Experience," in Economics of Approval Plans, 24. The rise of "collection manage- ment" has for many librarians moved the focus away from selection of individual titles: Charles W. Brownson, "Mechanical Selection," Library Resources & Technical Services 32 (Jan. 1988): 17-29; John C. Calhoun, James K. Bracken, and Kenneth L. Firestein, "Modeling an Academic Approval Program," Library Resources & Technical Services 34 (July 1990): 367-79; James A. Cogswell, ''The Organization of Collection Management Functions in Academic Research Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 13 (Nov. 1987): 268-76. 29. The 1964/65 annual report of UCLA's university librarian, which reported that despite certain problems, approval plans had reduced by 29.8 percent the number of invoices processed, was excerpted in Library Journal and no doubt widely read: "Publishers, Computers, & Consumers," Library Journal91 (Mar. 15, 1966): 1365. 30. Association of Research Libraries, Approval Plans in ARL Libraries, 4. 31. For discussion of the political context of collection development, see Ross Atkinson, "Old Forms, New Forms: The Challenge of Collection Development," College & Re- search Libraries 50 (Sept. 1989): 507-20; Wilmer H. Batz, "Collection Development in 19 Libraries of the Association of Research Libraries," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 2 (1978): 117; Scott R. Bullard, "Read My Lips: The Politics of Collection Development," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 (1989): 251-53; Peggy Johnson, "Collection Development Officer, a Reality Check: A Personal View," Library Resources & Technical Services 33 (Apr. 1989): 153-60; Albert Perdue, "Conflicts in Collection Development," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 2 (1978): 123-26. For acquisitions, see Joe A. Hewitt, "On the Nature of Acquisitions," Library Resources & Technical Services 33 (Apr. 1989): 105-22. 32. The process of writing a profile often, however, proves beneficial: Noreen S. Alldredge, ''The Symbiotic Relationship of Approval Plans and Collection Development," in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 174-77; Eric J. Carpenter, "Collection Develop- ment Policies Based on Approval Plans," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 (1989): 39-43 . 33. Vendor representatives, who must always be aware of library politics, have often commented upon the political aspects of approval plans: Dana L. Alessi, "Coping with Library Needs: The Approval Vendor's Response/Responsibility," in Issues in Acquisi- tions: Programs & Evaluation, ed. Sui H. Lee, Library Management Series (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Pierian, 1984), 101-2; Dimity S. Berkner, "Considerations in Selecting an Ap- proval Plan," in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 148-49; Gloria Frye and Marcia Romanansky, ''The Approval Plan-The Core of an Academic Wholesaler's Business," in Issues in Acquisitions: Programs & Evaluation, 118-19; Doyle C. Pickett, "Approval Plans: Approval Plans 425 A Supplier's View," in McCullough, Approval Plans and Academic Libraries: An Interpretive Survey, 139; R Charles Wittenberg, "The Approval Plan: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone? And Come Again?" Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 12 (1988): 239. 34. Dennis R. Brunning, "Troubleshooting the Approval Plan: A Case Study from the Subject Specialist's Point of View," in Libraries and the Literacy Challenge: The Frontier of the '90s, ed. V. Sue Hatfield (Emporia, Kans.: Emporia State Univ., 1987), 93. 35. One manual mentions only the analysis of return rates, using the vendor's manage- ment reports: Blaine H. Hall, Collection Assessment Manual for College & University Libraries (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1985), 81-84. A review of a different manual on approval plan management praised the work for "the constant emphasis on the importance of public relations," while faulting it for giving almost no attention to the evaluation of vendor performance: Mildred M. Franks, review of Practical Approval Plan Management, by Jennifer S. Cargill and Brian Alley, in Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 4 (1980): 27 4. For an optimistic view of the practicability of precise evaluation, see Gary M. Shirk, "Evaluating Approval Plan Vendor Performance: Toward a Rationale and Model," in Issues in Acquisitions: Programs & Evaluation, 11-31. See note 33. 36. On this question see Joseph W. Barker, ''Vendor Studies Redux: Evaluating the Ap- proval Plan Option from Within," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 (1989): 133-41; Sharon Bonk and Mina B. LaCroix, "Approval Plans in a Developing University Library 1970-79: A Case Study," in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 32-42. 37. Dobbyn, "Approval Plan Purchasing in Perspective," 194; Robert C. Miller, "Approval Plans: Fifteen Years of Frustration and Fruition," in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 50; Edwin D. Posey, ''The Approval Plan Experience of an Engineering Library," in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 112-13. 38. Brunning, "Troubleshooting the Approval Plan," 106; Linda Ann Hulbert and David Stewart Curry, "Evaluation of an Approval Plan," College & Research Libraries 39 (Nov. 1978): 491. 39. Two other examples are: Mary Lee DeVilbiss, "The Approval-Built Collection in the Medium-Sized Academic Library," College & Research Libraries 36 (Nov. 1975): 487-92; Peter B. Kaatrude, "Approval Plan versus Conventional Selection: Determining the Overlap," Collection Management 11 (1989): 145-50. 40. Hulbert and Curry, "Evaluation of an Approval Plan," 485. 41. Ibid., 488-89. 42. Ibid., 491 . 43. Linda A. Hulbert, letter to the editor of College & Research Libraries 40 (Sept. 1979): 461. 44. Two studies failing to discuss this question are: Joan Grant and Susan Perelmuter, "Vendor Performance Evaluation," Journal of Academic Librarianship 4 (Nov. 1978): 366-67; Mary D. Walter, "Approval Program Timing Study: Baker & Taylor vs. Black- well North America," Collection Building 7 (Spring 1985): 14-18. 45. Gloriana St. Clair and Jane Treadwell, "Science and Technology Approval Plans Com- pared," Library Resources & Technical Services 33 (Oct. 1989): 385. 46. Hugh Franklin, "Engineering Books on Approval: A Selector's Viewpoint," Technicali- ties 9 (Mar. 1989): 13. 47. Association of Research Libraries, Approval Plans in ARL Libraries, 28-29. 48. Kay Womack and others, "An Approval Plan Vendor Review: The Organization and Process," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 12 (1988): 376. 49. Brunning, "Troubleshooting the Approval Plan," 100,106. 50. For example by Paul H. Mosher, ''Waiting for Godot: Rating Approval Service Ven- dors," in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 160. 51. Such a venture was reported over ten years ago: Sylvia N. Schnaars, "The Bryn Mawr/Haverford Joint Approval Plan: Can Two Live as Cheaply as One?" in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, 59-68. Be aPR Star! Enter the 1994 JOHN COTTON DANA LIBRARY PUBLIC RELATIONS AWARDS CONTEST I F YOU'VE DONE an out- standing job of making your community more aware of your library, the John Cotton Dana Library Public Relations Awards Contest can tell the world about your efforts. Your entry will be consid- ered among those from librar- ies of all types, sizes, and budg- ets. Entries are judged by a panel of your peers, and two types of awards are given. The .John Cotton Dana Award This award is given for a library's total annual coordinated public relations program, including pub- licity, programs, advertising, pub- lications, exhibits, special events, promotions, and audio-visual pres- entations. The Special Award The Special Award is given in rec- ognition of a part of your public relations program-a fund-raising campaign, a series of adult orchil- dren's programs, or any other spe- cial project. Contest Dates Entries for the 1994 John Cotton Dana Library Public Relations Awards Contest can reflect any one of the fol- lowing time frames: • Calendar year 1993 (] anuary- December) • School Year 1992/93 (Fall-Spring} • Special Project which ends in 1993. The Deadline for entries is February 7, 1994. Awards Ceremony Official award citations will be presented to contest winners at the 1994 annual confer- ence of the American Library Association, at a reception hosted by The H.W. Wilson Company. Sponsorship The John Cotton Dana Library Public Relations Awards Contest is sponsored jointly by The H .W . Wilson Company and the Public Relations Section of the Library Administration and Management Association, a division of the American Library Association. To Enter To request an Information Packet containing contest entry forms, rules and regulations, questions and answers about the awards, a sample of the judges' evaluation form, names of the contest judges, and a list of previous winners, please write to: John Cotton Dana PR Awards Contest, The H. W. Wilson Company, 950 University Avenue, Bronx, New York 10452.