crotts.p65 Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 261 261 Subject Usage and Funding of Library Monographs Joe Crotts Joe Crotts is Access Services Librarian in Meriam Library at California State University, Chico; e-mail: jcrotts@csuchico.edu. This investigation seeks to identify those variables that prove indicative of the demand for monographs by subject and to develop a practical method for allocating funding by subject that realistically reflects subject demand. The interrelationships among circulation, expenditure, and enrollment by subject are analyzed. Circulation is isolated as the single empirically supported parameter upon which the demand for monographs by subject may be measured. A model for allocating subject funding is developed. A good formula would help guaran- tee that available book funds will be distributed efficiently and equitably, that departments will be properly funded.1 cademic libraries experienced a proliferation of new periodicals accompanied by radically esca- lating subscription rates throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s. Institutions responded from within by conducting intensive assessments of periodical usage and expenditure, subse- quently proceeding to massive cancella- tions. The literature is replete with survey techniques and formulae for assessing us- age of periodical titles by subject and, cor- respondingly, the allocation of funds by subject for periodicals. The publishing in- dustry, albeit slow to realize the definitive- ness of the library dollar, is responding by repackaging periodical literature into elec- tronic formats. Resolving what appeared to entail an insurmountable task several years ago today appears more manageable as a desirable by-product of the massive transition of periodical literature into elec- tronic format and subsequent networking into comprehensive, multititle, and multidisciplinary partial and full-text CD- ROM, and, increasingly, online electronic resources. Technology, thank you! Monographs, however, have not re- ceived such favorable acceptance by the new technology. Electronic packaging has been slow to emerge, and, predictably, the book, in its present physical form, will re- main the mainstay of academic library col- lections for the remainder of the twentieth century. �On the whole � current books are simply not now available electronically. Nor will see all the titles already in print on line someday � we are still not even close to having the critical mass of information available on line that is necessary to sup- port faculty or even student research.�2 Major funding outlay for monographs will continue to encumber large portions of collection budgets. With escalating mono- graph prices exceeded only by the contin- ued shrinkage of the library book budget, and both topping the rate of inflation, it be- comes increasingly imperative that every 262 College & Research Libraries May 1999 dollar expended be directed at ensuring maximum return as a resource in demand. The State of Research Unfortunately, empirical investigation into technique and formulae for assessing sub- ject usage and allocating funds for mono- graph collection development has lagged far behind similar emphases placed on pe- riodical literature. Tradition remains preva- lent. The time-honored practice of allocat- ing funds in relative proportion to academic department size, measured almost invari- ably in terms of faculty number, continues to dominant methodology for determining department �book budgets.� Ostensibly, departments with more numerous faculty receive larger allocations. This single fac- tor overwhelmingly predominates over all other and related criteria, and has seldom undergone serious challenge. The substi- tution of subject circulation, a variable of sig- nificantly greater consequence, has re- ceived only minimal acceptance as the primary weighted factor in determining departmental monograph allocations. Departmental allocations for mono - graphs almost invariably reflect anticipated behavior. We presume that a department with a large number of faculty has achieved that magnitude in response to supporting a large number of students, who will, in turn, place a correspondingly and proportion- ately heavy demand on the monograph col- lection. The expenditure of these funds, how- ever, should ideally reflect actual behavior. �Seldom does anticipated match actual be- havior in a complex social structure, and the academic library is no exception.�3 �One must consider a number of factors such as past practices, differential publication and inflation rates, level of demand, and actual use.�4 And here lies the crux of the matter. The level of demand, best reflected as a mea- sure of actual usage of materials, is all too frequently a poor indicator of department size. A large department may not generate heavy library usage. Conversely, smaller departments may well generate heavy li- brary usage. Consequently, tradition in practice does not uniformly hold true in ap- plication. Ignored, as is all to often the case, it takes the effect of large allocations being assigned to some large departments that generate relatively little demand on mono- graphic usage. Conversely, small depart- ments generating intense monographic usage may receive small allocations with which to purchase what inevitably become resources in very high demand. Previous attempts to quantify the de- mand for monographs in differing subjects have relied heavily on the inclusion of arti- ficially (qualitatively) derived weighted fac- tors designed to introduce a measure of �hardness� to the intellectual organization and content of the subject.5 Similar at- tempts have incorporated preconceived notions of thresholds and optimal magni- tudes of total monographs or monographs per student and the assignment of variables of arbitrary weights derived from �judg- ment based on experience and the librarian�s own knowledge of his [or her] own library.�6, 7 Such variables tend to drive the formula toward nonstatistically sup- ported results rather than support an ac- curate representation of actual usage of monographs by subject. These and related nonstatistically derived variables have tended to weigh heavily (if not dispropor- tionately so) in calculations, and have thus rendered formulae for determining subject allocations to poorly reflect what they prob- ably should most be indicative of�actual usage of materials. Resolving the issue entails one to in- quire, how can actual behavior (mono- graphic usage) be predicted in terms suffi- ciently accurate to exert an equitable influ- ence over magnitude of departmental monograph allocations? Simply put, how can we better measure usage so as to bet- ter determine departmental book budgets? One might expect that � over the many years � librarians would have made considerable progress in defin- Departmental allocations for mono-graphs almost invariably reflectanticipated behavior. Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 263 ing the values, methods, scope, and the purposes of collection evaluation. But such is not the case.8 Twenty variables with potential and probable consequence in collection evalua- tion were identified in 1941.9 Subsequent efforts directed at relating selected indi- vidual and groups of these variables to de- rive meaningful and practical methods of collection evaluation have met with little success and have received sporadic accep- tance at best. Results tend to be decidedly inconclusive. �No formulas, magic or other- wise, result.�10 �The attempt to identify and weigh the factors which affect the need for books in academic situations reveals gaps in our knowledge, to the filling of which re- search might profitably be directed. The dif- ficulty arises simply from the quantity of detail and number of variables involved.�11 Achieving a viable solution to these prob- lems eludes practitioners to this very day. Clearly libraries support a large base of users � How then is it possible to know when collections are at least ad- equate to meet campus needs? By what criteria might librarians deter- mine the adequacy of the collections they are responsible for building in relation to the audience that the col- lection is to support?12 Goals of the Study The goals of this study are to identify those variables that may serve to reflect the rela- tive demand for monographs by subject and to develop a realistic and practical method for allocating funding by subject. Proceeding on the premise that the �pot� of money at one�s disposal is finite in the sense that an overall total applies collec- tively to all subjects, the solution entails de- termining the relative proportion of fund- ing appropriate to meet the demand for each subject. The Study Site California State University, Chico, served as the sample for the study. The university enrolls approximately 12,000 students. Un- dergraduate degrees are offered in fifty- seven disciplines, including most areas of the humanities, social sciences, engineer- ing, and technology. Master �s degrees are offered in twenty-nine of these disciplines. The campus is largely residential and is the only comprehensive institution of higher education in a vast rural area. Students and faculty depend entirely on the resources of the university library, as no other com- prehensive academic or public libraries are located within a hundred-mile radius. The Data Data were collected from the five-year pe- riod from 1990 to 1995. Annual averages were calculated and manipulated in the analyses. Individual subjects, generally but not exclusively, corresponding to academic departments, serve as the basic unit upon which data are organized. Three subject areas�medicine, architecture, and photog- raphy�in which the university does not offer degrees were included in analyses not involving enrollment. The analysis centers on the interrelation- ships of these subject data. Components of subject data used in the analysis include expenditure, enrollment, and circulation. Subject enrollment is reported in terms of FTE (full-time enrolled student); that is, the total units (hours) divided by fifteen. Sub- ject expenditure includes the �departmen- tal� allocation, together with expenditure encumbered by books received though the approval plan. Circulation includes initial checkouts and renewals. Analysis of the Data Relationship between Expenditure and Circulation The correlation between expenditure and circulation is weak. Circulation of books in a subject does not consistently reflect the amount of money encumbered for books in that subject. Fewer than 30 percent of sub- jects, primarily in the humanities and social sciences, are proportionately related. Greater expenditure tends to reflect greater circulation for most of the humanities and social sciences. However, very negative cor- relations exist between the physical sciences 264 College & Research Libraries May 1999 and business areas. Most physical sciences and business show circulation much lower than the relative expenditure for books in these subjects (see figure 1). In highly generalized terms, circulation may be defined as a function of expendi- ture by the equation: C = 0.6E - 3000 where: C = circulation E = expenditure (in dollars). Overall, the relationship is extremely generalized and of limited value for plan- ning monetary allocations for books by subject. Subject expenditure does not neces- sarily reflect circulation of books in that subject (see figure 2). Relationship between Enrollment and Circulation The correlation between enrollment and circulation is even weaker than the corre- lation between expenditure and circula- tion. Circulation of books in a subject sel- dom reflects the level of enrollment in that subject. Fewer than 30 percent of subjects are proportionately related, with extreme disparities noted in the physical sciences and business, as well as several areas of the social sciences. In general, the medium- sized departments generate the most cir- culation. However, the overall relationship cannot be even loosely defined by an equa- tion. Subject enrollment cannot serve as an in- dicator of circulation of books in that subject (see figures 3 and 4). Combining the Variables: Expenditure, Circulation, Enrollment Ideally, horizontal lines would connect the hierarchy of subjects under the three vari- ables, indicating a logical, balanced, and progressive relationship between expendi- FIGURE 1 Expenditure � Circulation 1990–1995 Mean Annual Expenditure and Circulation Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 265 ture, enrollment, and circulation (see fig- ure 5). However, the combined effect of expenditure and enrollment is proportion- ately related to circulation in fewer than 10 percent of subjects. Circulation appears to be a variable largely independent of expen- diture and enrollment, taken individually and together. Business areas display the extreme cases, with low circulation, but high expenditure and enrollment. Subject circulation is not indicative of expenditure for books and/or enrollment in subjects. Circulation Anomalies The relationship of circulation to expendi- ture and enrollment is characterized by nu- merous minor and major anomalies. These may be broadly grouped into four catego - ries, ranging from high circulation and low expenditure with high or low enrollment to low circulation and high expenditure with high and low enrollment. Adjust- ments in expenditure to balance the rela- tionships are suggested (see table 1). �Cost�of Circulation The anomalies in the relationship of circu- lation to expenditure and enrollment gen- erate a set of values that may be consid- ered in measuring the �cost� of circulating books. The values represent a tangible in- dication of return on the dollar for usage of books by subject. The cost of circulation may be realized in terms of the dollars ex- pended per book circulated, or the num- ber of books circulated per dollar ex- pended. Values for dollars expended per book range from less than one dollar (rec- reation) to almost twenty-five dollars (ac- counting). Values increase quite uniformly, with the exception of extremely large in- creases for the three most �expensive� sub- jects�finance, chemistry, and accounting. Excluding these three subjects, the average falls to $3.26. The overall median is only $2.67, which is much more indicative of the overall cost of circulating books. A similar pattern in reverse prevails for the number of books circulated for each dollar in expenditure. Values in terms of books circulated per dollar average 0.41, and range from a high of 1.41 for recre- ation to a low of 0.0.4 for accounting. Val- ues decrease quite uniformly throughout the range, as shown in table 2. The most expensive subjects to circulate FIGURE 2 The Relationship of Expenditure to Circulation 1990–1995 Mean Annual Expenditure and Circulation by Subject. Expenditure ($1,000) Cir cul ati on (1, 000 ) 25 20 15 10 5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 266 College & Research Libraries May 1999 FIGURE 3 Enrollment � Circulation 1990–1995 Mean Annual Circulation and Enrollment (Full Time Equivalent). FIGURE 4 The Relationship of Enrollment to Circulation 1990–1995 Mean Annual Enrollment (Full Time Equivalent) and Circulation by Subject. C ir cu la ti on (1 ,0 00 ) Enrollment (100 FTE) 25 20 15 10 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 267 fall primarily within the sciences, business, and technology, with the notable inclusion of theater arts. The less expensive subjects include a combination of social sciences, hu- manities, medicine, and computer science. The cost of circulation falls below the overall average of $4.49 for 71 percent of subjects. Fifty-four percent of subjects fall below $3.00 per book, with the largest group of subjects (31%) circulating within the one dollar range and below. The cost of circulation for books in the majority of subjects falls below $3.00 per book, and well below the average of $4.49. In terms of number of books circulated: � ninety percent circulated at costs below $4.00 per book; � eighty percent circulated at costs below $3.00 per book; � fifty-five percent circulated at costs be- low $2.00 per book. Books circulating at costs exceeding $4.00 per book comprised only 10 percent of overall circulation, and primarily in- cluded books in sciences and business. The majority of books in most of the sub- jects circulate at costs well below the average. Ratio of Expenditure to Circulation The ratio of subject expenditure to sub- ject circulation yields a cost/usage value that may be considered a relative mea- sure of �bang for the buck� for each sub- ject. Values increase quite uniformly, ranging from 0.1 (chemistry) to 3.0 (rec- reation), with a mean of 1.0. Books in sub- jects with values above and below 1.0 are increasingly less costly or more costly to circulate. The values yield an indication of the relative strength of the dollar in terms of (circulation) demand for books. Adjustments in the hierarchy would en- tail decreasing funds allocated to books with low rations and shifting them up- ward to subjects with high circulation in relation to expenditure and, it is hoped, would have the effect of positioning funds where demand for more funding is greater. As an obvious example, the funding for chemistry might be reduced and the remainder reallocated to recre- ation, where a need for more books may well be evidenced by the very high cir- culation in relation to expenditure (see table 3). FIGURE 5 Expenditure � Circulation � Enrollment 268 College & Research Libraries May 1999 TABLE 1 Circulation Anomalies Circulation Enrollment Expenditure Department Low High Low High Low High 1 Recreation • • • Computer Science • • • Religion • • • Sociology • • • Anthropology • • • 2 Geography • • • Health • • • Phys Ed • • • 3 Management • • • Finance • • • Math • • • Acct/Mgmt Science • • • 4 Theater • • • Physics • • • Chemistry • • • Expenditure Adjustment to Balance Use — Enrollment — Expenditure Group 1. Increase Group 2. Increase substantially Group 3. Decrease Group 4. Decrease substantially A Model for Subject Allocation The major objective of an allocation model is to translate the demand for books by sub- ject (subject demand) into the allocation of sufficient funding to appropriately reflect that demand. As the interpretation of data has indicated, demand is not driven by en- rollment alone, nor does it reflect expendi- ture well. Demand is subject driven; that is, demand represents an inherent quality of the subject, largely independent of en- rollment and expenditure. How can demand by subject be deter- mined? The best measure of subject de- mand is to determine the actual usage of materials by subject. The most concrete and practical measure of subject demand is pro- vided by the relative proportion (percent- age) of overall circulation encumbered by subject. Subject circulation measures the demand for books in that subject relative to overall demand in all subjects. How can subject demand be translated into subject expenditure? Subject expendi- ture, the expenditure allocated by subject, should reflect the subject demand (percent- age of circulation by that subject). A method for determining the allocation of expenditure by subject must be both eq- uitable and practical. It must be equitable in the sense that subjects are given suffi- cient funding to meet the demand placed on them in terms of circulation of books. It must be practical in the sense that the for- mula, once established, may be monitored and subsequently revised without undue and time-consuming difficulty. Allocation Model The allocation model, predicated on cir- culation as the basis on which demand for books is measured, may be expressed as: A = E (%C) Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 269 where: A = subject allocation E = overall expenditure C = subject demand (per- centage of overall circula- tion). Rather than engage in the tedious chore of recalculating the subject demand annu- ally, several years of data (e.g., 1990�1995) may be averaged and serve as the base de- mand. The base demand serves as the tool for which expenditure by subject is pro- jected. After the total budget for purchas- ing monographs (excluding reference and interdisciplinary areas) is known, the sub- ject (usually departmental) allocations can be easily calculated. Recalculations of sub- ject demand may prove expedient every TABLE 2 The �Cost� of Circulation 1990�1991 Mean Annual Expenditure and Circulation by Subject Dollars/ Books/ Subject Expenditure Circulation Book Dollar Recreation Admin. 3,460 4,875 0.71 1.41 Medicine 14,225 11,799 1.21 0.83 Computer Science/Engr. 7,539 5,679 1.33 0.75 History 33,490 25,099 1.33 0.75 Religious Studies 7,814 5,743 1.36 0.73 Education/Speech Path 14,249 10,019 1.42 0.82 Sociology/Social Work 20,862 14,634 1.43 0.70 Communications 10,201 7,079 1.44 0.69 Physical Education 6,213 3,690 1.68 0.59 Foreign Languages 8,390 4,455 1.88 0.53 Anthropology 7,058 3,641 1.94 0.52 English 32,255 14,709 2.19 0.46 Photography 1,705 755 2.25 0.44 Economics 21,237 8,751 2.43 0.41 Geography 4,994 1,980 2.52 0.40 Art 20,677 8,039 2.57 0.39 Psychology 16,097 6,068 2.66 0.38 Agriculture 7,503 2804 2.68 0.37 Music 7,090 2,477 2.86 0.35 Engineering 22,694 7,493 3.03 0.33 Architecture 3,031 925 3.28 0.31 Health/Community Serv. 5,606 1,702 3.29 0.30 Philosophy 12,468 3,765 3.31 0.30 Political Science 12,354 3,340 3.70 0.27 Geosciences 6,121 1,476 4.15 0.24 Mathematics/Statistics 8,885 1,948 4.56 0.22 Biology 34,998 6,056 5.78 0.17 Theater Arts 12,150 1,781 6.82 0.15 Management 23,141 3,283 7.05 0.14 Physics 9,234 1,195 7.73 0.13 Nursing 3,388 465 7.29 0.14 Construction Mgmt 2,919 347 8.41 0.12 Finance/Marketing 13,981 1,175 11.90 0.08 Chemistry 6,200 386 16.06 0.06 Accounting/Mgmt. Science 6,475 260 24.90 0.04 Mean 4.49 0.41 Median 2.67 0.38 270 College & Research Libraries May 1999 three to five years, and more often should major changes in curriculum occur. Revised allocations, based on the base demand, differ significantly from previous allocations (see figure 6) and, it is hoped, represent a more realistic level of expendi- ture for materials in relation to usage. The revised (base) allocations range from 14.1 percent (history) to 0.1 percent (accounting) of the overall budget for ex- penditure. The present allocations, not based on subject demand in terms of cir- culation, are confined to a narrower scale, ranging from 8.2 percent (biology) to 0.4 percent (photography). Subject allocations generated from this model differ significantly from present ex- penditure, with contrasts ranging from plus 237 percent to minus 93 percent. The mag- nitude of change necessary in realigning TABLE 3 Ratio of Expenditure to Circulation 1990–1995 Mean Annual Expenditure and Circulation % % Circulation/ Department Expenditure Circulation Expenditure Recreation Administration 0.9 2.7 3.0 Medicine 3.3 6.6 2.0 Computer Science/Engineering 1.8 3.2 1.8 History 7.8 14.1 1.8 Religious Studies 1.8 3.2 1.8 Communications 2.4 4.0 1.7 Education/Speech Pathology 3.3 5.6 1.7 Sociology/Social Work 4.9 8.2 1.7 Physical Education 1.4 2.1 1.5 Anthropology 1.6 2.0 1.3 Foreign Languages 2.0 2.5 1.3 English 7.5 8.3 1.1 Economics 5.0 4.9 1.0 Art 4.6 4.5 1.0 Photography 0.4 0.4 1.0 Agriculture 1.8 1.6 0.9 Architecture 0.7 0.6 0.9 Geography 1.2 1.1 0.9 Psychology 3.8 3.4 0.9 Engineering 5.3 4.2 0.8 Health/Community Services 1.3 1.0 0.8 Music 1.7 1.4 0.8 Philosophy 3.0 2.1 0.7 Political Science 2.9 1.9 0.7 Geosciences 1.4 0.8 0.6 Mathematics/Statistics 2.1 1.1 0.5 Biology 8.2 3.4 0.4 Nursing 0.8 0.3 0.4 Theater Arts 2.8 1.0 0.4 Physics 2.2 0.8 0.4 Construction Management 0.7 0.2 0.3 Management 5.4 1.8 0.3 Finance/Marketing 3.3 0.7 0.2 Accounting/Mngmt. Science 1.5 0.1 0.1 Chemistry 1.4 0.2 0.1 Average 1.0 Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 271 subject allocation to reflect subject demand groups subjects in four broad categories (see tables 4 and 5). Conclusion With the cost of books increasing 50 per- cent during the five-year time span of this study, and with no end in sight, it becomes most obvious that subject allocations can- not continue to be based on precepts un- supported by the actual demand for mate- rials. Classical notions of need must give way to practical utilization. Historically, li- brary collection developers � � simply re- lied on their genuine passion for literature and inbred instinct for what was �right� when collecting.�13 G. Edward G. Evans�s lament that �Unfortunately, things have not changed that much in 35 years� re- mains largely true today.14 These �soft,� nonanalytical approaches to collection de- velopment have positioned academic li- braries in the unenviable position of �at times been called the financial �black hole,� a unit of campus capable of expending all the resources sent its way, yet remaining with a crucial need for more acquisitions dollars,� a roll that libraries can ill-afford to play with the current and increasing em- phasis on accountability.15 Universities are now facing a new prag- matism in justifying the expenditure of funds, and academic library funding is no exception. Despite the emergence of a plethora of electronic alternatives to tradi- tional print resources, the library is far from exclusively a �virtual� environment. Librar- ies will continue to be, in the words of James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress, � � locations where both the new technologi- cally dispensed information and the old knowledge repositories of books are present in the same place.�16 Monographs now and into the twenty-first century will represent a major encumbrance of fund- ing for library resources. FIGURE 6 Present Expenditure and Revised Allocation 272 College & Research Libraries May 1999 Library collection developers must embrace a new pragmatism in discrimi- nate funding for monographs. Arbitrary standards for funding levels, inherited from historical allocation decisions and subsequently leveraged by faculty pres- sures, must give way to quality-based planning, grounded in an assessment of resources in demand by subject.17 Circu- TABLE 4 Change in Allocation Present Revised Expenditure Allocation Subject Dollars % Dollars % % Change Biology 34,998 8.2 14,678 3.4 -59 History 33,490 7.8 60,870 14.1 +82 English 32,255 7.5 35,831 8.3 +10 Management 23,141 5.4 7,771 1.8 -66 Engineering 22,694 5.3 18,131 4.2 -20 Economics 21,237 5.0 21,153 4.9 0 Sociology/Social Work 20,862 4.9 35,400 8.2 +70 Art 20,677 4.6 19,427 4.5 -0.2 Psychology 19,097 3.8 14,678 3.4 -10 Education/Speech Path 14,247 3.3 24,175 5.6 +69 Medicine 14,225 3.3 28,492 6.6 +100 Finance/Marketing 13,981 3.3 3,022 0.7 -78 Philosophy 12,468 3.0 9,066 2.1 -27 Political Science 12,354 2.9 8,202 1.9 -34 Theater Arts 12,150 2.8 4,317 1.0 -64 Communications 10,201 2.4 17,268 4.0 +69 Physics 9,234 2.2 3,454 0.8 -63 Mathematics/Statistics 8,885 2.1 4,749 1.1 -47 Foreign Languages 8,390 2.0 10,793 2.5 +29 Religious Studies 7,814 1.8 13,814 3.2 +77 Computer Science/Engr 7,539 1.8 13,814 3.2 +83 Agriculture 7,503 1.8 6,907 1.6 -8 Music 7,090 1.7 6,044 1.4 -15 Accounting/Mgmt Science 6,475 1.5 432 0.1 -93 Anthropology 7,058 1.6 8,634 2.0 +22 Physical Education 6,213 1.4 9,066 2.1 +50 Chemistry 6,200 1.4 863 0.2 -86 Geosciences 6,121 1.4 3,454 0.8 -44 Health/Community Serv 5,606 1.3 4,317 1.0 -23 Geography 4,994 1.2 4,749 1.1 -5 Recreation Admin 3,460 0.9 11,656 2.7 +237 Nursing 3,388 0.8 1,276 0.3 -62 Architecture 3,031 0.7 1,295 0.6 -57 Construction Mgmt 2,919 0.7 863 0.2 -70 Photography 1,705 0.4 1,727 0.4 -1 Total 431,702 431,702 lation appears to be the variable most representative of the true measure of usage (demand) of monographs. Aca- demic libraries should consider experi- menting with the allocation model and should explore further the utility of cir- culation as a prime parameter in the al- location by subject of funding for library monographs. Usage & Funding of Library Monographs 273 TABLE 5 Categories of Allocation Changes Increases 50%+ Reductions 50%+ +237 Recreation Administration -93 Accounting/Mgmt Science +100 Medicine -86 Chemistry +83 Computer Science/ Engineering -87 Construction Mgmt +82 History -78 Finance/Marketing +70 Sociology -66 Management +77 Religious Studies -64 Theater Arts +69 Communications -63 Physics +69 Education -59 Biology +50 Physical Education -57 Architecture Increases/Reductions 10%–50% Increases/Reductions <10% +29 Foreign Languages 0 Art +10 English 0 Economics -15 Music -1 Photography -20 Engineering -5 Geography -23 Health/Comm Services -8 Agriculture -27 Philosophy -10 Psychology -34 Political Science -44 Geosciences -47 Mathematics Notes 1. William E. McGrath, �An Allocation Formula Derived from a Factor Analysis of AcademicDepartments,� College & Research Libraries 30 (Jan. 1969): 52.2. William Miller, �Troubling Myths about On-Line Information,� Chronicle of Higher Education 43,no. 47 (Aug. 1997): A44.3. Hugh F. Cline and Loraine T. Sinnott, Building Library Collections (Lexington, Mass.: Lex-ington Bks., 1981), 80�81.4. Edward G. Evans, Developing Library and Information Center Collections, 2nd ed. (Littleton,Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1987), 265.5. Thomas J. Pierce, �An Empirical Approach to the Allocation of the University Library BookBudget,� Collection Management 2 (spring 1978): 39�58.6. Robert E. Burton, �Formula Budgeting: An Example,� Special Libraries 66 (Feb. 1975): 61�67.7. McGrath, �An Allocation Formula Derived from a Factor Analysis of Academic Depart-ments,� 61.8. Evans, Developing Library and Information Center Collections, 234.9. E. O. Stone, �Measuring the Book Collection,� Library Journal 66 (June 1941): 941.10. George M. Jenks, �Circulation and Its Relationship to the Book Collection and AcademicDepartments,� College & Research Libraries 37 (Mar. 1976): 151.11. Evans, Developing Library and Information Center Collections, 235.12. Ronald F. Dow, Salvatore Meringolo, and Gloriana St. Clair, �Academic Collections in aChanging Environment,� in Gerard McCabe and Ruth Person, eds., Academic Libraries, Their Ra-tionale and Role in Higher Education (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1995), 109.13. G. E. Gorman and B. R. Howes, �Policy Rationale,� in Richard J. Wood and Frank Hoffmann,eds., Library Collection Development Policies (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow, 1996), 8.14. Evans, Developing Library and Information Center Collections, 234�35.15. Dow, Meringolo, and St. Clair, �Academic Collections in a changing Environment,� 109.16. James H. Billington, �A Technological Flood Requires Human Navigation,� American Li-braries 27 (June�July 1996): 40.17. Carla Stoffle and Kathleen Weibel, �Funding Academic Libraries,� in Gerard McCabe andRuth Person, eds., Academic Libraries, Their Rationale and Role in Higher Education (Westport, Conn.:Greenwood, 1995), 125�26.