This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 11 November 2014, At: 10:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &Information SupplyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzil20

A Collection Development Policy IncorporatingElectronic FormatsRob Strong aa Townsend Memorial Library , University of Mary Hardin-Baylor , Belton, TXPublished online: 24 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Rob Strong (1999) A Collection Development Policy Incorporating Electronic Formats, Journal ofInterlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply, 9:4, 53-64, DOI: 10.1300/J110v09n04_07

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J110v09n04_07

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Collection Development PolicyIncorporating Electronic Formats

Rob Strong

ABSTRACT. Includes the rationale for a collection developmentpolicy for electronic resources, and a sample collection developmentpolicy. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com <Web-site: http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]

KEYWORDS. Collection development policies, collection develop-ment, electronic resources, CD-ROMs

Access is a keyword newly defined in all fields that require re-search. The social sciences and humanities, traditional supporters offormats that can be preserved for use and reuse by a steadily growingline of readers, is now accepting the inevitable challenges of technolo-gy. The growth of such projects as Project Guttenberg, OCLC’s Elec-tronic Collections On-line, Johns Hopkins’s Project Muse, and JSTORhave reformed the landscape with which libraries must deal. We nolonger enjoy a single copy physical format environment. Many titlesare now accessible several ways, better suiting the access needs of theuser. Libraries must develop policies to incorporate these new accessdemands into their structures.The last two decades have seen information widely published in

books, journals, audiovisuals, CD-ROMs and now directly on-line. AtTownsend Memorial Library, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, weare beginning to address these newest changes with meaningful strate-gies that will affect holdings for many years. We needed to confront

Rob Strong is Director of Learning Resources, Townsend Memorial Library,University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Belton, TX.

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information SupplyVol. 9(4) 1999

E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply54

the rapidly accelerating changes challenging libraries. Faculty, stu-dents, and other patrons are already requesting titles in formats we arenot prepared to order, process, shelve, preserve, or reference. Theearly guidelines will be discussed in some detail and some ramifica-tions examined.The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, a Southern Baptist universi-

ty, enrolls over 2,000 undergraduate and 300 graduate students. Orga-nized in 1845 as the female division of Baylor University, it continuedin this mission until 1971. Prior to becoming coeducational, mencould take classes but could not graduate. It is now a coeducationalgeneral university with a historically liberal arts curriculum but incor-porates business, nursing, and education programs. A Master’s degreemay be earned in education, computer science, psychology, business,or health services administration. Townsend Memorial Library wasconstructed in 1962 and remodeled in 1994. At that time it was wiredto accommodate electronic technology for at least the next decade.However, the very next year the network wiring had to be expandedbecause student demand for public networked terminals doubled. Weforesaw neither the explosive growth of nor the demand for access toelectronic resources.Electronics were introduced to most libraries with OCLC catalog-

ing in the early 1970s. It remained a fixture with minimal change forthe next six or eight years. By the late 1980s software programs werebeing introduced that greatly increased the capabilities of the sharedOCLC cataloging database, especially serials holdings and union lists.Best of all, interlibrary loans could be queued and requested in a batchmode. Interlibrary loan capacity increased but the number of person-nel remained relatively static.The next few years saw computer hardware and software compet-

ing for the newest development. In libraries this race was at leastperipherally determined by OCLC. There was no pressing need formost libraries to upgrade hardware beyond the point OCLC accommo-dated. But, as new software packages were developed, as on-linesystems were introduced and entered the developing library on-linepublic access catalog market, and as libraries and campuses becamenetworked, the need for more powerful and versatile hardware andsoftware became a necessity. The products were rapidly introduced,filling a vacuum; communication with administrative supervisors re-sponsible for multiple academic areas became the next activity. Justifi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rob Strong 55

cation of needs, cost effectiveness, and reductions in the rate of staffgrowth were universal pleas.Again, external lending benefited early from electronic develop-

ments. Interlibrary loan and document delivery felt the impact ofincreased bibliographic access quickly. During the four-year period,1994-1998, borrowing from Mary Hardin-Baylor increased more thansixty-five percent. Relevant materials became more identifiable andgenerated more requests. Single interface indexing is the recurringvariable. Users may now quickly examine several probable cumula-tive indexes from a single electronic location, and the patron does nothave to be in the library or even on campus.The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, in its

1992-1993 Criteria for Accreditation, 5.2.2 Services, states that insti-tutions ‘‘must provide . . . where appropriate, access to external biblio-graphic data bases’’ and ‘‘must provide students with opportunities tolearn how to access information in a variety of formats so they cancontinue life-long learning.’’1 These were first included eight yearsearlier in the 1984 edition. Two years later, this wording reflected therising importance of different formats, especially electronic, to ade-quate research. The new 5.1.2 Services now reads: ‘‘Emphasis shouldbe placed on the variety of contemporary technologies used for ac-cessing learning resources. Libraries and learning resource centersmust provide students with opportunities to learn how to access infor-mation in different formats so they can continue life-long learning,’’and ‘‘Convenient, effective access to electronic bibliographic data-bases, whether on-site or remote, must be provided when necessary tosupport the academic programs.’’2 This change in wording drives theintroduction of electronic access in those libraries the Southern Asso-ciation accredits, even if it was not being mandated by user demand,competition for students, and the economics of collection develop-ment.University of Mary Hardin-Baylor became automated beyond

OCLC in 1994 with the purchase of an integrated system from Innova-tive Interfaces, Inc. The next year a CD-ROM network with six differ-ent databases was added. The Internet and the World Wide Web(WWW) quickly followed. All access points were networked in thelibrary. In 1997 the library began incorporating FirstSearch Panorama,ABI/Inform, EBSCO Academic Search and PA Abstracts into its on-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply56

line access and decreased reliance on the CD-ROM network. Some ofthe databases are full-text, some only indexes.The choice to maximize all access through the WWW was a

gamble. The CD-ROM network was reliable but could not be accessedoff-campus; identical or similar databases could be accessed over theWWW with greater ease by authorized patrons but access was nowdependent on hardware located outside the library. Switching access tothe Web eliminated additional network hardware and software mainte-nance. The only factors arguing for dual networks were high serveruse on the WWW causing delays that were not evident on the CD-ROM network, and having all of our resources unavailable if localaccess to the Internet went down. It appeared the advantages out-weighed the disadvantages. Our decision has thus far been validatedbecause problems we have experienced have been primarily localrather than connectivity issues.Students accept the variety of resources, difficulties of remote ac-

cess, configuration and heavy remote server use, and printing prob-lems with less aggravation than they exhibit when hard copy tools arenot on the shelf. Faculty have displayed less widespread acceptance oflibrary resource technology, although they agree with its necessity.Dealing with the two primary clients of an academic library, providingtechnical assistance for remote users, and selecting appropriate elec-tronic tools that will support the curriculum has challenged librarians.Electronic resources have narrowed Marshall McLuhan’s ‘‘global

village’’ concept to give it library specialization. Patrons now expectlibrary services that were until recently far beyond not only a novicelibrary user’s abilities but also exceeded the services most librariesnormally provided. Students rely on interlibrary loan, fax, documentdelivery, Ariel and personal visits to other collections for resources theuser has remotely identified. Texas has initiated both a statewide cou-rier for interlibrary loan and a user’s card that will allow students,faculty, or staff associated with one university or college to personallyborrow materials from another university. The user’s home institutionmust assume financial liability for materials borrowed but it greatlyreduces barriers to the sharing of intellectual information. These pro-grams have encouraged students and faculty to familiarize themselveswith access methods to view remote library catalogs. This again hasled to an increase in interlibrary loan. The world’s bibliographic re-sources are at least more easily determined, if not acquired.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rob Strong 57

Almost daily libraries receive advertisements for electronic accessto directories, bibliographies, indexes, encyclopedias, journals, bio-graphical dictionaries, and other reference tools formerly or simulta-neously published in hard copy. The rate with which titles are beingdigitized appears to be increasing. As the user becomes more adeptand demanding, hardware and connection prices decline, and digitalresources become more available libraries will be expected to dealwith electronic full-text as a standard format. Faculty at University ofMary Hardin-Baylor are already requesting some electronic titles rath-er than hard copy.Policies written at University of Mary Hardin-Baylor deal with the

issues raised by the new formats. The policies are in their infancy andare certainly subject to revision as needs change and new problems areidentified. They are, however, an initial attempt to deal with a newopportunity for service.

FORMAT SELECTION AND PROCEDURE

1. If a resource is one we have been requested to purchase, we willadd it in hard copy if available, or if unavailable, we will add it inany format, in the following order of precedence: on-line, micro-form, CD-ROM.

2. If we have purchased a title in the past and it is available bothon-line and in hard copy, we will continue to purchase it in hardcopy. A hard copy may or may not be purchased, however, if theitem is available free of charge through the Internet, as are manyfederal and state documents. If a bibliographic record alreadyexists on our OPAC for those free titles, the holdings will be up-dated noting the new location as the specific URL. If the websiteis not an exact duplication of the print version, the print versionwill continue to be purchased.

3. If we purchase a title, it will be cataloged.4. If a title is cataloged and it is Internet accessible in format, wewill assign the URL to the appropriate MARC field.

5. If a title formerly acquired in hard copy is electronic in format,we will continue to acquire it in the new format until it is specifi-cally evaluated for need. Archival retention and access of titlesand issues will be a primary factor in the decision.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply58

6. If a title is Internet accessible in format, we may or may notplace it as a link on the web page. From our web page, links willbe provided to a select group of high quality websites. Thesewebsites will not be cataloged on our OPAC. We will not providelinks from the web page for cataloged titles because they willhave an embedded URL in the MARC record.

7. Access to digital resources will be secured for as many simulta-neous authorized users as possible. That use will be construed toinclude any authorized user wherever located. Resources limit-ing this access will be considered less favorably.

8. Mid-year changes from one format to another will be avoided ifpossible. Cataloged items acquired in any format may be addedat any time of the year.Serials, monographic series, indexes, abstracts, or other con-

tinuing titles acquired in electronic format that require changesin access from previously existing electronic addresses will beacquired mid-year only if there is no alternative.This applies only to items with direct links from the web page.

It will avoid the problem of patrons accessing patron restrictedsites through our WebPages, establishing a link on their own In-ternet Protocol (IP) address approved computer, and subsequent-ly returning to that site using the downloaded address only to berefused access because the address has changed.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ADOPTED POLICY

1. As noted earlier, the emphasis at Mary Hardin-Baylor hasevolved from an exclusive physical text, including microform,through CD-ROM to on-line access. Microform had its share of defen-dants and detractors. It was easily lost, did not use color, was noteasily portable, required expensive equipment that was limited in itsavailability, made poor copies, and needed complete rearrangementeach year. But, it was a tremendous space saver and replaced hardcopy that had been pilfered or mutilated. CD-ROM was the nextexperiment. Six different databases were offered from two networkedCD-ROM towers. They were fast, had only occasional problems, buthad several limitations.CD-ROM databases at Mary Hardin-Baylor were physically limit-

ed. Each tower accommodated six discs and one server controlled

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rob Strong 59

both. Some programs required multiple discs so as programs wereadded or expanded more towers would be needed. Serving off-campusand resident students similarly requires remote access but this necessi-tated additional hardware. Software and hardware required constantupgrading to deep pace with new technology. At the same time accessto similar or identical programs were becoming available over theWorld Wide Web.No additional equipment was needed to provide access to Web

databases outside the library, size of the database did not require anupgrade in equipment, and Web access actually reduced the number ofusers on our system. Each patron in the library used one designated,counted, purchased, and limited port. Each authorized patron outsidethe library accessed databases through an authorized Internet Protocol(IP) address and was not thereby reducing the number of library portsavailable. This feature geometrically expanded the number of patronswho could access library databases.2. Faculty will continue to be oriented to a physical format for the

immediate future. Therefore, we will add most titles in hard copy.Those that we can add in electronic format are identical to a physicalcopy we might otherwise add, and are free from the publisher will beadded in that manner.3-4. All purchased items will be cataloged, regardless of format, but

instead of a call number for the electronic copy’s location an em-bedded URL will be cited in the appropriate MARC field. This willallow faculty or students looking for specifically recommended titlesto locate them using the on-line catalog.5. While this item seems self-explanatory some explanation of ar-

chival retention and access of titles and issues may be in order. Pub-lishers allowing access to electronic issues by subscription do notnecessarily guarantee access in the future to either those specific is-sues or access in perpetuity if the library should cease subscribing. Alibrary may subscribe to the electronic title ‘‘A’’ for three years. Dur-ing that time the publisher may decide to allow only two concurrentyears to be accessed, causing the library to annually lose access to asingle year’s subscription.An alternate situation is apparent in the services offered by JSTOR

and OCLC’s Electronic Collections On-line. These two organizationsoffer archival access to titles and issues a library has subscribed to inthe past. If a university subscribes to the electronic copy of a journal,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply60

and if the publisher has given OCLC or JSTOR permission to add thetitle to its server, OCLC and JSTOR will provide access to the title andissues as long as the university pays the membership fee to access thedatabase. This will require long term commitment by the universitybut will greatly relieve concerns for storage, maintenance, upgradingequipment, shelving, and reference.6. We will not provide links to all sites accessible over the Internet.

Purchased titles accessible over the web will have a URL embedded inthe cataloging record. Electronic titles will not normally receive a linkfrom the library’s WebPages. Search engines and subscription data-bases will have a link and may be cataloged. Priority will be estab-lished by purchase, request by patron for acquisition, individual titleor database aggregator, and search engine.7. Many database aggregators or electronic title publishers restrict

users. The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor wishes to extend simul-taneous access to as many authorized users as possible. Access will besecured for as many authorized IP addresses as possible. This normal-ly allows any campus computer to access the site. The IP address isreported to the vendor and authorization codes programmed. A proxyserver manages off-campus authorized user access through the li-brary’s on-line public access computer. Most systems offer this ser-vice, although it will usually involve additional software and conse-quently cost.8. A site’s address makes very little difference to users accessing

linked or URL sites from the library computer. If a user notes asubscription site’s address and later uses it on another IP authorizedcomputer outside the library or via the proxy server from home, thesite should be accessible. Subsequently, if the library deletes the titleor another is substituted, the address added to the IP campus computerwill not work and access through the proxy server will not be availableto that database. There will be no explanation available to the user toinform him of the change of subscription. Changing access only oncea year can minimize this confusion. Cataloged titles, on the otherhand, can be added at any time since they will be accessed by the URLin the MARC record. The same confusion will result with withdrawntitles the user tries to access from a remote computer, but this is nodifferent than when a patron wants to check out a book previouslyused only to discover it has been withdrawn.The policy statements will provide a framework from which selec-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rob Strong 61

tion, collection development, and faculty cooperation can proceed.The Faculty Library Committee, a permanent committee of the Facul-ty Assembly, was consulted, its concerns addressed, and its formalrecommendation solicited. The Committee approved the policy and itsimplementation will begin immediately.The policy can be divided into two distinct categories and two types

of materials. Faculty recommendations or librarian selections consti-tute the categories and the materials include primarily reference andserials. Librarians select more electronic titles than do faculty becausefew of those titles have been subject specific or inexpensive enough toallow discipline interest. The faculty has until recently been trained todo research using the standard printed reference tools. New teachers,direct from graduate school, are more accustomed to technology andhave been more eager to secure electronic access.Electronic reference tools have been available for library access

longer than most other commercially available digital sources becausethey usually cross disciplines and so have broader marketability. Pub-lishers are now digitizing many titles and making them available inboth hard copy and electronic format. Retrieval of older editions,volumes, and issues of both reference works and serials is a primaryconcern for libraries. Once these archiving issues are resolved to li-braries’ satisfaction and publishers’ economic interest, libraries willbe less reluctant to change formats. Libraries are accustomed to beingable to offer a continuous sequence of issues of serials that support itscurriculum and every edition or volume of a reference title it wishes toretain on its shelves. Without this continued ability, libraries will avoidelectronic services that might create gaps in the collection should theyprove unreliable. OCLC’s Electronic Collections On-Line is an exam-ple of an attempt to address this issue. The database is not yet largeenough to attract substantial numbers of libraries to rely on this sourceas an exclusive format, but as the titles available expands, it andsimilar sites will prove irresistible. The economic comparisons ofspace savings, multiple access, decreased maintenance costs, index-ing, preservation, and demand will add impetus.Faculty recommends libraries purchase materials they believe stu-

dents should use; librarians recommend titles they find students needbased on working with those students. In several use studies dataindicates titles recommended by librarians tend to circulate at least asfrequently as those titles selected by faculty.3 Electronically oriented

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply62

faculty are now beginning to express interest in subject specific titles.Librarians should continue to monitor use studies with respect toelectronic titles because resources expended in acquisition are sub-stantially higher than for other formats.Weeding of electronic titles may also involve more titles than when

a single text is discarded. Aggregators of large databases that includemany different monographs or serials control the collections of manylibraries. Users rapidly become dependent on these sources and mustbe considered by libraries as subscriptions are added, continued, ordeleted. These bibliographic collections are usually expensive andhave generated interest in consortium purchasing, which has provenvery successful. Several libraries joining together to negotiate pur-chase of databases, previously out of the purchasing reach of smallerlibraries, enable them to be affordable to the group. Instead of onedatabase most colleges and universities are able to afford many withslightly different emphases. Libraries, however, must be cognizant ofthe sudden changes that result from realignments of consortiums overwhich individual libraries usually exercise little or no control. Mobil-ity, long term access assurances, hardware, software, telecommunica-tions changes, and budgetary vagaries all impact these long-term com-mitments.Electronic circulation is addressed in the number of simultaneous

users. Authorized users may vary by licensing agreement from one tomany simultaneous users. They may be restricted to a single building,a campus, or include remote access from off-campus. Licensing agree-ments are a consideration when Townsend Library’s policy is consid-ered. It is advantageous to the user if simultaneous access is extensiveand authorized users are not restricted geographically. The rise in thenumber of off-campus centers, distance learning opportunities, andother specialized and individualized offerings requires libraries to con-sider off-campus authorizations for every database purchased. TheInternet allows these users similar access.Remote access to bibliographic databases directly impacts interli-

brary loan. Some databases allow interlibrary loan interfaces from theOPAC and this generates concern. Libraries have not only the ethicalresponsibility to insure reasonable fair use but also the practical needto address publisher’s fiscal concerns. The recent problems commer-cial document suppliers have met provide a hint of the possibilitiesinherent in electronic research. Publishers eventually will be able to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Rob Strong 63

track usage data for specific titles. This should not unduly concernresearchers or institutions observing copyright compliance; however,the vagaries of the law probably would find a range of libraries instrict observance through complete disregard. This is an area that willdemand considerable attention in the future and deserves more inten-sive examination than can be provided in the context of this article.The policy in its current iteration is perceived as a work in prog-

ress. The library is a work in progress, the University is a work inprogress, electronic journals and databases are works in progress.This is neither a threat nor a major concern. Libraries have beendealing with evolving formats of documentation for years. This is,indeed, a change of major significance and the ramifications will befar reaching. At the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor the FacultyLibrary Committee was keenly interested in the potential expansionof research resources. They are equally interested in continuing toadvise and guide the library in its acquisition of materials to supportthe curriculum. The potential benefits of digitized information aremuch greater than those offered by microform. Faculty are quick toperceive these benefits and anxious to capitalize on their strengths.Participatory interest in the library is being cultivated by librarians asa significant byproduct.Digitized resources can preserve photographs in color and clarity,

be retrieved remotely at any time, and be printed easily and inexpen-sively. The faculty at Mary Hardin-Baylor appreciated the need forconversion of journals to microform but never accepted it as a formatof choice unless there was no alternative. Some teachers request titleson interlibrary loan that are owned by the library on microform be-cause they claim they are unable to read microform without excessiveeyestrain, headaches, and printed copy is not as legible as required.Librarians support the change because microform at Townsend Me-morial Library is an open collection. While users are requested not toreshelve the pieces, they are frequently anxious to assist, with mixedresults. This conscientious user behavior subsequently requires twostudents all summer to place the microform collection in proper order.Electronic access will eliminate some expensive, recurring, onerous

chores. The library will be maximizing fiscal resources, generatingsupport from the administration. Faculty are being involved and sup-port the format change. Using electronic resources for any purposeelicits student body support. The library not only achieves positive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Information Supply64

public relations from all constituents but also alleviates growing prob-lems by gradually experimenting with new technology and formats.Digitization is still an evolving process but the policies allow someframework with which to manipulate our dependence. Libraries are onthe cusp of major changes in the process of research. Electronic re-sources are the engines driving this revision. Policies and procedureswill act as the wheel to direct the progress.

NOTES

1. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, Cri-teria for Accreditation, 8th ed. (Atlanta: Southern Association of Colleges andSchools, 1992), 46.

2. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges, Cri-teria for Accreditation, 11th ed. (Atlanta: Southern Association of Colleges andSchools, 1997), 57.

3. Joan H. Worley, ‘‘Collection development in a small college library: can less bemore?’’ Choice 25, no. 10 (June 1988): 1514, and Larry Hardesty, ‘‘Use of librarymaterials at a small liberal arts college,’’ Library Trends 3 (1981): 274.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

0:30

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14