Library acquisitions: Practice and Theory, Vol. 8, pp. 47-49, 1984 03~8~~ $3.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright * 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT POLICIES: AN AL~RNATIVE ~E~POINT

JENNIFER CARGILL

Head, Acquisitions Librarian

Miami University Libraries

Oxford, OH 45056

The case FOR written collection development policies has been articulated in the literature for many years. The topic is regularly addressed in publications as well as serving as the focus of numerous conferences and workshops around the country. The question remains: Is a written collection development policy really necessary? One might also ask: Is a written collection development pohcy prudent? And who should have the power or authority to make such policy decisions: faculty, librarians, the director?

The question also arises: If these written policies are such an important factor, then why don’t all academic libraries have them? Wouldn’t more libraries have drafted collection development policies and have them available for examination if they are such a vital ingredient? The philosophy or theory of collection development and evaluation is still developing. It is a difficult concept to grasp and implement. Collection development might almost be considered more of an artform than a structured concept. Creating a workable document that can be applied to the selection process is exceedingly difficult. Relatively few policies have existed long enough for their impact on their respective collections to be -%mined and analyzed. AND, if .libraries are coping with developing their collections without WRITTEN policies, whey then engage in an exercise known to be time-consuming and difficult to prepare? The existence of a written policy does not guarantee that a balanced collection will result. The policy, if written, represents an ideal rather than a realistic situation. How can such policies be accurately interpreted? Academic libraries need the flexibility and freedom to make selection choices without being tied to a written policy.

Editor’s Note: This paper was written to present a devil’s advocate’s viewpoint and does not actually reflect the viewpoint of the author.

47

48 JENNIFER CARGILL

POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

On a regional basis, universities and colleges may attempt to engage in cooperative purchasing with their neighboring institutions. But how effective are such agreements? Academic libraries must support their own curriculum first. Cooperative purchasing, while a commendable concept, must take second place to the noble concepts of sharing between institutions. A written policy that limits the collection of an institution may reflect the regional, cooperative goals rather than the goals of an individual university or college of which the library is a part. A written policy reflecting specific collecting patterns may also affect levels of funding from a state board of higher education. Cooperative purchasing is particularly difficult to conduct in comprehensive uni- versities which must purchase in all areas.

Within the institution itself, the primary interests and mission of the university or college must be well known before it is possible to have a written policy within the library. The aims, objectives and institutional mission must exist in great detail before a library can even begin to adapt objectives to its collection development policy or to formulate cooperative relationships with other institutions. In the changeable climate of the 1980s an institution’s future curriculum may be vague or even unknown. Research goals may be unclear. If a written policy is attempted, it will most likely become dated before it reaches its final form simply because of the institution’s lack of decision about programs of study and research. Lack of continuity in an institution’s central administration can even make it unwise to attempt to create and rely on a written policy. This may be particularly true of a university or college that is changing from a humanistic approach to education to a technological approach. Indeed, within an institution, a collection development policy can easily become a political issue as faculty, sensitive about the needs of their own disciplines, see colleagues in other disciplines receiving preferential treatment. This political climate can lead to situations in which segments of the academic community become alienated from the library.

Faculty members are hired without consulting librarians. However, new faculty and their subject specialties must ultimately be supported. A collection development policy that does not reflect a specific research area will make it difficult for the library to respond to a faculty researcher’s needs. Similarly, as new disciplines emerge, an inflexible existing policy makes it difficult to make critical purchasing decisions quickly in response to new demands. As faculty leave, an existing policy slows the process to cease collecting in areas that are no longer relevant. Of particular importance today is the fact that enrollment fluctuations do produce a marked effect on purchasing and that libraries should be able to move quickly rather than being tied to a restrictive policy. There is a real danger in inhibiting librarians with static statements. And if faculty happen to control the funds and the selection process, collecting will reflect their particular interests rather than the goals of following a set policy.

Within the library itself, the hiring of selectors in specific fields indicates what subject areas are considered worthy of special emphasis or support. These selectors are hired for their competence in assessing the needs of the collection. Why hinder them with a stated policy that could prevent them from reacting quickly to changes and shifts in the curriculum, faculty, and student body? As enrollment changes, and some disciplines grow or decline, the selector should be free to respond quickly.

ACADEMIA IN THE 1980s

A formal, written and approved collection development policy leads inevitably to inflexibility. Particularly in the 1980s flexibility is desirable. We must be able to respond instantly to changes

Collection Development Policies: An Alternative Viewpoint 49

in the academic community. Purchasing must always reflect current needs. Indeed, few institutions can realistically afford to acquire anything but currently available materials. That’s all that is affordable, considering today’s rapidly escalating costs for library materials and the present trend toward austerity in higher education. We cannot acquire materials simply because a policy mandates their purchase: we must purchase according to actual, demonstrated need. Budgets are all too frequently unstable and future funding is unsure. As if this were not enough, there’s another funding concern. The source of funding for a particular library is critical. If a given library becomes increasingly dependent on grants and gifts for a portion of its funding, any plan for systematic collection development is impossible. In such instances, funding dictates how the collection grows. Conversely, if you have a large funding windfall, spending must take place rapidly and there’s often little or no time to consider a policy.

With our rapidly changing technology, we must find ways to remain open to purchasing a variety of new types of materials, not just the traditional books, periodicals, and microforms. We will be approaching the collecting of new types of materials and must have the flexibility to respond to demands without becoming bogged down in elaborate policies which take meeting, negotiations, and dialogue to change.

In summary, we must be realistic. We must be responsive to change. Writing collection development policies is time-consuming. They are difficult to compile and review. They can impose unneeded limitations on the acquisition of materials. They do not reflect the day-today reality of rapidly changing campus needs. They are administrative or management tools which can be identified-but in the final analysis are they worth all the time, effort, and politics that go into their creation? I think not. As an alternative, 1 propose that libraries adopt a general statement of purpose, one that can become the focal point of an ongoing dialogue between faculty and librarians, thus serving to institutionalize both stability and flexibility in the delicate process of collection building.