ACQNET v4n018 (March 24, 1994) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v4n018 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 18, March 24, 1994 ====================================== (1) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: Acquisitions profession (55 lines) (2) FROM: Will Jarvis SUBJECT: Acquisitions profession (23 lines) (3) FROM: Meta Nissley SUBJECT: Acquisitions profession (32 lines) (4) FROM: Donna Packer SUBJECT: Acquisitions profession (39 lines) (5) FROM: Jim Mumm SUBJECT: Handling charges ethics (42 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Joyce Ogburn (Yale University) Subject: Whither acquisitions librarians Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 10:10:43 -0500 Why are acquisitions librarians not talking about the issues you mentioned? I think they are, but not on ACQNET, perhaps not in any public forum. Why? Well, for one I think that in many cases library administrators and other librarians don't think the issues are any of acquisitions librarians' business. Therefore acquisitions librarians are not encouraged to participate in the discussions, join the associations, or attend the meetings where these issues are deemed to be most critical. Institutions are parochial: often thinking is limited to local situations, administrative lines, and organizational patterns. The broader picture of the evolution of libraries and library functions is not there. In this kind of environment, trying to break free of the mold of what is (or had been) acquisitions is difficult. It is hard to educate the rest of the profession and our institutional colleagues on why these things matter to acquisitions and how acquisitions librarians can contribute to the discussions. The recognition of the impact of the projects and changes you mentioned is not there. Perhaps more fundamentally, as you have indicated before, librarians categorize themselves among the various specialties and functions. They don't perceive themselves generally as librarians first and foremost. Specialties and functions can create barriers and territories. In a mad scramble to survive the current changes, territories are more jealously guarded, rather than shared. Group problem solving isn't necessarily encouraged. As for the perceptions of acquisitions being less professional than other areas, this may be the case sometimes. But often acquisitions simply isn't well understood (or no one volunteers to work in acquisitions part time) because the functions are very complex, there are few rules (mostly guidelines and principles), and acquisitions takes years to learn. Let's not forget that technical services areas, which often includes acquisitions, have been under enormous pressure in recent years to downsize, streamline, and become more efficient. Technical services is seen as the area where automation can most improve processing and savings (often in the form of staff cuts) can be realized. This is probably true. So technical services librarians are at the forefront of understanding systems, workflow analysis, and staff costs. Where are other librarians in these discussions? Aren't they equally important to the future and survival of libraries? And don't we also spend an enormous amount of time engaged with collection development in discussing pricing of materials, changes in formats, budgeting for change, how to get the materials, how vendor services are changing, etc.? I think these are critical to the profession as well. We are chastising each other (acquisitions librarians) for not engaging in discussion of timely topics. I say it ain't necessarily so. (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Will Jarvis (Washington State University) Subject: Acquisitions profession Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 12:05:13 -0500 Everything is changing--except one thing: something, somehow, for some reason(s) will still be acquired. Those acquired "things" --the new access to copyright, or whatever, will still need the full "Hewitt Treatment" of The Acquisitions Librarian. The institution that doesn't understand that is shooting it's foot off. We as a subprofession are definitely not communicating that to directors and technical services directors adequately. A suggestion: every time you are asked to do--or do yourself--something weirdly complex that everybody needs but does not understand: point out that an acquisitions librarian just did it. Not a reference librarian, or cataloger, or "techie", but you. Specifically, we need to work in ALA to keep the acquisitions perspective at the forefront of the organizational-processing revolution. Amongst ourselves we may need a new "briefing book" to use to tell the administrators who we are and why we're needed. (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Meta Nissley (Cal. State - Chico) Subject: Acquisitions profession Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 16:54:48 -0500 I have felt a heaviness and am slightly morose when I think about our profession. I have reconciled myself to the idea that the reasons I chose to enter the profession are not what I will be doing for the rest of my career. Perhaps I am the last "L" (librarian) to have been hired here, the next one may well be a "I.M." (information manager). Will we have the same job descriptions and responsibilities? I'm not sure. We have needed change to come to our profession, but I regret that we have not been as vigorous and demanding of the education of future librarians and of performance standards for librarians in the field as we might have been. We have been forced to react to demands made by others external to our profession instead of being the vanguard for change. I believe in the democratic distribution of information, I have a strong service orientation, good management skills, and enough flexibility and knowledge about technological changes to be able to adapt and see change implemented in what I do, what the acquisitions and collection management staff does, and the functions we will perform, internally and externally. If I choose to stay in the profession, these qualities will help me through. I love books and I love to read but I find myself dealing with books as commodities and having to constantly focus on the newest electronic gadget, which frustrates me to no end because there never seems to be enough time in my life to successfully blend the old and the new and yet have time to reflect on it all! (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Donna Packer (Western Washington Univ.) Subject: Future of the Acquisitions Profession Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 17:51:10 -0500 Like so many of my acquisitions colleagues, acquisitions/serials management is now only one of many responsibilities assigned to me. It occupies about one third of my time. But when I do get to thinking about the future, I know I hope we will always be in the business of buying print books and journals. But I also know that increasing amount of our decreasing acquisitions budget are going to the purchase of CD-ROM and other electronic format databases. Our future may hold the purchase database tapes for mounting online, and probably other new formats which we can scarcely imagine are in our future too. I think we, acquisitions people, should quietly and firmly claim the purchasing of information, knowledge, etc. as our specialty. We are the ones who know how to manage license agreements; after all, we've been handling annual leases for Dun and Bradstreet and similar publications for years. We need to be willing to find ways to convince the auditor that the library is receiving any electronic journals we may subscribe to, even if we can't put one in his/her hands. We can make ourselves useful by keeping track of which databases are multiple vs. single-user licenses, and so on. I also think we might find ways to be helpful to other departments in the library. Can we do record keeping for a reference unit that has permission to purchase pamphlets, etc. on their own? Perhaps we can be useful to our ILL/Document Delivery operations: we can rush order very new material not yet available for ILL; we can perhaps arrange purchase of inexpensive but hard to borrow materials for our ILL people; we can take responsibility for putting invoices received by ILL from other libraries through the university accounting system - after all, we're experts at that. In short, as the knowledge formats change and increase in number, but our acquisitions budgets shrink, and the numbers of items ordered and check in decrease, we can still find specialty niches to make our own. (5)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jim Mumm (Marquette University( <9724MUMMJ@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> Subject: Handling fee ethics Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 10:10:47 -0500 This message was first on the issue of ACQNET that appeared before the ALA Midwinter break. Because there was no response I am reposting. Thanks for being patient and for considering this issue. -- Jim Mumm I would like to throw out a few questions, as futile as they may be, on the ethics of handling charges. Preface: When referring to handling charges, and negotiating, I understand that many large book vendors (Baker & Taylor, Blackwell, etc.) will forego handling charges because of the competition factor. What I am concerned about is cases where you purchase from a particular publisher (eg. you might have a subscription to a series or loose- leaf set with a particular publisher), or where you purchase from a purchasing agent (eg. EBSCO or FAXON). It is understandable, too, that the larger the library, the more likely it is you will get a good discount or reduction in handling fees. The questions I raise are on a more general level: 1. Are handling charges ethical? Postage I can understand, but what about handling? When we (acquisitions librarians) purchase a title we are given an understanding of what the price and possible discount(s) are, but then the publisher or distributor tacks on this additional "handling" charge. Would it be more honest, and a better service to simply include that charge into the price of the product? 2. Is it ethical to refuse to pay a handling fee? 3. Is anyone not paying handling fees as a matter of policy? (If you don't want to answer this one to the net, I can understand, but would like to hear from you personally.) 4. Has anyone successfully negotiated their way out of paying handling fees? Thanks for everyone's thoughts. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 18 ****** END OF FILE ******