From: Marlene Manoff <mmanoff_at_MIT.EDU>
The ALCTS/CMDS Collection Development Librarians in Academic Libraries
Discussion Group met at ALA midwinter on January 10 for a rather
provocative session on outsourcing selection in academic
libraries. About seventy people attended.
Edward Shreeves, Director, Collections and Information Resources at
the University of Iowa Libraries, began his presentation by
distinguishing between wholesale outsourcing of selection and the more
partial outsourcing involved in approval plans. Shreeves said that, at
least for the immediate future, academic libraries are not likely to
see their entire selection operation outsourced. We should, therefor,
focus our attention on the more partial outsourcing involved in
approval plans.
Shreeves pointed out that approval plans save time for both selectors
and acquisitions staff and, at least theoretically, free up time for
them to pursue less mainstream and difficult to obtain material. He
described approval plans as an important tool of collection
managers. He suggested that problems are most likely to arise if there
is pressure to use approval plans for too great a proportion of a
library's collection. It is important for selectors to have sufficient
funds to purchase material not covered by such plans.
Shreeves elaborated some of the risks of approval plans, including
homogeneity of collections, loss of selector autonomy and decreased
connection with faculty. In order to insure broad collections,
selectors must seek out material outside the mainstream and not rely
on approval plans to supply this material automatically. Shreeves
claimed that we need to develop a nuanced attitude toward outsourcing
-- open to its benefits and ready to find alternatives when it cannot
meet our needs.
Charles Willett, Coordinator, Alternatives in Print Task Force of
ALA's Social Responsibilities Roundtable, addressed the broader
question of bias in academic library collections. He touched on the
problem of vendors being slow to pick up and to supply approval plan
customers with imprints of small and alternative presses. But his
primary argument was that, with or without approval plans, academic
libraries fail to provide all points of view.
Willett argued that library collections typically represent the
mainstream; they tend to acquire similar titles from similar
vendors. He discussed a number of recent alternative press titles that
have been acquired by few academic libraries. He reminded the audience
of the importance and the passion of small presses in addressing
cutting edge issues. He claimed that we need to consider the
political, economic and social implications of our selection decisions
and that we should ask whether they promote democracy, peace and
social justice. He claimed that this would involve libraries in
purchasing a much broader spectrum of material than they do now. He
argued for the necessity of using alternative bibliographic and review
sources in building library collections. He provided handouts listing
a number of such tools.
Willett also drew on his own experience to describe his frustration at
the way library selection decisions help to consolidate the power of
mainstream publishing and at the same time contribute to the
marginalization of small and alternative presses.
Willett's insistence on addressing the larger question of what does or
does not get represented in library collections meant that the
discussion following the presentations was less focused on outsourcing
than it might have been. There was some debate about the perils as
well as the advantages of approval plans. One audience member argued
that we need research on the amount of alternative and small press
material bought by academic libraries.
Some audience members said they would like to have seen the issue of
outsourcing selection addressed in more detail. Others said that they
were happy to participate in a session which took on the sensitive
issue of the tendency of libraries to accumulate material from the
cultural center at the expense of more diverse and oppositional
material from the margins. Several attendees said they would like to
see a future session devoted specifically to exploring problems of
bias in academic library collections and to a discussion of possible
solutions. (Such a session is currently being planned for the July
meeting of the discussion group).
Marlene Manoff (mmanoff_at_mit.edu)
Discussion Group Chair
Received on Sat Mar 07 1998 - 17:50:13 EST