ACQNET v1n070 (May 7, 1991) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v1n070 ACQNET, Vol 1, No. 70, May 7, 1991 ================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (15 lines) (2) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: Tenets of acquisitions (39 lines) (3) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: Acquisitions/Collection development (29 lines) (4) FROM: Margie Axtmann SUBJECT: Acquisitions/Collection development (15 lines) (5) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: ALCTS reorganization (23 lines) (6) FROM: Margie Axtmann SUBJECT: _Code of Federal Regulations_, donating serials to libraries (17 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: May 7, 1991 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Eleanor Cook Serials Department Librarian Appalachian State University E-mail: COOKEI@APPSTATE.BITNET and rejoining, now in the Big Apple, formerly at Univ. of Louisville: Joyce McDonough Assistant Director, Technical Support Columbia University Library E-mail: JM86@CUNIXF.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 May 91 12:03:08 U From: "Joyce Ogburn" Subject: Tenets of acquisitions [I asked Joyce to expand on her concept of the tenets of acquisitions. Here is her reply. C.] As for the tenets, this was a very new idea I came up with that I thought I'd try out. I'm trying to get at the basic principles behind acquisitions, those things which makes our existence possible and desirable. At Charleston a few folks said that we had theory, but nobody has come up with a statement of it. What is acquisitions theory? How do we even think about thinking about it? Do we really even have theory, and so we need it in order to be professionals? In reading a lot of science, I try to extract principles that are useful ways of looking at the universe, which includes acquisitions. Physics is based on the principle that the universe is regular, definable, and measurable. Does acquisitions operate on a similar principle? Does librarianship operate on a similar principle? Are we the only segment of the profession that does? Or maybe the larger principle holds that the patron universe is definable, measurable, and regular; or maybe it doesn't. In any case, how are we going to define ourselves? What model do we want to use? If you disagree with this approach, please argue! I am not bound to this idea, I want to explore alternative ways of thinking. Certainly if we start bandying about the term "theory," we are implying some sort of scientific basis for what we do. Although the exceptions are what make acquisitions librarians so important, if the publishing world were less reliable/predictable than it is, we would not be able to send out orders, encumber commitments, send out checks, or do anything else that relies on regularity and confidence in the system; we wouldn't have _Books in Print_; we wouldn't have OCLC; we wouldn't have exchange programs; etc. Computers are not yet advanced enough to handle expert systems for acquisitions decisions, so we can't say they can do our jobs just because publishing is predictable. Physicists and engineers aren't replaceable because the universe is regular, defineable, and measureable. We still need managers, analysts, liaisons to interface with the publishing world in order to get their product into the library. Please don't misunderstand the concept - if we are to start defining acquisitions and its theory, we have to have concrete descriptions of what we are managing and how we function in relation to it. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 May 91 10:18:45 U From: "Joyce Ogburn" Subject: Acquisitions/Collection development Thomas Kuhn best known for his work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and the concept of paradigms in science, has written a lot of thoughtful philosophy on science and scientific discovery. One essay he calls, "The Essential Tension", which refers to the various means by which science advanc- es. I won't go into details of his theories, but he discusses the roles of divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and consensus in science. I prefer to think of the tension between acquisitions and collection develop- ment as "essential tension" because we are different and have different methods and goals (divergent thinking), but also we work for the same ultimate end in serving our clients through building collections or providing resources (convergent thinking). Both acquisitions and collection development advance through the natural and healthy tension that occurs when our microlevel goals and function come into conflict. We can and should take the opportunity to examine our methods and our differences to see if we really are doing the best job in the best way and to learn from each other - to advance our thinking and to grow. Librarianship isn't static. Tension in modern jargon is generally considered to be unhealthy, but tension, as understood in the science of mechanics, is part of what keeps a system in equilibrium. What we are really talking about is conflict, an important distinction, which is something that should be resolved. Now I expect some of you may acuse me of splitting hairs, but if we can conceive of tension as something that is healthy and normal in any system, then we're doing okay. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 May 91 14:36:18 EDT From: Margie Axtmann Subject: Acquisitions/collection development No one has mentioned one source of tension that I have seen between collection development and acquisitions. That is the notion that collection development is somehow more intellectual than acquisitions work, which admittedly tends to be more production-oriented. I guess now that I think about it, I'm glad that no one has put that forth as a reason. Perhaps we really are learning from each other. I have observed many a rift between reference librarians and catalogers, as Karen Schmidt pointed out too, and it usually centers on the idea that reference requires more intellectual analysis whereas in cataloging you just need to know the rules. Stupid stuff, but some people must believe it. Let's hope that thinking doesn't permeate the relationship between acquisitions and collection development. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 May 91 10:39:33 U From: "Joyce Ogburn" Subject: RS split and ALCTS organization As Richard has raised this question again, I will be brave and say one more thing. Regarding the issue of the Acquisitions Section not treading on the toes of other sections, particularly serials, I find it hard to believe that the Serials Section doesn't overlap with acquisitions and cataloging on a number of fronts. Does CCS never discuss serials? Does SS never discuss acquisitions and cataloging? What about PLMS and RLMS? Do they never discuss anything related to serials? Oh, give me a break - that can't be true. I would hope that SS deals with issues that are more peculiar to serials, but that shouldn't preclude Acquisitions talking about serials as a normal part of the acquisitions function, nor Collection Development talking about approval plans, nor cataloging talking about searching. What are our working definitions here? What are these artificial distinctions? Why are we all in the same Division if we have to be so separate? I don't advocate merging serials in with other sections, I prefer to see serials be a normal part of the business of the other sections and let SS deal with the areas that are germane to serials management as a distinct specialization. As long as the Acquisitions Section is stuck with the awful name of ALMS (Acquisition of Library Materials), we should be able to talk about library materials, regardless of form or format. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 May 91 14:24:21 EDT From: Margie Axtmann Subject: _Code of Federal Regulations_, donating serials to libraries I do not think there are any federal regulations regarding individual subscrip- tions and gifts to libraries. I searched CFR without finding anything remotely connected to this topic. Recently I learned from a faculty member in the sciences that some societies require individuals to sign an agreement when they enter an individual subscription. They agree not to give the issues to their libraries for a certain period of time. The number of years varies depending on the society. This was the first time I had heard of such a practice, but several other faculty who were in the room at the time nodded in agreement. Some of them donate their (older) issues to Third World countries rather than keeping them. So, in response to Karen Schmidt's question, I suggest that the departmental librarian find out if the donor has signed such an agreement before she accepts the gift. ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE ***** END OF FILE *****