ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 89 Draft: Standards for University Libraries F o r e w o r d T h e fo llo w in g d r a f t o f u n iv e r s i t y l ib ra ry standards has b een p re p a re d by a jo in t com m ittee established by th e Association of R esearch L ib rar­ ies and th e Association o f C ollege and Research L ibraries for this p u rp o se. T his com m ittee was appointed in D e c e m b e r 1975 w ith th e charge to d evelop university library standards for subm is­ sion to ARL and ACRL. T h e com m ittee has ac­ com plished its task, and th e following docum ent, w hich is th e re su lt o f its w ork, has now b e e n su b m itte d . To facilitate ACR L m em b e rsh ip r e ­ view of this docu m en t, it is b e in g p ublished in this issue of College & Research Libraries News. T he initial m em b ersh ip o f th e jo in t com m ittee included Calvin Boyer, d irecto r o f libraries, U ni­ versity of Mississippi; W illiam K urth, university librarian, W ashington U niversity, St. Louis; Stan­ ley M cE lderry, d ire c to r o f libraries, U niversity of C hicago; R ich a rd T a lb o t, d ir e c to r o f lib ra rie s , U niversity of M assachusetts; David W atkins, u n i­ v e rsity lib ra ria n , B ra n d e is U n iv ersity ; M elvin Voigt, university librarian, U niversity of Califor­ nia, San Diego; and E ld re d Sm ith, d irecto r of li­ braries, U niversity o f M innesota (chair). D uring th e two years o f th e com m ittee s activity, the fol­ lowing changes occu rred in its m em bership: John M cD onald, d irecto r o f libraries at th e U niversity o f C o n n e c t ic u t r e p la c e d M r. V o ig t; B e v e rly Lynch, d irecto r o f libraries at th e university o f Il­ linois at Chicago C ircle, replaced Mr. Kurth. In th e course of its work, th e com m ittee has held m ore than fifteen m eetings. An earlier draft o f th ese standards was pro d u ced for review and com m ent by th e ARL Board o f D irectors and th e ACRL Standards C o m m ittee and U niversity Li­ braries Section S te e rin g C o m m ittee. T he jo in t com m ittee also has h e ld a one-day m eetin g with rep resen tativ es o f m ost of th e m ajor U.S. hig h er education organizations and accrediting agencies. Fun d in g for th e work o f th e jo in t co m m ittee has b e e n p ro v id ed by a J. M orris Jo n e s-B ailey K. H ow ard ALA Goal Award and by a g ran t from th e C ouncil on Library Resources. P e r h a p s th e s in g le m o st c ritic a l iss u e c o n ­ fronted by th e com m ittee in th e course o f its d e ­ liberations was w h e th e r th e standards should (or could) b e q u a n tita tiv e r a th e r th a n q u a lita tiv e . After considerable investigation and exploration of a v ariety o f q u a n tita tiv e a p p ro a c h e s, in c lu d in g specific p erfo rm an ce m e a s u re s, th e c o m m itte e co n clu d ed th a t no q u a n tita tiv e sta n d ard s w e re p re s e n tly a p p lic a b le to th e to ta l n u m b e r an d range o f institutions defin ed as university librar­ ies. It also concluded, how ever, th at certain q u an ­ titative approaches could b e applied to carefully selected subgroupings o f th ese institutions. The appendix to th e sta n d a rd s, w hich was also d e ­ v e lo p e d by t h e c o m m itte e , d e m o n s tra te s th e difficulty in applying q u a n titativ e m easures to all u n iv e rs ity lib ra rie s b u t also in d ic a te s c e r ta in quantitative analyses th a t can be utilized in com ­ paring sim ilar institutions w ithin this total group. It is th e com m ittee s ju d g m e n t th at this appendix sh o u ld b e is s u e d , as an a p p e n d ix , w ith th e standards. T hese standards are cu rre n tly u n d e r review by the ACRL Standards C o m m ittee, th e ACRL U ni­ v ersity L ib ra rie s S ectio n S te e rin g C o m m itte e , and th e ARL Board of D irectors. Discussion ses­ sions are b ein g sc h ed u led for the ACRL Chicago c o n fe re n c e in J u n e 1978, w h ich w ill p ro v id e ACRL m em b ers w ith an o p p o rtu n ity to discuss th ese standards w ith th e jo in t co m m ittee. ARL m e m b e rsh ip disc u ssio n o f th e s e sta n d a rd s will tak e p la c e a t its fall m e m b e r s h ip m e e tin g .— E ld red Smith. D r a f t : St a n d a r d s f o r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s Prepared b y a jo in t com m ittee o f the Associa­ tion o f Research Libraries a n d the Association o f College a n d Research Libraries, a division o f the Am erican Library Association. Introduction T hese standards have b e e n p rep ared to assist faculty, u niversity adm inistrators, librarians, ac­ crediting agencies, and o th ers in th e evaluation and im p ro v e m e n t o f u n iv e rsity library services and resources. T hese sta te m e n ts are in ten d ed to apply only to those institutions of hig h er educa­ tion which have b een characterized by th e C a r­ negie Com m ission on H ig h er Education as “doc­ toral g ra n tin g in s titu tio n s .” T h e c rite ria w hich distinguish th ese institutions are: th e aw arding of doctoral d eg rees and th e receip t o f federal finan­ cial su p p o rt.1 All o f th e se institutions em phasize g rad u ate stu d y , professional ed u catio n , and r e ­ search. D esp ite these basic sim ilarities, university libraries are also ch aracterized by a high degree o f in d iv id u a lity , p a r tic u la r ly w ith r e s p e c t to p o lic ie s , p r o g ra m s , r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , a n d t r a ­ ditions. H ence, these standards are not in ten d ed 90 to establish no rm ativ e p re sc rip tio n s for uniform application. R ather, th e y are m ean t to provide a general fram ew ork w ithin w hich inform ed ju d g ­ m en t can b e applied to individual circum stances. T he fundam ental assum ption o f th ese standards is th at th e library has a cen tral a n d critical im por­ tance in a university. T his im portance has b e e n recognized rep e a te d ly by analysts o f hig h er e d u ­ cation. In his 1966 re p o rt to th e Am erican C o u n ­ cil on E ducation, Allan M. C a rtte r, for exam ple, stated: “T he library is th e h e a rt o f th e university; no o th e r single non-hum an factor is as closely related to th e quality of grad u ate education. A few u n i­ v e r s i t i e s w ith p o o r li b r a r y r e s o u r c e s h a v e a c h ie v e d c o n s id e ra b le s tr e n g th in se v e ra l d e ­ p a r tm e n ts , in so m e c a se s b e c a u s e la b o ra to ry facilities may b e m ore im p o rtan t in a particular field than th e library, an d in o th e r cases because th e universities are located close to o th e r great library collections such as th e L ibrary o f C ongress and th e N ew York P ublic L ibrary. But in stitu ­ tions th at are strong in all areas invariably have m ajor national research lib ra rie s.”2 As w ith all institutions, universities and th e ir lib ra rie s h ave e x p e rie n c e d co n sid erab le ch an g e over tim e. F u rth e r changes are taking place now, and o th ers clearly lie ahead. Particularly no tew o r­ thy is th e in creasin g se n se o f in te rd e p e n d e n c e and co m m itm en t to coordination am ong un iv ersi­ ties generally. W ith reg ard to university libraries, th e following d ev elo p m en ts are particu larly im ­ p o rtan t: th e grow th o f in te rlib ra ry cooperation, especially resource sharing; th e stren g th en in g and ex p ansion o f se rv ice p ro g ra m s, such as b ib lio ­ graphic instruction; th e increasing im portance of recorded inform ation in n o n p rin t formats; th e ap ­ plication o f au to m ated system s to library o p e ra ­ tions and th e g row th of m ac h in e -re a d a b le data bases; th e clo ser in te ra c tio n b e tw e e n lib ra rian s and faculty and th e im proved status of librarians w ithin th e university; in crease d stress on th e ef­ fectiveness and efficiency of operations. A recog­ nition o f such tren d s and th e ir im portance is fun­ d am en tal to th ese standards. Recognizing th e increasing in te rd e p e n d e n c e of u n i v e r s i t i e s in d e v e l o p i n g a n d m a in ta in in g scholarly resources, th e s e standards are in ten d ed to provide guidance in identifying th at level o f li­ b ra ry self-sufficiency w h ich is e sse n tia l to th e h ealth and vigor of a u niversity and its academ ic p ro g ra m s . T h e g e n e ra l a ssu m p tio n is th a t th e p rim a ry o b lig atio n o f a u n iv e rs ity lib ra ry is to m e e t th e instructional and resea rch n eeds o f th e stu d e n ts and faculty at th at university. H ow ever, no u n iv ersity lib ra ry can a c q u ire all o f th e r e ­ co rd ed inform ation th a t its clien tele may find u se­ ful. An a tte m p t is m ade th erefo re, to recognize th e m ec h a n ism s b e in g d e v e lo p e d to p ro m o te c o o p e ra tiv e access to sch o larly in fo rm atio n , to id e n tify th e c u r r e n t lim ita tio n s o f in te r d e p e n ­ d e n c e , and to e n u m e ra te th e factors w hich are essential in m aintaining an en v iro n m en t in which instruction and resea rch can flourish. C are has b een taken to lim it th e standards to s u c c in c t s ta te m e n ts fo c u sin g on th e e le m e n ts j u d g e d to b e m o st c ritic a l in d e te r m in in g th e adequacy of a university library. Am plification of th e principles identified in th e standards is p ro ­ vided in th e form of com m entary. S e c t i o n A: S e r v i c e s S ta n d a rd A .l In o rd e r to su p p o rt th e instructional, research, a n d public service p rogram s o f th e university, the services o ffere d b y a u n iversity library shall be such as to fa cilita te use o f recorded inform ation in all fo rm a ts b y all o f th e library's clientele. C o m m entary on S ta n d a rd A .l In developing and im p lem en tin g its program of service, a university library should give priority to th e n eeds o f th e stu d e n ts, faculty, and o th e r academ ic staff of th e university, w ho may b e said to c o n s titu te th e lib ra ry ’s “ p rim a ry c lie n te le .” W hile it may also h av e o b ligations o r c o m m it­ m en ts to o th e r clie n te le s or co n stitu en c ie s, th e library should recognize th at th ese are secondary. A university library should provide th e follow­ ing services: refe ren ce a n d inform ation services which are available at adeq u ately identified and d e s ig n a te d p o in ts d u r i n g e s ta b lis h e d s e rv ic e hours; specialized and in -d e p th assistance to in d i­ viduals in th e use o f th e lib ra ry ’s resources; sp e ­ cially p rep ared bibliographical guides and subject or topical research aids; lec tu re s and courses in bibliographical research; services which will facili­ ta te a c c e ss to n o n p r i n t m e d ia a n d m a c h in e - readable data bases; and services w hich will facili­ ta te a c c e ss to r e c o r d e d in fo rm a tio n in o t h e r library collections. T hese services should b e d esigned to m eet ef­ fectively th e w hole ran g e o f d iffe re n t inform a­ tional and bibliographical n eed s th at arise in th e various academ ic areas a n d in all o th e r parts o f th e university. W hile u niversities should place g reat em phasis on m eetin g th e intensive library needs o f g ra d u ­ ate stu d e n ts and faculty, th ey should b e careful n o t to n eg lect th e n e e d s o f u n d e rg ra d u a te stu ­ d ents. F inally, u n iv ersity lib ra rie s should recognize that, to one d e g re e or an o th er, they share a r e ­ sponsibility w ith all resea rch libraries to su p p o rt h ig h e r ed u catio n in g e n e ra l and each o th e r in particu lar through cooperative efforts. S ta n d a rd A .2 In ord e r to ensure m axim um access to its col­ lections a n d th eir contents, a un iversity library shall maintain records o f its collections which are com plete, consistent, a n d in co n fo rm ity w ith national 91 b ib lio g r a p h ic a l s ta n d a r d s a n d re q u ir e ­ m ents. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd A .2 T h e e x te n t o f b ib lio g ra p h ic a l c o v e ra g e th a t m ust be provided in a p articu lar library will d e ­ p en d on many factors, such as w h e th e r or not th e library has o pen o r closed access stacks, th e ex­ te n t and n atu re o f th e library’s specialized collec­ tions, th e history and traditions o f th e library and o f t h e u n iv e r s ity , a n d t h e n a t u r e o f sp e c ific c o o p e ra tiv e a rra n g e m e n ts th a t th e lib ra ry may have e n te re d into w ith o th e r libraries and library consortia. To en su re effective access to its collections as w ell as to in crease its o p eratio n al efficiency, a u niversity lib ra ry ’s bib lio g rap h ic records should conform to recognized standards o f cataloging and c la ssific a tio n , a n d its b ib lio g ra p h ic a p p a ra tu s should b e internally consistent. Its bibliographic records should b e ad ju ste d in conjunction with p e r io d ic in v e n to rie s o f t h e c o lle c tio n s. E v e ry m u lti-unit unversity library should have a union catalog o f its cataloged holdings. Stan d a rd A .3 W ithin the lim its o f th e u niversity s particular responsibilities and priorities, a university library shall provide m axim um access to its collections f o r all o f its clientele. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd A .3 Various factors are involved in providing access to a l ib r a r y ’s c o lle c tio n s , su c h as c ir c u la tio n policies and p ro ced u res, service h o u rs, security a rra n g e m e n ts, a n d a ctu al o p e ra tin g efficiency. W hile practices vary significantly from library to library, certain principles should b e followed in each library. M ost item s in th e library collections should b e readily available b o th for consultation in th e library and for c ircu latio n to a u th o rized c li e n t e l e . A cce ss to a n d c ir c u la tio n o f r a r e , fragile, and high-dem and m aterials should be ap ­ propriately controlled and restricted . To en su re maximum availability o f th e collections to those authorized to use th em , term s o f loan should be carefully set and should generally b e sim ilar for all u ser categories. A dequate p recautions should b e taken to c o n ­ trol loss of o r dam age to th e library’s collections. T he pro m p t re tu rn in good condition o f all circu ­ lated m aterials should be effectively enforced for all borrow ers. C irculation p ro ced u res and stack m aintenance operations in a university library should be effec­ tive and efficient. T h e re should be a regular and continuing program o f sh e lf reading. Library se rv ­ ice hours should b e responsive to high- and low­ use p eriods, to th e n u m b e r o f bran ch , d e p a r t­ m ental, and o th e r special libraries in th e system as well as to th e availability of alternative study space. S e c t i o n B: C o l l e c t i o n s S ta n d a rd B .l A u n iv e r sity lib r a r y 's co llectio n s shall be o f su fficien t size a n d scope to su p p o r t the u n iv e r­ sity ’s total instructional needs and to facilitate the un iversity’s research program s. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd B .1 A university library should provide all of th e resources th at are necessary for d ire c t su p p o rt of th e university’s full instructional program s at both th e u n d e rg ra d u a te a n d th e g ra d u a te levels. If these resources are no t readily available in th e library, th e instructional program s cannot be car­ ried o u t successfully. T h ese resources include r e ­ q u ired and assigned readings, reference and b ib ­ liographical m aterials, basic journals and serials, as well as any o th e r library m aterials th at u n d e r­ g raduate o r graduate stu d e n ts are expected to be able to consult readily in th e ir courses of study. W eak collections can h a m p e r research. T he ac­ cum ulation and p reserv atio n of substantial collec­ tions and th e im plem entation of com prehensive acquisition program s m ust be recognized as p ro ­ viding a resource w hose p resen c e w ithin a u n i­ versity is essential to th e conditions u n d e r which know ledge is effectively increased and tran sm it­ ted. It is clear th at no university library can be e x p ected to possess in its collections all of th e re c o rd e d inform ation w hich faculty o r doctoral stu d e n ts m ay n eed to co n su lt as th ey p u rsu e th e ir research. N evertheless, it is essential that collec­ tions be o f such size, scope, and quality that they p ro m o te r a t h e r th a n r e s t r i c t r e s e a rc h . W h ile every library should take care to d evelop collec­ tions w hose areas o f c o n c e n tra tio n reflec t an d s u p p o rt th e aca d e m ic p r io ritie s a n d stre n g th s w ithin th e university, in terlib rary arrangem ents, which have long b een established for th e m utual support o f exceptional resea rch needs, m ust con­ tin u e to be relied upon to sup p le m e n t even th e m ost com prehensive resea rch collections. T he continued rapid grow th of scholarly litera­ tu re and th e costs of providing access to this lit­ e r a tu re for th o se in th e u n iv e rsity c o m m u n ity have n ec e ssita te d form al a n d inform al a rra n g e ­ m ents am ong libraries to e n su re maximum access to this lite ra tu re . C om m o n m eth o d s o f sharing resources and im proving access have b een loans b etw een libraries, provision of visiting privileges for scholars, a g re e m e n ts on th e acquisitions of m aterials, a n d sh a rin g o f bibliographic inform a­ tion. W h ile in te rlib ra ry c o o p e ra tio n , as p re se n tly practiced, may not prom ise large cost savings in the im m ediate future, significant im proved m e th ­ ods o f su p p le m e n tin g local resources are in th e active p lanning stages. U niversity lib ra ries m ust p articipate in th e d e v elo p m en t o f th ese new ac­ cess m echanism s to e n s u re th at local, regional. 92 national, and international in terests are effectively served. A ttem pts have b een m ade to identify precise quantitative m easures of a d eq u ate collection size and grow th rates for a university library. No such form ula has y e t b e e n d e v e lo p e d w hich can b e generally applied. At p re se n t, such form ulas as exist can only yield approxim ations which indicate a general level of need . If th e y are applied arb i­ tra rily a n d m ech an ically , th e y can d is to rt th e realities of a given situation. N evertheless, q u a n ­ tita tiv e m easu res a re increasingly im p o rtan t in guiding th e qualitative ju d g m e n t th at m ust u lti­ m ately be applied to university libraries and th eir collections. O n e prom ising te c h n iq u e is th e use o f regression analysis to facilitate th e com parison of sim ilar lib ra ries to o n e a n o th e r;3 a n o th e r of some general applicability is th e “index o f q u al­ ity” developed by th e Am erican C ouncil on E d u ­ cation for relating library collection size to gradu­ ate program quality.4 S ta n d a rd B.2 A university lib ra ry’s collections shall contain all o f the varied fo r m s o f recorded information. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd B.2 T h e u n iv e rsity lib ra ry has tra d itio n a lly b e e n recognized as th e repository w ithin th e university for th e p rin te d inform ation n e e d e d to support the university’s instructional and research program s. As re c o rd e d in fo rm atio n b e c o m e s in c reasin g ly available in a variety of n o n p rin t formats, such as films, sound recordings, and video tapes, it is ap ­ pro p riate th at this m aterial, except w here n e ed ed exclusively for classroom use, also b e acquired, organized, and m ade available through th e un i­ versity library.5 S tan d a rd B.3 A u niversity lib ra ry ’s collections shall be d e­ veloped system atically a n d consistently w ithin the term s o f explicit a n d detailed policies. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd B.3 G iven th e g reat b re a d th o f u niversity library collections and th e w ide variations in d e p th of collections am ong su b je c ts h e ld , it is es se n tia l that th e re b e a collections dev elo p m en t policy to guide th e selection and acquisition of materials. By establishing such a policy, librarians seek to en su re that th e library’s collections are p lanned a n d d e v e lo p e d in re la tio n to t h e u n iv e r s ity ’s a c a d e m ic , r e s e a r c h , a n d s e rv ic e goals a n d priorities and w ithin th e lim its o f resources avail­ able. W orking in close consultation w ith faculty and a d m in istra tio n , lib ra ria n s , p a rtic u la rly su b je c t specialists, should assum e th e responsibility for drafting and im plem enting this policy. Recognizing th e in h e re n t difficulties in collec­ tion developm ent, it is im perative that th e library h ave full and co n tin u o u s access to inform ation about all dev elo p m en ts, actual and plan n ed , in th e academ ic, research, and service program s of th e u n iv ersity and its c o m p o n en ts w hich affect th e library. O n c e c o d ifie d , t h e li b r a r y ’s c o lle c tio n d e ­ velopm ent policy should b e m ade known to and en dorsed by th e university faculty and adm inis­ tration. To en su re th at this policy reflects changes w ithin th e university, th e policy should b e re g u ­ larly and carefully review ed. S e c t i o n C: P e r s o n n e l Standard C .1 A u n iv e r s ity lib r a r y sh a ll h a ve a su ffic ie n t n u m b er a n d variety o f personnel to develop, o r­ ganize, a n d maintain such collections and to p ro ­ vide such reference a n d inform ation services as will m eet th e un iversity’s needs. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd C .1 T he size of a university library’s staff is d e te r ­ m ined by many factors, including th e n u m b er o f physically separate library units, th e n u m b e r o f service points req u irin g staff, th e n u m b e r o f se rv ­ ice h o u rs p r o v id e d , t h e n u m b e r a n d sp e c ia l ch aracteristics o f item s p ro c e sse d annually, th e n a tu re and q u ality of th e p ro c e ssin g to w hich th ey are su b je cted , th e size o f th e collections, and th e rate of circulation o f th e collections. In ­ te rin s titu tio n a l c o o p e ra tiv e a rra n g e m e n ts m ay also affect staff size. As such factors vary widely from one institution to an o th er, no single model or form ula can b e p rovided for developing an o p ­ tim um staff size. A university library should have on its staff a variety o f p erso n n el: professional, clerical, and student-assistant staff. T he librarians should p e r ­ form th e core academ ic and professional functions o f th e library: collection d evelopm ent, reference and information services, and substantive activi­ ties related to th e bibliographic control of m ate­ rials. All categories o f p ersonnel should have ap ­ p ro p ria te ed u catio n a n d e x p erien ce, including, w hen necessary, graduate or professional d eg rees in th e ir p a rtic u la r sp e c ia ltie s. T h e re c o g n iz e d term inal d eg ree for librarians is th e m aster’s d e ­ gree from an A m erican L ib rary A ssociation ac­ c r e d i t e d l ib r a r y sc h o o l p ro g ra m , a lth o u g h additional g rad u ate d e g re e s may so m e tim es b e desirable. T he deploym ent o f p ersonnel w ithin a specific university library is rela te d to th e range of op era­ tions and services p rovided by that library and to its total workload req u irem en ts. Standard C.2 Personnel practices w ith in a un iversity library shall be based on sound, contem porary adm inis­ trative practice a n d shall be consistent w ith p e rsonnel 93 practices w ith in th e un iversity as w ell as the goals a n d purposes o f th e library. C o m m en ta ry on S ta n d a rd C .2 T he term s and conditions o f em p lo y m en t of th e several categories o f staff in a university library should b e consonant w ith th e established term s and conditions of em p lo y m en t of staff in related categories elsew h ere w ithin th e university. T erm s and conditions o f em p lo y m en t for librarians, for exam ple, should parallel th o se of th e rest of th e university’s academ ic staff, ju s t as term s and c o n ­ d itio n s o f e m p lo y m e n t for th e lib ra ry ’s clerical and stu d e n t staff should parallel those o f sim ilar em ployees w ithin th e u niversity as a whole. M ore specific guidance on th ese m atters is provided in th e following docum ents: “ S tatem en t on Faculty Status o f C ollege and U niversity Librarians ”6 and “L ibrary E ducation and P ersonnel U tilization.”7 A c o m p reh en siv e u n iv ersity library p erso n n el m a n a g e m e n t p ro g ra m sh o u ld a d d re s s r e c r u it ­ m en t, ap p o in tm en t, prom otion, te n u re , dismissal, appeal, definition o f position responsibilities, clas­ sification and pay plans, o rien tatio n and training program s, review of em ployee perform ance, and counseling. S e c t i o n D : F a c i l i t i e s S ta n d a rd D .1 A u niversity library shall have facilities which m eet the p re sen t a n d anticip a ted fu tu r e require­ m ents o f the un iversity a n d its program s. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd D .1 A u n iv ersity lib ra ry ’s b u ild in g s should b e o f sufficient size and quality to house th e collections and to provide sufficient space for th e ir use by s tu d e n ts , fa c u lty , a n d o t h e r c lie n te le . T h e r e should also b e a d eq u ate space for th e library o p ­ eratio n s necessary for th e provision o f its se rv ­ ices. Adequacy o f facilities cannot b e d e te rm in e d simply on th e basis o f p re se n t req u irem en ts. The size and com position o f th e u n iv e rsity ’s e n ro ll­ m en t, th e n a tu re of its instructional and research program s, th e form and publication rate o f library m aterials strongly influence library req u irem en ts, and it is n ecessa ry th a t th e s e re q u ire m e n ts b e subject to continuous evaluation and planning. A university library should b e attractive, invit­ ing, a n d c arefu lly d e s ig n e d to p ro m o te o p e r a ­ tional efficiency and effectiveness o f use. Specific factors relevant h e re include general en v iro n m en ­ tal features th at affect clientele, staff, and collec­ tions (light, ventilation, te m p e ra tu re and h u m id ­ ity control, vertical an d horizontal transportation, safety features, etc.), layout of th e stacks, n u m b e r an d variety o f re a d e r sta tio n s, rela tio n sh ip b e ­ tw e e n stacks a n d r e a d e r sta tio n s, re la tio n s h ip am ong service points, effective flow of m aterials, and adequacy o f space for staff and operations. T he fundam ental consideration in designing a library building should b e its function. Since the n a tu re o f collections, se rv ices, o p eratio n s, and th e n eed s of a lib ra ry ’s c lien tele can change sig­ nificantly over tim e, p re se n t a n d fu tu re flexibility is an im p o rta n t e le m e n t in lib ra ry d e sig n . Al­ though th e a rch itectu ra l style and traditions o f a u niversity may d ic ta te certa in design features for a lib ra ry b u ild in g , su c h facto rs sh o u ld n o t b e allow ed to com prom ise basic functional considera­ tions.8 S ta n d a rd D .2 L ibraries shall be so located th a t th e u niversity co m m unity will have co n ven ien t access to them. C o m m entary on S ta n d a rd D .2 T h e re q u ire m e n ts o f in te rd isc ip lin a ry stu d ies and research, recognition of th e n eeds o f u n d e r­ g r a d u a te s t u d e n ts , t h e u r g e n c y o f a c h ie v in g o p e r a tin g e c o n o m ie s — th e s e a n d o t h e r facto rs have rev iv ed in te re s t in c e n tra liz in g physically d isp e rsed library units in o rd e r to im prove access to resources and avoid costly duplication in th e d e v e lo p m e n t a n d m a i n te n a n c e o f c o lle c tio n s. T h e re are circum stances, how ever, such as cam ­ pus geography, in ten sity o f use, and size of col­ lections which may co n tin u e to justify th e m ain­ ten an ce of m ultiple library units. R em ote storage facilities, und esirab le as th e y may b e, may also b e established in a tte m p tin g to deal w ith space inadequacies. W h e re th e p a tte rn o f d ecen traliza­ tion persists in any form , it is im p o rtan t th at li­ b raries b e located so as to m inim ize inconven­ ience to all library u se rs .9 S e c t i o n E: Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d G o v e r n a n c e S ta n d a rd E .1 The place o f the u n iversity library w ithin the a d m in istra tive a n d g o vernance stru c tu re o f the university shall be clearly identified, a n d the re­ sponsibilities a n d a u th o rity o f the library adm in­ istration a n d its c h ie f adm inistrative officer shall be defined. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd E .1 If t h e r e is a m b ig u ity w ith in th e u n iv e rs ity com m unity as to th e p articu lar place occupied by the library w ithin th e ad m inistrative and gover­ nance stru c tu re of th e university, and if th e a u ­ thority and responsibilities o f th e library’s ch ief ad m in istrativ e officer a re not clearly identified, m isu n d e rs ta n d in g , co n flic t, a n d confusion can so m e tim es re su lt to th e d e tr im e n t o f both th e university and its library. Because it is closely r e ­ lated to instruction and research, th e university library should b e formally recognized as one o f th e m ajor academ ic units w ithin th e university, and its ch ief ad m in istrativ e officer should partici­ p a te re g u la rly a n d d ir e c tly in u n iv e rsity -w id e academ ic planning and decision making. F o r sim ilar 94 reasons, th is p e rso n should re p o rt d irectly to th e c h ie f academ ic officer o f th e university. T h e lo n g -re c o g n iz e d n e e d in in s titu tio n s o f h ig h e r ed u catio n to involve faculty in library m at­ ters has led to th e in stitu tio n alizatio n o f th e ad v i­ sory library co m m itte e . Because o f th e fu n d a m e n ­ tal im p o rta n c e o f th e lib ra ry to in stru c tio n a n d resea rch and th e c o n s e q u e n t n e e d for close, c o n ­ tin u in g in te ra c tio n b e tw e e n th e faculty a n d th e library, th e ex iste n ce o f th e lib ra ry c o m m ittee is valuable. T h e c o m m itte e should b e advisory, and its responsibilities should b e clearly d elin eated . S ta n d a rd E .2 The u n iv e r sity lib ra r y ’s o w n a d m in istra tive a n d g o v e rn a n c e s tr u c tu r e sh a ll b e cle a rly sp e c ifie d a n d s h a ll b e c o n s o n a n t w i t h th e g o v e r n a n c e s tr u c tu r e o f th e u n iv e r s ity as w e ll as w ith th e p a rticu la r needs a n d re q u ire m e n ts o f the library. C o m m en ta ry on S ta n d a rd E .2 In o rd e r to facilitate effective organizational ac­ tivity and decision m aking, it is essential th a t th e a d m in istra tiv e a n d g o v e rn a n c e s tr u c tu r e o f th e u niversity library itse lf b e clearly specified. This w ill in v o lv e id e n tify in g t h e ro le s a n d r e s p o n ­ sibilities o f all categ o ries o f lib ra ry p erso n n el in th e governance o f th e lib ra ry . It is essential th a t library governance reflec t th e p rin cip le s a n d p ra c ­ tice followed else w h e re w ith in th e university, al­ though th e y should b e m odified as necessary to em body those co n d itio n s an d issues p eculiar to an academ ic library. S ta n d a rd E .3 There shall be a close a d m in istra tive relation­ ship a mo n g all libraries w ith in th e u n iversity to the e n d th a t lib ra ry users m ay m ake f u l l a n d e f­ fe c tiv e use o f lib ra ry resources a n d services. C o m m en ta ry on S ta n d a rd E .3 No single p a tte rn o f lib ra ry ad m in istratio n will serve all u n iv ersities eq u ally w ell, b u t w h a te v e r p a tte rn an in stitu tio n chooses should have as its principal p u rp o se th e e q u ita b le d istrib u tio n o f li­ b r a r y r e s o u r c e s a n d s e r v i c e s . T h e n e e d s o f scholars differ from d isc ip lin e to d isc ip lin e and often th e n e e d s o f s tu d e n ts differ from th o se o f faculty. T hese c o m p e tin g in te re sts can n o t always b e reconciled, b u t o n e im p o rta n t task o f library ad m in istratio n is to ach iev e as m uch b alance as possible in th e provision o f services to all groups. H o w ev er ad m in istrativ e relatio n sh ip s am ong li­ b ra ry units w ith in a u n iv ersity a re d e te rm in e d , it is e s s e n t i a l t h a t a d e q u a t e c o o r d i n a t i n g m echanism s b e esta b lish e d an d enforced to e n ­ su re th a t service policies a re in reasonable h a r­ m ony, that costs re la te d to dup licatio n are c o n ­ trolled, and th a t access to all lib ra ry collections is m a x im iz e d . U n le s s o t h e r in fo rm a tio n se rv ic e s such as aud io v isu a l c e n te r s , c o m p u te r c e n te rs , on-line searching services, as w ell as libraries, are alread y c en trally a d m in iste re d , th e co o rd in a tin g m echanism should also act to re la te th e activities of th e se organizations to o n e an o th er. S ta n d a rd E .4 A u n iversity lib ra ry's m a jo r policies a n d p ro c e­ du re s shall be clearly d efin ed a n d regularly re­ view ed. C o m m en ta ry on S ta n d a rd E .4 In o rd e r to e n s u re th a t it is effective in tern ally and u n d e rsto o d e x te rn a lly , a u n iv e rsity lib ra ry should clearly d efin e its m ajor policies and p ro ­ c e d u re s and re c o rd th e m in w ritte n form . T h e w r itte n s ta te m e n ts o f p o lic y sh o u ld b e re a d ily available to all m e m b e rs o f th e lib ra ry staff, a n d policies w h ich h av e e x te rn a l re le v a n c e (such as th e library’s collection d e v e lo p m e n t policy o r c ir­ c u la tio n policy) sh o u ld b e a c c e ssib le to th e li­ b ra ry ’s clie n te le and to o th e rs w ho may n e e d or d esire to consult th e m . T h e se policies, as w ell as th e p ra c tic e s th a t im p le m e n t th e m , sh o u ld b e regularly rev iew ed to e n s u re th a t th e y c o n tin u e to b e a p p ro p riate. Se c t i o n F: F i n a n c e S ta n d a rd F .1 A u n iv e r s ity l ib r a r y s h a ll re c e iv e s u ffic ie n t fu n d in g to enable it to fu lfill its obligations a n d r e s p o n s ib ilitie s as id e n tifie d in th e p re c e d in g standards. C o m m en ta ry on S ta n d a rd F .1 T h e to tal b u d g e ta ry n e e d s o f a u n iv e rsity li­ brary can b e d e te rm in e d only in relation to its responsibilities. M any a tte m p ts have b e e n m ade to d e v e lo p form ulas o r o th e r “o b je c tiv e ” m e a s­ u res for d e te rm in in g th e b u d g e ta ry re q u ire m e n ts o f a u n iv e rs ity lib ra ry . T h e s e m e a s u re s ra n g e from m atching fu n d in g w ith stu d e n t e n ro llm e n t to d e fin in g a m in im u m p e rc e n ta g e o f th e total u niversity o p e ra tin g b u d g e t w hich should b e d e ­ voted to th e library. S uch “o b je c tiv e ” ap p ro ach es to b u d g e t d e te rm in a tio n do n o t always take cog­ nizance o f th e range a n d com plexity o f d em an d s w hich any u n iv ersity lib ra ry m u st m e e t, as well as th e significantly d iffe re n t lib ra ry n e e d s o f dif­ fe re n t universities. T h e s e c o n d itio n s also m ak e it im p o ssib le to identify a viable m odel th a t can b e ap p lied to all u n iv ersity lib ra ries for allocating th e ir b u d g ets by m ajor category (salaries a n d wages, acquisitions, b in d in g , m isce llan e o u s su p p lie s, an d o th e r ex­ pense). Allocation u ltim ately d e p e n d s on local r e ­ q u ire m e n ts and p rio rities. F o r exam ple, if a u n i­ versity library is e x p ected to o p e ra te a substantial n u m b e r o f d isc re te u n its w ith parallel and d u p ­ licative activities, its e x p e n d itu re s for salaries and w ages will b e h ig h e r th a n if th is w e re n o t th e case. U n d e r any circu m stan ces, it is essen tial th a t a 95 u n iv e rs ity lib ra ry b e p ro v id e d w ith su fficien t funding to en ab le it to d evelop appropriate col­ lections, provide ap p ro p riate services, carry out necessary operations, and satisfy identified expec­ tations and req u ire m e n ts. If funding is less than is necessary to fulfill th ese obligations, th e library will b e unable to m e e t university needs. A university library should be expected to o p ­ e ra te on a sound financial basis. To do this, th e lib ra ry and its a d m in istra tio n m u st b e ab le to identify and su p p o rt its fiscal req u est effectively and to rep o rt ad equately on e x p en d itu re of funds. Standard F.2 The u n iversity lib ra ry b u d g e t shall be a dis­ tinct p a rt o f the un iversity’s budget, and it shall be developed a n d m anaged b y the c h ie f adm inis­ trative officer o f the university lib ra r y , who shall also p a rtic ip a te in to ta l u n iv e r s ity b u d g e ta r y planning. C om m entary on S ta n d a rd F.2 T he authority to p rep are, subm it, defend, and a d m in ister th e u n iv ersity library b u d g e t should b e d e le g a te d clearly and explicitly to th e ch ief adm inistrative officer of th e university library. H e or she should have full responsibility for m anag­ ing this b u d g et as well as th e authority necessary to m axim ize th e u se o f th e lib ra ry ’s to ta l r e ­ sources. H e or she should have th e same d eg ree o f latitu d e and responsibility th at is exercised by o th e r m ajo r a d m in is tra tiv e officers w ith in th e university. T h e library should be responsible for p re p a rin g a d e q u a te a n d re g u la r re p o rts on ex­ p e n d itu re s th ro u g h o u t th e year. T h ese re p o rts should conform to th e u niversity’s req u ire m e n ts and, w here necessary, to its standardized p ro ce­ d u res and practices. Because of the im portance o f th e library w ithin the university and th e n e e d th at it respond effec­ tiv e ly to c h a n g in g d e m a n d s , p r i o r i t i e s , a n d academ ic program s, it is essential that th e library b u d g et be developed in relationship to and w ith full cognizance o f th e to ta l u n iv e rsity b u d g e t- planning process, and th at th e library’s ch ief ad ­ m inistrative officer b e d ire c tly and significantly involved in this process. Re f e r e n c e s 1. C arnegie Com m ission on H igher E ducation, A Classification o f In stitu tio n s o f H igher E duca­ tion (Berkeley, Calif.: T he Com m ission, 1973), p. 1-2, 9 -2 2 . T h is p u b lic a tio n id en tifies 173 “doctoral g ranting in stitu tio n s.” 2. Allan M. C a rtte r, A n A ssessm ent o f Q uality in G r a d u a te E d u c a tio n ( W a s h in g to n , D .C .: American C ouncil on E ducation, 1966), p. 114. 3. W illiam J. B aum ol a n d M a tity ah u M arcus, E conom ics o f A ca d em ic L ib ra ries (W ashing­ ton, D .C .: A m erican C ouncil on E d u catio n , 1973). 4. C a rtte r, A n A ssessm ent o f Q uality in G raduate E ducation, p. 114. 5. T he b est re c e n t discussion o f th e im portance o f n o n p rin t m edia for h ig h e r education is C a r­ negie C om m ission on H ig h er E ducation, The F o u rth R evolution: In stru c tio n a l T echnology in H ig h e r E d u c a tio n (N ew York: M cG raw - Hill, 1972). 6. In Faculty Sta tu s f o r A cadem ic Librarians: A H istory and Policy Statem ent (Chicago: A m eri­ can Library A ssn., 1975), p .35-38. 7. “L ibrary E ducation an d Personnel U tilization” (Chicago: A m erican L ibrary A ssn., 1976). 8. C onsiderable valuable inform ation is available in several publications, th e b est o f which re ­ m ains K eyes D. M etcalf, Planning Academ ic a n d Research L ib ra r y B u ild in g s (New York: M cGraw -Hill, 1965). 9. This issue has b e e n th e subject o f considerable analysis. See, particularly Ralph E. Ellsw orth, The Economics o f Book Storage in Academ ic Libraries (M etuchen, N .J.: T he Association of Research L ibraries and th e Scarecrow Press, 1969). A lso u se fu l is J e ffre y A. Raffel a n d R obert Shishko, S y stem a tic A n a ly sis o f Uni­ v e r s ity L ib r a r ie s ( C a m b rid g e , M a ss.: M IT Press, 1969). Ap p e n d i x Q u a n t i t a t i v e An a l y t i c a l T e c h n i q u e s f o r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s T he university lib ra ries1 to w hich q uantitative m easures m ight be ap p lied are so complex, so d i­ verse in th e program s th e y support, and so dif­ f e r e n t from e a c h o t h e r th a t it is e x tr e m e ly difficult, if not im possible, to devise a com m on statistical m easure w hich could be applied to all of them . This problem is fu rth e r com plicated by the c h a ra c te r an d in a d e q u a c y o f th e c u rre n tly available data. H erm an F ussier, for exam ple, ob­ serves th a t “libraries, like u n iv ersities, te n d to have very in adequate analytical data on th e ir own operations and perform ance. Such data, especially as th ey relate to costs and system responses to u ser n eed s, are critically im portant in any effort to im prove a library’s efficiency and responsive­ n ess.”2 F ritz M achlup, in th e course of his recent efforts to m easure th e holdings and acquisitions of libraries on a broad scale, has com plained about the lack of ad eq u ate d a ta .3 O th e r observers have challenged th e utility o f p re se n t library data col­ le c tio n .4 T h e y focus on p e r c e iv e d fa ilu re s to m easure perform ance o r effectiveness. N e v e rth e ­ less, academ ic institutions do com p ete for faculty and s tu d e n ts , and o n e o f th e e le m e n ts in this co m p etitio n is th e a d eq u ac y o f lib ra ry services and collections. C o m p a ra tiv e ju d g m e n ts ab o u t academic libraries are m ade, and th ese com pari­ sons can b e aided by quan titativ e m easures. U n fo rtu n a te ly , m u c h o f th e d a ta w hich a re n e e d e d to actually m ake in te rin stitu tio n a l com parisons 96 is n o t e asily av ailab le, alth o u g h som e useful data can b e obtain ed from ARL statistics. T h e L IB G IS a n d H E G IS su rv e y s also su p p ly d ata, b u t th e s e a re usually too old for c u rre n t n eeds o r in a form w hich is difficult to use. C o n ­ s e q u e n tly , th e a n aly st is c o m p e lle d to rely on w hat is available: ARL statistics, authorities who have w ritte n on th e su b je c t, a n d such lim ite d su rv e y s as h e o r sh e can m ak e. All o f th e s e m ethods have varying d eg rees o f utility, b u t with th e p o ssib le e x c e p tio n o f th e ARL data, n one p ro v id e th e raw d a ta on w hich em pirically d e ­ rived m easures can b e based. C e rtain “com m on” practices can b e d isc ern ed , and th e advice o f a u ­ th o ritie s can b e w e ig h e d , b u t th e s e , h o w e v e r valuable, do not c o n stitu te quantitative m easures in an em pirically d e riv a b le , logically ju stifiab le se n se. To h av e re lia b le q u a n tita tiv e m easu res, the categories to b e m easu red m ust b e defined, and a m echanism for g ath erin g th e necessary data m ust be developed. In th e a b s e n c e o f e i t h e r o f th e s e n e c e ssa ry conditions, it is difficult to do m ore than perform w hat analyses can b e p e rfo rm e d on ARL data. Briefly, th ese fall into th r e e categories: (a) in ­ sights obtained by sim ple inspection of th e data; (b) th e co n stru ctio n o f ratios which re d u c e the quantity of data to b e co m p re h e n d e d and facili­ tate com parison; and (c) regression analysis which p e rfo rm s ro u g h ly th e sa m e fu n c tio n from th e an a ly s t’s p o in t o f v iew as th e c o n s tru c tio n of ratios b u t also re q u ire s an effort on th e p art of the analyst to group like institutions to g e th e r and gives th e analyst som e indication of how well this has b een accom plished (coefficient o f d e te rm in a ­ tion). Sim ple inspection of ARL data, aided by rank­ ings, ranges, averages, and m edians, does p ro ­ vide useful insights for th e ex p erien ced library m anager who can m entally discount obvious dis­ crep an cies and d ifferen ces b e tw e e n in stitu tio n s and can re stric t com parisons to a hom ogeneous group. H ow ever, to read, for exam ple, th a t in 1976-77 th e n u m b e r o f volum es in ARL libraries ranged b etw een H arv ard ’s 9,547,576 and M cM as­ t e r ’s 9 0 6 ,7 4 1 , t h a t t h e a v e r a g e l ib ra ry h e ld 2,127,047, and th e m ed ian was 1,653,000 may give th e read er a sense o f p ersp ectiv e, which is valuable, b u t it is o f lim ited use in draw ing com ­ parisons b etw een ra th e r different institutions. A reduction o f data can b e achieved by the use o f ratios or p ercen tag es, as is shown in th e exam ­ ple of ratio analysis below. Som e o f those which can b e g en erated from existing data include: 1. T he ratio o f professional to nonprofessional staff 2. E xp en d itu re for library m aterials as a p e r ­ c e n t of total library o p eratin g exp en d itu re 3. Ratio o f salary e x p en d itu res to library m ate­ rial expenditures This kind of data reduction aids analysis by mak­ ing th e data m ore co m p reh en sib le. F o r exam ple, am ong ARL libraries in 1976-77, th e ratio o f p ro ­ fessional to nonprofessional staff ranged from 1.08 to 0.24; th e average was 0.51 and th e m edian 0.4 9 . T h e o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f lib ra rie s te n d e d tow ard a p a tte r n o f one professional to two n onprofessionals. A m ong ARL lib ra rie s in 1976-77, ex p en d itu res for library m aterials as a p e rc e n t of total library e x p en d itu res ranged from 19.14 p e rc e n t for T o ro n to to 50.61 p e rc e n t for H ouston. T h e average was 31.46 p e rc e n t and th e m edian 30.09 p ercen t. T he vast m ajority o f ARL lib ra rie s t e n d e d to s p e n d 30 p e r c e n t o f th e i r b udgets on acquisitions. T he obverse o f m aterials e x p e n d itu re for lib ra rie s is salary ex p e n d itu re . E x p re s s e d as a r a tio o f sa la ry to m a te ria ls it ranged from 3.6 in th e case of Toronto, to 0 .8 in the case of H ouston, w ith th e m edian 1.9 and th e average 1.93. From ratios such as th e se , a d e e p e r insight into library operations can b e obtained, b u t it w ould be rash to conclude th at all libraries should spend 30 p e rc e n t of th e ir b u d g ets for books and 60 p e r ­ c e n t for salaries or th a t th e ratio o f professional to nonprofessional should always b e 1:2. Local con­ ditions d ictate differing policies. A library w ith many branches may re q u ire a hig h er ratio of p ro ­ fessionals to nonprofessionals. C onversely, differ­ in g o p e r a t i n g c o n d itio n s , d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f staffing may dictate different ratios. An exam ple o f a m ore ex ten d ed kind o f ratio analysis is th at o f Allan C a rtte r’s Library Resources Index, which is described in a following section. Yet, even this k in d o f ra tio sh o u ld b e v iew ed c a u tio u sly . At b e s t, ra tio analysis can se rv e o n ly as a b a c k ­ g ro u n d a g ain st w hich local c o n d itio n s m ay b e evaluated. Regression analysis also provides a for n o f data reduction, b u t it com pels th e analyst to a ttem p t to g roup like institutions to g eth er. Baumol and M arcus provide a guide to its use in library data analysis.5 T he concluding section of this appendix gives an exam ple of its application. But th e same caveats ab o u t draw in g in feren c es th at apply to ratio analysis apply to regression analysis. In addition to th ese, th e re is a growing lite ra ­ tu re on perform ance evaluation of libraries which is ex p ressed in various ways. F. W. L an caster sum m arizes some of th e possible approaches: “ 1. T he ability o f th e library to d eliv er a p a r­ ticular item w hen it is n eed ed . “2. T he ability of th e catalog and th e sh e lf a r­ rangem ent to disclose th e holdings of p articular items or o f m aterials on particular subjects. “ 3. T h e a b ility o f re fe re n c e sta ff to a n s w e r questions com pletely and accurately. “4. T he speed w ith which a particular item can be located w hen n eed ed . “5. T he speed w ith w hich a refe ren ce inquiry can be answ ered or a lite ra tu re search conducted and th e results p re se n te d to th e library user. “6. T h e am ount o f effort th a t th e u se r m u st h im self expend in exploiting th e services o f th e 97 library (including factors o f physical accessibility o f th e lib ra ry a n d its c o llectio n s, th e size and quality o f th e library staff, and th e way in which th e collections a re catalo g ed , in d ex ed , sh e lv ed and signposted.”6 P erfo rm an ce m e a su re s are, h o w e v e r, still in th e early stages o f th e ir dev elo p m en t. T hey may eventually prove to b e extrem ely im portant to li­ braries, b u t th ey are likely to b e most useful in making intrainstitutional ra th e r than in te rin stitu ­ tional decisions. In sum , th e re are no sim ple so­ lu tio n s, no read y p an ace as, no easily available s u b s titu te s for in te llig e n t analysis o f a v ailab le data. Exam ple o f Ratio A nalysis Table 1 below d e m o n stra te s th e application of ratio analysis to library m aterials exp en d itu res as a p ercen tag e o f total library o p e ra tin g ex p e n d i­ tu re s. It is based on th e la te st (1976-77) ARL data. F or th e sake o f b revity and because this is sim ply used as an exam ple, only tw enty o f th e to tal a p p lic a b le n i n e ty - th r e e in s titu tio n s h a v e b een included. T he L ibrary Resources Index T h e L ibrary R esources Index is a specialized index devised by Allan M. C a rtte r and p ublished in h is A n A s se ss m e n t o f Q u a lity in G r a d u a te E d u ca tio n .7 It is an average of th re e indexes and is com puted in th e following way. F irst, th e pool o f institutions to b e com pared is d eterm in ed . (In th e exam ple, show n as ta b le 2, this pool is all ARL libraries and th e data are for 1976-77). Sec­ o n d , th re e v ariab les a re isolated: (a) total vol­ um es; (b) volum es added; and (c) periodicals re ­ ceived. A separate index is form ed for each vari­ able by finding th e average for each variable and d ividing th e average value into th e value for each institution. F o r exam ple, assum e th at th e average n u m b er of periodicals held in ARL libraries is 15,000, and t h r e e i n s titu tio n s h a v e to ta ls r e s p e c tiv e ly o f 60.000, 15,000, and 7,500. D ividing th e average, 15.000, into each o f th e s e figures yields index values of 4, 1, and .5. Similarly, values are found for each in stitu tio n for th e o th e r two variables: volum es added and total volum es. T hen the th re e index values for each institution are sum m ed, d i­ vided by th re e , and so rted into descen d in g order. F o r ex am ple, re fe r to in s titu tio n n u m b e r 8 in table 2. It is M ichigan. It has index values o f 2.31, 1.81, and 1.92. T h e sum of these is 6.04. D ividing this by 3 yields 2.01, th e overall library resources index. Mr. C a rtte r’s index was based on 1963-64 data. His general conclusion at th at tim e was: “Those lib ra rie s w hich fall b elo w .5 a re p ro b a b ly too w eak to support quality graduate program s in a w id e ra n g e o f fie ld s, a lth o u g h th e y m ay b e a d e q u a te for an in s titu tio n th a t sp e cializes in technology o r in advanced work in a very lim ited n u m b e r of areas. ”8 T able 2 d em o n strates an application o f th e Li­ brary Resources Index to tw enty ARL libraries, using 1976-77 ARL data. TA BLE 1 L i b r a r y M a t e r i a l s E x p e n d i t u r e s a s a P e r c e n t a g e o f T o t a l L i b r a r y O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s (Va l u e ) f o r T w e n t y U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s , 1976-77 Rank O rd e r Institution N u m b er N u m b er In stitu tio n Nam e Value 1 31 H ouston 50.61 2 3 Arizona 44.63 3 82 Texas A & M 44.05 4 87 VPI & SU 42.84 5 81 Texas 42.69 6 28 G eorgia 42.21 7 35 Iowa 42.15 8 71 S outh C arolina 42.08 9 68 Rice 41.67 10 42 Louisiana State 40.19 11 20 C o nnecticut 40.04 12 60 O klahom a State 39.51 13 53 N ebraska 39.30 14 80 T ennessee 39.22 15 52 M issouri 38.93 16 4 Arizona State 38.62 17 22 D artm outh 38.30 18 24 E m ory 38.23 19 1 Alabama 38.08 20 57 N otre D am e 37.87 98 T A B L E 2 T h e L i b r a r y Re s o u r c e s I n d e x A p p l i e d t o T w e n t y A R L L i b r a r i e s , 1 9 7 6 -7 7 O verall Rank O rd e r Total V olum es L ib rary O verall In stitu tio n N am e V olum e A dded Serials R e so u rces In d ex In d ex Index In d e x Index 1 H arv ard 4.49 2.25 3.8 9 3.54 2 Illinois 2.74 1.95 3.4 3 2.71 3 Yale 3.24 2.40 2.4 4 2 .6 9 4 C alif., B erkeley 2.31 1.75 3.9 0 2.65 5 Texas 1.91 2.87 2.41 2.39 6 In d ian a 2.07 2.39 1.71 2.05 7 C o lu m b ia 2.22 1.57 2.31 2.03 8 M ichigan 2.31 1.81 1.92 2.02 9 Stanford 2.05 1.67 2 .1 3 1.95 10 T o ro n to 1.87 2.15 1.66 1.90 11 C alif., Los A ngeles 1.84 1.44 2.26 1.84 12 W ash in g to n 1.52 2.16 1.64 1.77 13 C o rn ell 1.87 1.33 2.0 8 1.76 14 C hicago 1.83 1.60 1.76 1.73 15 W isconsin 1.52 1.30 1.92 1.58 16 O h io S tate 1.53 1.50 1.15 1.39 17 M in n e so ta 1.58 0.93 1.48 1.33 18 D u k e 1.35 1.28 1.33 1.32 19 P rin c eto n 1.37 1.18 1.25 1.27 20 P en n sy lv a n ia 1.31 1.08 1.10 1.16 R e g re s s io n A n a ly s is T a b le s U s in g A R L D a ta , 1 9 7 5-76 In a n a ly z in g d a t a fro m A R L l i b r a r i e s , t h e s tr o n g e s t s ta tis tic a l r e la tio n s h ip s a r e fo u n d to exist w h en th e s e lib ra rie s a re c ateg o rized in som e way. T h erefo re, by w ay o f ex am p le, ARL lib ra ries m ay b e g ro u p e d in four d iffe re n t ways: 1. All ARL acad e m ic libraries. 2. All p riv a te ARL a c a d e m ic lib ra rie s in th e U.S. 3. All p u b lic A R L a c a d e m ic lib ra rie s in th e U.S. 4. All C a n ad ian ARL acad e m ic libraries F u rth e r, for each g ro u p additional tab les may b e d e v e lo p e d th a t p r e d ic t th e values o f c e rta in d iffe re n t (d e p e n d e n t) v a ria b le s b a se d u p o n th e valu e o f o th e r (in d e p e n d e n t) v ariables. Six v a r­ iables, for exam ple, w hich can b e exam ined are: 1. Professional staff 2. Total staff 3. G ross volum es ad d e d 4. E x p e n d itu re s for library m aterials 5. Total library e x p e n d itu re s 6. C u rre n t p erio d icals h e ld F o r e a c h lib ra ry in e a c h o f th e fo u r g ro u p s n o te d above, th e follow ing p re d ic tio n s th e n can b e m ade: 1. N u m b e r o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f b a s e d on n u m b e r o f vo lu m es h e ld 2. N u m b e r o f to tal staff b a se d on n u m b e r o f volum es held 3. N u m b e r o f gross v o lu m es a d d e d b a se d on volum es held 4. E x p e n d itu re s for lib ra ry m aterials based on gross volum es a d d e d a n d v o lu m es h eld 5. T otal e x p e n d itu re s b ased on volum es h eld , gross volum es a d d e d , a n d total staff 6. N u m b e r o f c u r re n t serials based on n u m b e r of volum es held T h u s, for each ta b le th e r e can b e p lo tte d a d is­ play o f variables, to g e th e r w ith o bservations for each in stitu tio n , a n d w hich in c lu d e for each d e ­ p e n d e n t v a ria b le its a c tu a l v alu e, its e s tim a te d value, a n d th e resid u al, w hich is th e d ifferen ce b e tw e e n th e actual a n d th e e s tim a te d value. F o r e x a m p le , a s s u m e w e h a v e t h e d is p la y sh o w n below as ta b le 3, w h ich p re d ic ts th e n u m b e r of pro fe ssio n a l sta ff a lib ra ry is e x p e c te d to h av e based upon th e n u m b e r o f v o lu m es held. T h e first colum n id e n tifie s each in stitu tio n ; th e second show s th e actual value for each variable; th e th ird show s th e e x p e c te d value based on th e regression e q u atio n co m p u ta tio n w hich has b e e n do n e; th e fo u rth is th e d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n co l­ u m n s tw o and th re e ; a n d th e fifth is a p lo t o f th e data. L o o k in g a t L ib r a r y A, w e s e e t h a t it h a s th irty -se v en professional staff, b u t b ased on th e o th e r lib ra ries in its com parison class, it w ould b e ex p ected to have th irty -n in e . T h e actual value is two few er than e x p e c te d , so its position on th e graph is p lo tte d to th e left o f th e least sq u a res TA B L E 3 E x a m p l e o f Re g r e s s i o n An a l y s i s Ap p l i e d t o S i z e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l St a f f (Y) Institution Y Value Y E stim ate Residual D isplay L ibrary A 37 39 - 2 X L ibrary B 52 48 + 4 X Library C 63 55 + 8 X L ibrary D 60 72 - 1 2 X least squares line norm alized line. (See any sta n d ard textbook on statistics for d etailed explanation o f this te c h n iq u e .) L ib raries B and C have m ore professionals than w ould be expected, so th e y are p lo tte d to th e right o f th e lin e. C o n s e q u e n tly , by in sp e c tio n , th e lib ra ry m anager can n o te any obvious anom alies b etw een his or h e r in stitution and o th ers. R e f e r e n c e s f o r Ap p e n d i x 1. D o c to ra l g r a n tin g in s t i t u t i o n s in C a rn e g ie Com m ission on H ig h e r E d u catio n , A C lassi­ fic a tio n o f In s titu tio n s o f H ig h e r E d u c a tio n (B e rk e le y , C a lif.: T h e C o m m is sio n , 1973), p. 1-2, 9-22. 2. H e rm a n H. F u ss ie r, Research L ib ra ries a n d Technology, A R ep o rt to th e Sloan F oundation (Chicago: Univ. o f C hicago Press, 1973), p .61. 3. F r i t z M a c h lu p , “ O u r L ib r a r ie s : C a n W e M e a su re T h e ir H o ld in g s a n d A c q u isitio n s,” AAU P B ulletin 62:303-7 (Oct. 1976). 4. S e e , fo r e x a m p le , M o rris H a m b u r g a n d oth ers, L ib ra ry Planning a n d Decision M aking System s (C am bridge, Mass.: M IT Press, 1974). 5. W illiam J. B aum ol a n d M a tity a h u M arcus, Econom ics o f A ca d em ic L ib ra r ie s (W ashing­ to n , D .C .: A m erican C o u n c il on E d u catio n , 1973). 6. F .W . L a n c a s te r , T h e M e a s u r e m e n t a n d E valuation o f L ib ra ry Services (W ashington, D .C .: Inform ation R esources, 1977), p .323. 7. Allan M. C a rtte r, A n A ssessm en t o f Q uality in G r a d u a te E d u c a tio n ( W a s h in g to n , D .C .: A m erican C ouncil on E d u catio n , 1966). 8. Ib id ., p. 114. ■■