ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 328 / October 1983 Academic Library Approval Plans: A Nationwide Inquiry John H. R eidelbach Chairperson, Collection D evelopm ent University Library University o f Nebraska at Om aha Gary M. Shirk H ead o f Acquisitions Wilson Library University o f Minnesota To date professional inquiry concerning ap­ proval plan vendors has centered almost exclu­ sively on the concepts and mechanics of their oper­ ation. In 1980, Paul H. Mosher wrote that “we (librarians) talk about rating vendors and evaluat­ ing their services, but we seldom ever get around to doing so.”1 Moshers comments are still valid to­ day, as borne out by an extensive manual and com­ puterized examination of both United States and British library literature since 1960. Literature searches also reveal that scholarly investigation of approval plan vendors tend to be either local or re­ gional in nature and limited in the number of ven­ dors studied. To remedy these deficiencies in the literature of research regarding approval plans, the authors have embarked on a three-phase program of re­ search. The first phase of research has culminated in a recently published article titled, “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor: A Step-by-Step Process.”2 A second phase of research currently underway in­ volves summarizing extensive data previously ob­ tained from eight approval vendors regarding vari­ ous aspects of their operations and services. A third phase of research commenced in late June. A fifty- three item questionnaire was mailed to approxi­ mately 640 academic libraries to request user li­ brarian evaluation of domestic approval vendor services. The authors had previously reported that eight approval plan vendors would be actively involved in nationwide distribution of the approval plan evaluation questionnaire.3 While extremely grate- 1Paul H. Mosher, “Waiting for Godot: Rating Approval Service Vendors,” in Shaping Library Collections fo r the 1980s, ed. Peter Spyers-Duran and Tomas Mann, Jr. (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1980), 159-66. 2John H. Beidelbach and Gary M. Shirk, “Se­ lecting an Approval Plan Vendor: A Step-by-Step Process,” L ibrary Acquisitions: Practice and The­ ory 7(1983): 115-122. John H. Beidelbach and Gary M. Shirk, “Be- search in Progress,” L ibrary Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 7(1983): 123-125. ful for the cooperation expressed by the vendors, the authors were cognizant of the implications and disadvantages of vendor assistance with distribu­ tion of the questionnaire. Therefore, a grant was applied for from the University Committee on Re­ search at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. In late May, a grant of $1,400 was awarded from the University Committee on Research partially to cover expenses associated with mailing and follow- up of the nationwide approval evaluation ques­ tionnaire. Additional costs involved in distribution and follow-up of the study are being supported by the University Library at the University of Ne­ braska at Omaha. The questionnaire was initially mailed to acquisitions librarians at all college and university libraries in the United States with book budgets of $50,000 or more. Project director John Reidelbach and co-investigator Gary Shirk now seek responses from all college and university li­ braries currently dealing with one or more domes­ tic approval plan vendors, regardless of book budget. The research emanating from this survey will be of interest to library directors, acquisitions, collec­ tion development, and reference professionals. Formal and informal discussions at conferences in­ dicate that these individuals continually seek hard data regarding the efficiency of their own and other approval plan dealers. The approval plan vendors themselves will benefit from the availabil­ ity, for the first time, of a massive body of empirical data regarding librarian satisfaction or dissatisfac­ tion with their own company as well as that of their competitors. Perhaps vendors will use this data to build on their individual strengths and to take whatever measures may be necessary to correct any weaknesses or shortcomings identified by the ques­ tionnaire results. In September 1982, a forty-question test ver­ sion of the nationwide questionnaire was sent to thirty-one libraries in the eight-state Mountain Plains Library Association (MPLA) region. This test was conducted with two objectives in mind: a. To ascertain the degree of interest on the part of acquisitions and collection development librari­ ans concerning this particular aspect of library re­ search; b. To identify and correct omissions or unclear statements before preparation of the final ques­ tionnaire. Both objectives were successfully met. Besponse was excep tional: a 9 6 .7 % rate of return was achieved. Because of the overwhelming rate of re­ turn in the regional study, the investigators believe interest in the nationwide inquiry will be similarly 330 / October 1983 high. At the tima of submitting this communica­ tion approximately 300 questionnaires had been re­ turned. If you have an active domestic approval plan, did not receive a questionnaire, and wish to partic­ ipate in this nationwide research effort, please con­ tact John Reidelbach, Chairperson, Collection D e­ v elop m ent, U niversity L ib r a r y , U niversity of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, or phone (402) 554-2846. A copy of the questionnaire will be sent to you immediately. The questionnaire can be completed in approximately 30 minutes. Position responsibilities in a given library may necessitate that more than one person provide the requested information. It would be most appreci­ ated if the person initially receiving the question­ naire would pass it along to the appropriate per­ son (s) for completion. The authors wish to assure respondents that their comments will be held in the strictest confidence. Neither library nor librarian name will appear in the article to be published as a result of this study. Furthermore, none of the vendors will be provided access to the individual librarian responses. Deadline for the return of questionnaires is O c­ tober 31, 1983. Submission of the final manuscript to a professional journal is anticipated in June, 1984. ■ ■ Letter Special Collections To the Editor: There are two points concerning libraries' reac­ tions to difficult economic times which I do not be­ lieve have been considered by many institutions. The comparison between the number of users of Special Collections with the number of users of the general library is, as every Special Collections li­ brarian knows, a false standard. It is, however, the one that is frequently used by administrative direc­ tors in apportioning budgets. An alternative and more realistic analysis, or comparison, should be based upon the number of persons affected, or po­ tentially affected, by the uses of Special Collec­ tions. In listening to discussions of comparisons of the number of users in each area, I thought of a friend who writes historical novels. He is noted for creat­ ing a sense of living during the time period of his fiction, and he therefore does extensive research in Special Collections departments. He would be counted as one researcher, or possibly the number of days w ould be co n sid ered , to a rriv e at “researcher-days.” The impact of the services pro­ vided to him by the Special Collections department is, however, far greater than any such statistic would indicate. His books sell tens of thousands of copies, and therefore, tens of thousands of people benefit from, and are affected by, his work in Spe­ cial Collections departments. W e were able to demonstrate this effect several years ago in conjunction with an appraisal of a ma­ jor archive. W e surveyed the approximately 600 re­ searchers who had used the collection since it had been available; approximately 400 responded to our survey. A large number were doing genealogi­ cal research, or other specific personal research, and there was no benefit beyond their own use. W e did, however, demonstrate that a significant num­ ber of articles had been published based upon the collection. W e were aware of several major books, but the number of other publications was a signifi­ cant surprise. To simply state that during a five- year period, 600 people use this Collection is to un­ d erstate d ra m a tica lly the num ber of persons benefiting from it. The quality and importance of the uses of collections may be difficult to ascertain; however, few administrators would not under­ stand that a use resulting in a published article can­ not be equated with an individual checking general references in the general library. The second point concerns fund raising. Friends of Libraries, and other knowledgeable groups in­ volved with Special Collections, may frequently make large cash contributions which are not for specific purchases or projects. When other groups are approached, particularly the business commu­ nity, it is important to relate the contribution to a specific expenditure or need. My involvement with libraries raising funds has repeatedly shown this to be true. Potential donors can relate to acquiring a specific collection (with a detailed explanation as to why the library wants it and how scholarship will benefit from its being available) or giving funds to process a collection after they have been shown the collection and had its importance ex­ plained. Those who understand the activities of Special Collections will continue to make general cash con­ tributions, but those who really do not understand the importance of Special Collections, but are po­ tential donors, need to be told why the money is needed, what you will do with it, and what bene­ fits people will receive from it. You will be offering to these potential donors, who do not already have the appreciation of the field, the opportunity to do something worthwhile with their money that they are able to relate to. This approach I have found has had q u ite s ig n ific a n t resu lts. — K e n n e th R endell, The Rendells, In c., N ewton, M assachu­ setts. ■ ■