v v

Wasted Words: The Written Collection Development Policy and the Academic

by Richard Snow

Library

Written collection development policies in the

academic library are unnecessary. The widespread

endorsement of written policies in the literature represents

librarianship’s acceptance of unchallenged assumptions.

Instead of writing policies that

quickly become irrelevant and outdated, bibliographers

should concentrate on selection and evaluation of their

collections.

Richard Snow is Collection Development

Librarian, Loyola University Library,

Loyola University in New Orleans,

6363 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 707 7 8

<snow@beta.loyno.edu>.

C onvention demands that academic libraries produce, maintain, and revise written collection develop-

ment policies. This library orthodoxy goes unchallenged as each class of library school graduates ventures forth seeking employment. Along with a commitment to service and resistance to censorship, the necessity of the written collection development policy is part of the creed of librarianship.

THE WORD AND THE DEED

Unfortunately, as with many creeds, this one is honored as much in the breach as the observance. In 1977, a survey of 69 members of the Association of Research Libraries indicated that only 20 (29%) had written policies.’ Most likely, the inter- vening years have raised that low percent- age, but more current studies reveal persistent straying from what would be considered the conventional fold. A recent examination of five academic or research libraries in Alabama showed that only one had a written policy, with pleas of poverty, lack of time and overwork offered as excuses for not fulfilling this supposedly necessary aspect of the librarian’s job.2 In 1988, a survey of small and medium-sized libraries produced higher percentages of compliance. Of the 193 libraries surveyed, 107 (55%) responded; and of those, 62 (58%) had some sort of collection devel- opment policy. It must be noted, however, that the sample for this study was com- posed of self-selected libraries that had volunteered to participate in exactly these sorts of studies, and that the policies in question ran the gamut from lengthy doc- uments to “a couple of pages of quasi ‘mission statement.‘“3

As with any survey, the status of those not responding remains unknown, although vanity alone might encourage sharing with a wider audience the product of all the time and trouble that go into cre-

ating a presentable written policy, espe- cially from libraries that had already displayed eagerness to be part of the statis- tical team.

“Along with a commitment to service and resistance to

censorship, the necessity of the written collection development

policy is part of the creed of librarianship.”

In the author’s own state of Louisiana, interviews with a number of librarians concerned with collection development produced differing opinions about the necessity of having a written policy and about the policy’s usefulness once it was written. The interviews did reveal a curi- ous paradox: in a state chronically short of money for academic libraries, the two strongest libraries-at Tulane and Louisi- ana State University-lacked comprehen- sive written policies; while libraries where book budgets for years had been nonexist- ent or insignificant had well-developed written documents.4

DEFINITIONS

One possible explanation for the absence of universal acceptance of the written policy, despite its near unanimous endorsement in librarianship’s literature, is the lack of precise definition of what a written policy is as opposed to what it does. William A. Wortman illustrates this difficulty when he defines the written col- lection development policy as “a crystalli- zation of each library’s understanding of how its collection can serve its mission.” He calls the policy a “detailed profile of all the subjects in which the library will col- lect books, periodicals, and other materi-

May 1996 191

als or media.” Then, like most writers on the subject, he strays into the realm of per- formance, noting that the policy “can guide selection of new materials and also can provide the framework for decisions about maintenance, renewal, preservation and weeding.“5

Ross Atkinson scarcely clarifies the definition when he calls the written policy a “system of communication,” with refer- ential, generative and rhetorical functions that operate in a “conventionalized system of signs.” He notes that the “subject cate- gories and collection levels serve as spe- cialized sign systems, the constituent signs of which can only be understood by using those systems and, through such use, con- trasting the signs within each system to each other.” He describes hermeneutic cir- cles, hermeneutic leaps and self-validating interpretations.6

THE CHORUS OF PRAISE

Little wonder that many librarians have hesitated to embark on the daunting task of creating such a document. Yet, in spite of evidence of disaffection among the faithful, the champions of the written col- lection development policy are legion. A review of the literature on collection development policies uncovers only two articles that are at all critical. Jennifer Cargill admits that her heresy is simply a stimulus for discussion, not her true belief.7 Dan C. Hazen discreetly questions the policy’s applicability in today’s chang- ing library.* In contrast, the advocates offer numerous reasons for the written policy’s existence. Often these justifica- tions take the form of tautology: the policy is needed because it is indispensable. Bon- ita Bryant supports policies because of the “profession’s insistence that policy docu- ments are essential.“’ Mary J. Bostic con- tends that “the necessity for a written collection development statement is self-evident.“” G.E. Gorman and B.R. Howes assert that it is “professional1

l? irre-

sponsible” not to have a document. The American Library Association’s Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements argues that the collection development policy tool.“t2

“is for any library a necessary

According to most writers, the collec- tion development policy exhibits a long list of virtues. The document “provides the rationale for selection of individual items and ensures consistency and balance in the growth of collection.“t3 It encourages cooperation among selectors. l4 The writ- ten policy forces consideration of the

library’s goals within “a context anchored in the present and directed toward the future.” It states what must be supported at all costs, and targets what will be sup- ported as money becomes available.15 The document allows bibliographers to resist the ressure to add inappropriate mate- rial. p6 It describes collection development in a “systematic way,” provides new bibli- ographers with information they will need in doing their jobs, identifies areas for interlibrary loan cooperation, documents areas where cooperation exists, estab- lishes priorities for cataloging and preser- vation, and provides information on the libra ‘s commitment to intellectual free- dom? Eric J. Carpenter lumps these functions into three categories: written policies are planning documents; they are methods of communication; they are a basis for resource sharing among librar- ies.18 Scott R. Bullard declares that the policy encourages cot;tact between profes- sors and librarians, thus moving aca- demic librarians closer to that most coveted prize, the respect of professors.

“One difficulty is that writing the policy involves one of the librarian’s most challenging

and confusing tasks: collection evaluation.”

SOME GENTLE RESERVATIONS

With such an array of benefits, why would even one library hesitate to do whatever is necessary to have a written policy in place immediately? Sadly, the collection development policy is not with- out drawbacks. One difficulty is that writ- ing the policy involves one of the librarian’s most challenging and confusing tasks: collection evaluation. Althou h

30 some writers discount this requirement, and many (perhaps most) librarians ignore it, writers on the subject emphasize that the evaluation is an essential foundation for writing an effective policy.2’ Any seti- ous collection development policy requires awareness of where the library is, not simply where it wants to go. Coming up with current strengths and weaknesses, and with how the library’s materials are used, is a formidable undertaking that could easily involve numerous individuals within the library, and many outside it. Evaluations require hours of labor, or the expenditure of a substantial amount of

cash if the library uses an electronic com- parison, such as a collection analysis CD.

In recent years many bibliographers have come to favor a numeric grading of collections devised by the Research Libraries Group, christened the Conspec- tus. As David Henige points out, this rank- ing-which on its face appears to be an objective measure of collection strength- is based upon questionable premises that replicate the very subjectivity the Con- spectus was designed to overcome.** Henige raises a larger philosophical issue when he notes that the Conspectus addresses “the perennial issue in many disciplines-the degree to which they are, or can be made to become ‘scientific.“’ The Conspectus represents an attempt “to render the unmanageable manageable, the unknowable knowable, the uncertain cer- tain.” To accomplish this Herculean feat librarians call on “techniques that will demonstrate that all forms of knowledge can be identified, measured, and tested and more importantly, that these proce- dures can be encoded and extrapolated from one part of a universe to all oth- ers.“23

Henige’s position is strengthened by Michael P. Olson’s examination of the Conspectus as applied to the specialized area of Scandinavian literature. According to Olson, the Conspectus “undermines itself.” It suffers from two “fundamental, insuperable problems.” These are incon- sistent understanding of the guidelines and an overly simplistic “measurement scale.” Olson states the issue plainly: “The over- riding problem with using the Conspectus to evaluate and compare Scandinavian collections at American libraries is its ulti- mate inability to generate consequential information.“24 These shortcomings undermine any written policy that rests upon such a weak foundation. How can a policy based on a faulty evaluation justify the labor involved in writing it?

The point is not that evaluation is unnecessary. Bibliographers should de- vote much of their time to this important responsibility. Evaluation, however, because of its difficulty, expense, and con- tinuous nature, discourages writing a use- ful policy. And the Conspectus, because it is an inadequate method of evaluation, is hardly the foundation on which to con- struct a written policy.

Another weakness is the written pol- icy’s inflexibility, its unresponsiveness to changes that occur in the college or uni- versity. In the academic library the curric- ulum-something generally outside the

192 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

control of librarians-dictates the areas of the collection that require attention. Departments rarely consult librarians before hiring new professors. Whole fields of study may be added or dropped with lit- tle warning. Yet, bibliographers are expected to respond to these changes, and, presumably, the collection development policy must be altered to reflect the new conditions. Such continuous revisions demand more time and money. A natural temptation is to respond to the dictates of the curriculum and ignore the policy. The first fall from grace encourages the next, and the next, until the policy is a relic of another time. The more aloof from prac- tice the policy becomes, the more mean- ingless and wasteful become all the time, energy and money that went into produc- ing it. Even advocates of the written pol-

icy, such as Gortnan and Howes, recognize this drawback:

To the degree that policy statements are static, they do inhibit the librarian’s response to such changes; and unfortu- nately many [policies] exist which, because of the time and effort involved in their preparation, have become inflex- ible codes-”

“In the academic library the curriculum-something

generally outside the control of librarians-dictates the areas of

the collection that require attention. Departments rarely

consult librarians before hiring new professors.”

Inflexibility and waste are the written policy’s biggest flaws, but several other problems detract from its usefulness. Experienced bibliographers with a thor- ough familiarity with the curriculum often see little reason to commit their knowl- edge to the written page. In libraries where professors do most of the selection, librar- ians question the need to compose policies that have little bearing on everyday prac- tice. When budgets for new materials cease to exist, or become so paltry as to be meaningless, policies resemble pointless exercises, a cost1 endeavor to build a world of fantasy. 2x

Scrutiny of the claim that policies increase library cooperation uncovers yet another fallacy. When libraries seek infor- mation about what other libraries hold

there are effective electronic methods for accomplishing the task. The Internet and national online data bases such as OCLC offer specific locations of specific mate- rial. Familiarity with the collection devel- opment policies of neighboring colleges and universities, or with one’s own policy, for that matter, will not locate a single title that is needed.*’ One of the written pol- icy’s strongest defenders admits that a cooperative venture in Ohio, in which libraries used policies to acquire familiar- ity with different collections in the area, resulted in no cooperative buying. For many the tale is familiar: The librarians “eventually came to the conclusion that because of pressing local needs there was little [they] could do to prevent duplica- tion of essential titles by member librar- ies.“**

APPROVAL PLANS AND WRITTEN POLICY

For libraries with approval plans an additional difficulty of the written policy is the duplication of work required to simultaneously maintain the written pol- icy and the subject profiles of the approval plan. Scott R. Bullard states that the approval profiles would be the collection development policy if all the library’s pur- chases were current and no retrospective buying were required. He proposes a dual system: written policies and approval pro- files, if the library intends to fill in its col- lection’s retrospective gaps.29 Eric Carpenter observes that the “approval plan profile is in reality the embodiment of a pre-existing collection development pol- icy (whether or not it has been written down) and translates it into a concrete, detailed plan for acquiring current publi- cations.” He argues the necessity of hav- ing written collection development policies in place before establishing pro- files, although he fails to justify the redun- dancy of effort or to explain how the collection development policy can match the approval plan’s flexibility and respon- siveness.30 Both writers ignore the eager- ness of approval vendors to run profiles retrospectively, thus filling gaps and trans- ferring more of the library’s money to the vendor’s bank account.

In fact, as any bibliographer who has developed, refined and eventually accepted an approval plan profile knows, the exercise is identical to the process pre- scribed for writing a collection develop- ment policy. There is, however, one critical difference. The approval plan pro- file is a living document that translates

intellectual endeavor into practical action. A profile produces books for as long as the library can afford to pay for them. Changes that may appear insignificant in the profile can have immediate repercus- sions, affecting every other subject the library addresses and dictating the direc- tion of the library’s collection growth. Changes in the collection development policy, on the other hand, have influence only in the sense that bibliographers choose to follow the direction they them- selves have described in the policy.

Because the policy is an intellectual guide to selection rather than a practical method of selecting material, it is theoret- ical. Each bibliographer interprets its “the- ory” in a different way. Along this course, objectivity-the supposed virtue of the written policy-falls by the wayside. What one bibliographer considers a “5” in the Conspectus system, another considers only a “3.” The library winds up where it started, with the best collection it can attain relying on all the subjective choices from all the individuals who select books, periodicals and other materials.

“For libraries with approval plans an additional difficulty of

the written policy is the duplication of work required to

simultaneously maintain the written policy and the subject profiles of the approval plan.”

PARTING ADVICE

The written policy represents a signifi- cant investment in its creation and mainte- nance. As this article indicates, its acceptance in practice, as opposed to in theory, is by no means universal. If the document is neglected, it loses the ques- tionable value that led to its creation in the first place. Unless a policy is almost con- tinuously updated to reflect the changes at a college or university, the document retains only its archival value, becoming the occupant of the last folder in the bot- tom drawer of a filing cabinet. Librarians should view with skepticism the conven- tional wisdom that says the written policy is a necessity. A better use of the bibliog- rapher’s time would be an evaluation of how material in the library is used, and why. And at some point the bibliographer might even find time to select books, peri- odicals, computer software and all the

May 1996 193

other materials demanded by today’s aca-

demic community.

NOTESANDREFERJZNCES 1. Bonita Bryant, “Collection Development Policies in Medium-Sized Academic Libraries,” Collection Building 2 (1980-1981): 25. 2. Linda McNair Cohen, “Collection Development in Alabama’s Academic Libraries,” Collection Management 10 (1988): 45. 3. Theresa Taborsky & Patricia Lenkowski, compilers, Collection Development Policies for College Libraries: Clip Note #1 I (Chicago: American Library Association, 1989), pp. 1-2, 6, 12. 4. Richard Snow, “Collection Development Policies, Collection Manuals, and Louisiana’s Academic Libraries,” LLA Bulletin 56 (Summer, 1993): 23-25. 5. William A. Wortman, Collection Management: Background and Principles (Chicago: American Library Association, 1989) p. 124. 6. Ross Atkinson, “The Language of the Levels: Reflections on the Communication of the Collection Development Policy,” College & Research Libraries 47 (March, 1986): 141, 144. 7. Jennifer Cargill, “Collection Development Policies: An Alternative Viewpoint.” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 8 (1984): 47-49. 8. Dan C. Hazen, “Collection Development Policies in the Information Age,” College & Research Libraries 56 (January, 1995): 29-31. 9. Bryant, “Collection Development Policies,” 15. 10. Mary J. Bostic, “A Written Collection Development Policy: To Have or Have Not,” Collection Management 10 (1988): 90. 11. G.E. Gorman & B.R. Howes, Collection Development for Libraries (London: Bowker-Saur, 1989), p. 6. 12. American Library Association, Resources and Technical Services Division, Collection Management and Development Committee, Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements (Chicago: American Library Association, 1989), pp. 2-3. 13. Bostic, “Written Collection Develop- ment,” p. 90. 14. Rose Mary Magrill & John Corbin, Acquisitions Management and Collection

Development in Libraries, 2d ed., (Chicago: American Library Association, 1989), pp. 31-32. 15. Gorman & Howes, Collection Develop- ment, pp. 5-6. 16. Wortman, Collection Management, p. 126. 17. American Library Association, Guide, pp. 2-3. 18. Eric J. Carpenter, “Collection Develop- ment Policies: The Case For,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 8 (1984): 43. 19. Scott R. Bullard, “Read My Lips: The Politics of Collection Development,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 13 (1989): 2.52. 20. Linda K. Ward, “Collection Policy in College and University Libraries,” in Background Readings in Building Library Collections, 2d ed., ed. by Phyllis Van Orden and Edith B. Phillips, (Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1979) p. 95. 21. Charles B. Osbum, “Some Practical Observations on the Writing, Implementation, and Revision of Collection Development Policy,” Library Resources and Technical Services 23 (Winter, 1979):12; Magrill & Corbin, Acquisitions Management, pp. 34-35; Wortman, Collection Management, pp. 126-129; Atkinson, “Language of the Levels,” pp. 140-149. 22. David Henige, “Epistomological Dead End and Ergonomic Disaster? The North American Collections Inventory Project,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 13 (September, 1987): 209-213. 23. Ibid., p. 213. 24. Michael P. Olson, “The Trip to Venus: New Methods for Evaluating and Comparing Scandinavian Literature Collections,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 18 (September, 1992): 206. 25. Gorman & Howes, Collection Develop- ment, p. 7. 26. Bryant, “Collection Development Poli- cies,” 9-l 1, 18, 23; Magrill & Corbin, Acquisitions Management, p. 32; Bostic, “Written Collection Development,” pp. 93-94. 27. Henige, “Dead End,” p. 212. 28. Carpenter, “Collection Development Poli- cies,” p. 45. 29. Bullard, “Read My Lips,” p. 252. 30. Carpenter, “Collection Development Poli- cies,” pp. 39, 40-42.

194 The Journal of Academic Librarianship