College and Research Libraries By HARRY BACH Acquisition Policy in the American Academic Library Problems of acquisition policy are in many ways the most important confronting a~­ ministrators of university libraries. This, unfortunately, does not mean that these problems have never been dodg.ed; many of the difficulties now besettmg great research libraries at Harvard and else- where result from failures to face such problems squarely.1 T HIS STUDY is a summary, synthesis, and evaluation of past and present acquisition principles and practices in the American academic library. It focuses attention on what was, what is, and per- haps even what should be. In term~ ?f acquisition philosophy and responsi~ll­ ity, it compares trends of the past With trends of the present, and trends of the present with trends of the future. The word acquisition in this study applies to the acquisition of library ma- terials whether they be by gift, exchange, or purchase. Since funds play a vital role in determining the adequacy of a library book collection, the emphasis is on acquisition by purchase. Policy refers to the guiding principles adopted and followed by American aca- demic libraries in developing their col- lections. Acquisition policy is interpreted in a broad sense and encompasses both written and unwritten, formal and in- formal statements of policy. Academic library in the historical sec- tion of the paper refers primarily to col- 1 Keyes D. Metcalf, "Problems of Ac<_Iuisition Poli~y in a University Library," Harvard L~brary Bullehn, IV (1950), 293-303. Mr. Bach is head} Acquisitions Depart- ment} San jose State College} San jose} Calif. 1VOVEMBER 1957 IE;ge libraries; in the discussion of pres- ent practices it refers to ( 1) research libraries listed under Group I in the annual CRL statistics; (2) college and university libraries that in 1953-54 had a total book and periodical budget of $50,000 or more, and (3) state university libraries that do not fall under either (1) or (2). Information and statements were ob- tained from three sources: (I) published literature, (2) fifteen replies to a letter of inquiry which Robert Vosper, direc- tor of libraries, University of Kansas, sent out in 1953 to various university libraries in preparation for his paper "Acquisition Policy-Fact or Fancy?" 2 (3) replies to a letter of inquiry sent to 108 institutions in October 1955 by Pro- fessor LeRoy C. Merritt of the School of Librarianship at the University of Cali- fornia.3 To the 108 Jetters of inquiry a 50 per cent response was received. Of the fifty-five institutions which replied, four- teen have some kind of a written acquisi- tion policy, thirty explained the essence of their unwritten policy in their letter, and eleven failed to· comment. The four- teen written acquisition policies, roughly classified, fall into the following three categories: (1) five sketchy policies in outline form with the emphasis on order- ing procedures rather than selection principles; (2) three policies which were short summaries of acquisition practices; 2 Robert Vosper, "Acquisition Policy- Fact or Fancy?" CRL, XIV (1953) , 367 -?0. . . . . _ a At the time information on the1r acqutsthon pohctes was a sked for from American academic libraries, per- mission to quote was not requested. The writer deems it, therefore , inadvisable to identify replies. 441 (3) six full-fledged policies. The assump- tiOn must be made that the rna jority of the fifty-three libraries which did not reply do not have an acquisition policy, at least not a written one. AGAINST A cQUISITION PoLicY The reasons advanced by librarians against the formulation of an acquisition policy are varied. First, acquisition pol- icies, they feel , are out of date before they are drafted, A library within a uni- versity in which the program of study and research is in a state of flux-old programs being dropped, new programs being added-can hardly hope, even with faculty assistance, to draft a code that will meet the needs of students and faculty today and tomorrow. Any long- term program becomes merelv an invita- t~on to tr~uble. Second, acquisition poli- Cies are difficult to formulate when it is not clear what the university' s curricu- l~r and researc? plans are . The acquisi- tiOn program IS expected to reflect the changing and developing programs of the university. It is rather difficult to spell out one without having first spelled out the other. Third, tradition may mili- tate against the formulation of an ac- quisition policy. Fourth, delegation of book selection responsibility to the fac- u.lty ren~ers .the drafting of an acquisi- tiOn policy Impossible. To quote one respondent: "We have over eight hun- dred different codes, not drafted docu- ments, but codes in the persons of living, changing, working, and loafing facult y ~embers." Fifth, lack of facult y coopera- tiOn manifested in library interest on the part of a mere handful. Sixth, satisfac- tion with the status quo. The informal acquisition program has produced a good collection, so why go to the trouble of making a survey which would reveal little that is not already known? Seventh, difficulty of creating a document that would be useful. Eighth, impossibility of the task in view of the extreme com- plexity of acquisition work and the necessity in many cases to proceed b y intuition. IN FAVOR OF ACQUISITION POLICY "The ideal method of building up a great reservoir of research materials," wrote one librarian, "would be to have on the library staff a large corps of gifted and bibliographically sophisticat- ed scholars representing the utmost com- petence in each special field of knowl- edge, working full time and buying with unlimited funds everything of possible research value, to be arranged and cata- loged b y an unlimited staff of superbly competent catalogers and stored perma- nently in a limitless building which :vould. provide immediate access to any 1terp. In the collection." Since such an ideal situation does not exist, however, some thoughtful librarians have become convinced of the definite need for an acquisition policy to insure the even development of the collections. They fear that without a policy there will be extensive overlapping and a lack of knowledge as to what does and should get on the library shelves. Once the general direction of the acquisition pro- gram is determined, they claim, the mere existence of a stated policy will make for a continuity in collecting which will prevent the accumulation of "once strong, but now defunct" collections. If no policy exists, library funds will be spe?t in. aimless .and random buying which will result In a lessening of fac- ulty interest in the library and, there- fore, weaken rather than strengthen facult y-library understanding. The librarian must exert control over the growth of the collections, for those faculty members who ask most are not alw.ays the most deserving. The filling of their needs may be to the detriment rather than to the welfare of the library.4 • 4 Elm er_ M. _ G ri e d e r , "The F o und a ti on s of A cqui s i- ti on s P o h cy tn th e S mall U ni ve r s it y L ibrary" CRL X (194 9 ) , 20 8 -14 . ' ' 442 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Unless a library has a well-formulated buying policy, its development is likely to proceed along lines determined by the demands which are made upon it from day to day.5 Fields to be cover~d will cease being clear-cut. Since no ·· library can be all things to all people, the dan- ger of overspreading seems evident. The ever-growing interdependence of librar- ies requires them to define the concen- trated fields in which each hopes to attain distinction. An acquisition policy, at least a broad acquisition policy, is, therefore, becoming more and more a necessi t'y. HISTORICAL VIEW During the first half of the nineteenth century librarians were more concerned with protecting their treasures from the eyes of inquisitive readers than with the present or future status of their book collections. 6 In -1850 according to Carl- ton 126 college libraries in thirty-two states possessed a total of 586,912 vol- umes. Columbia, the largest college li- brary in New York state possessed 12,740.7 Library resources during that period were so inadequate that they were more likely to duplicate than to · supplement the scholar's own. The gen- eral collection of the college library was essentially a projection on a larger scale of the kind of library an educated man was expected to possess for himsel£. 8 The second half of the nineteenth century was marked by an improvement in library conditions. New educational ideals, new methods of instruction, the introduction of the Ph.D., and the rise of the . American university revolution- ized the matter of providing resources 5 Nathan Van Patten, "Buying Policies of College and University Libraries," CRL, I (1939), 64-70. 6 Kenneth J. Brough, Scholar's Workshop (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1953. Illinois Contribu - tions to Librarian ship , no . 5). 7 W. N. Carlton, "College Libraries in the Mid- Nineteenth Century," Library Jm~rnal, XXXII (1907), 479-86. s Arthur E. Bestor, "Transformation of AmPrir~n Scholarship, 1875-1917," Library Quarterly, XXIII (1953), 164-79. 1VOVEMBER 1957 for research. The development of the library became a necessary corollary of the responsibility which the university had assumed. Books came to be regarded as tools rather than as treasures. The library was to play- a vital role in the furtherance of research. Libraries felt it to be their duty both to identify themselves with the new movement and to acquire everything. "As long as the literature of Law, Medicine, and Theol- ogy were the only literatures appertain- ing to what men think and do for a living," affirms Winsor in 1879, "librar- ies were necessarily the monopoly, out- side of literature itself as a study, of the Lawyer, the Physician and the Theolo- gian. Once the warden of a castle who parlayed distantly with those that knocked, now, the expounder, the proph- et, the missionary-or he should be- whose gates cannot be too widely opened, whose sympathy cannot be too broad. Nothing that is printed," he continues, "no matter how trivial at the time, but may be some day in demand, and, viewed in some relations, helpful to significant results. Therefore, if his store- house and treasury admit of the keeping and caring for, the librarian feels the necessity of preserving all he can." 9 Even as late as 1916, President Butler of Co- lumbia writes that: "The aim of the primary collection in the general library is completeness. While this can never be attained either theoretically or practi- cally, yet the usefulness of the primary collection depends upon its being sub- stantially complete and thoroughly rep- resentative of the main intellectual in- terests of mankind."lO Alfred C. Potter in 1897 gave a more spe'cific account of acquisition policies at Harvard at the close of the nineteenth century. While for the student he thought it wise to provide only the best, 9 Justin Win sor, "College and Other Higher Li- braries," Library Journal, IV (1879), 399-402. 1° Columbia University. Annual Report of the Pres- ident, 1916. 443 for the professor everything was neces- sary-good, bad, and indifferent. Since the books bought for the students re- lated to the courses that they were studying, and those bought for the pro- fessors to the courses that they were teaching, Potter considered it only nat- ural that librarians should turn to the faculty for aid in the selection of books. The college had a body of trained spe- cialists who knew better than the librar- ian ever could what gaps existed in the collection and what was most needed to fill them. 11 By 1930 some librarians recognized that the responsibility for the selection of suitable books for the library was not the concern of the instructors alone. It was apparent, however, that in many land-grant institutions neither the librar- ian nor library assistants engaged as active agents in the selection of a major- ity of the books which went into the library. In thirty-three institutions li- brarians indicated that their only func- tion in book selection was to avoid purchase of duplicates. In ten institu- tions library books were ordered by departments without any supervision whatsoever by librarians. Some librar- ians evidently even considered supervi- sion by the librarian over selection of books as dangerous because it might lead to a vacancy in the position of librarian. 12 What is the situation today? Do librar- ians still believe in amassing tremendous quantities of materials in the combined fields of knowledge? Do they still believe that book selection is not their respon- sibility but the faculty's? Two components make up acquisition policy in American academic libraries today: (I) the determinants of selection, .and (2) the selectors. To put it different- 11 Alfred C. Potter, "Selection of Books for College Libraries," Library Journal, XXXII (1897) , 39-44. 12 U.S. Office of Education. Survey of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. Its Bulletin, no. 9, v. 1, part 8. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Of- fice, 1930.) ly; what factors form the basis for the selection of library materials? And, who are the persons primarily responsible for the selection of library materials, the faculty, the librarians, or both? Determinants of Selection. Book selec- tion in the American academic library of today is determined by the following factors: I. Information resulting from an evaluation of the collections , among the institutions that submitted statements of policy only one reported having an acquisition policy based on an evaluation of the library collection. Unfinished as the document was, it indicated in great detail by means of priority ratings the various levels of depth of those parts of the collection which had been surveyed. Another library listed some of the fields in which it was strong but gave no indica- tion of whether or not an evaluation had ever been made of its collection. A southern university reported a huge inventory of library needs made by a committee of faculty and librarians. The inventory resulted in an estimated $800,- 000 want list. A "wonderful budget argu- ment." 2. Users of the library and their needs. a. The immediate and current teaching and research needs of faculty and students. Librarians were practically unanimous in viewing the university library as a service agency whose primary function is to support the educational and research programs of the university. "In view of the fact that we do not have money to buy everything that might conceivably be pur- chased," one library affirmed, "we feel that it is important to define clearly the re- search objectives of the various depart- ments and to make the library acquisition program dovetail closely with them." Some libraries in their written policies proceed from there to identify those areas in some degree of detail. Fields in which work at the doctoral level is offered are treated as "primary fields of specialization and interest"; those in which work at the mas- ter's level is offered are treated as "special fields of interest." The former category 444 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES entails comprehensiveness and the latter emphasis on basic research materials. State- ments on library policy concerning refer- ence works, documents, maps, manuscripts, music, newspapers, periodicals, rare books, and college archives are generally also in- cluded in some of these policies. One library viewed its acqms1t10n pro- gram in terms of three objectives. First was its project to bring holdings up to the "college level" by which it meant a reasonably strong library in all fields , the kind of library that one would expect to find in a good, strong college rather than in a great university. Second, came the project of building a research library, by which it meant the backing of those de- partments in which the most research was done and where graduate enrollment was heaviest. Third, was the ideal of preem- inence, by which it meant the duty of the university "to obtain the finest and most complete library in the United States" in a very small number of fields. The majority of reporting institutions stop at this point in their interpretation of the library's function. "We buy very few books in those departments or fields where we offer no instruction," summa- rizes the general attitude. b. The long-range teaching and research needs of faculty and students. The library, they believe, must serve its users in something of the capacity of an archive of civilization. It must accumulate and preserve the evidences of the culture about it and acquire and preserve evi- dences of past culture. For the people of the future the library must attempt to build a full and round picture of the world as it is reflected in books at any one time. The soundness of librarians' judgment in the matter of selection will determine in part the library's success or failure in meeting the unpredictable needs of the scholar of future generations. c. The cultural needs of the users. In the interest of stimulating the stu- dents' desire to read and 1 the reading habit the library should acquire publica- tions designed specifically for recreational reading and the aesthetic needs of its users. NOVEMBER 1957 3. The strengths in the collection. Four libraries expres ed their belief that the strengths in the collection ought to be maintained. A library has the obligation to continue to purchase and maintain its strength in those fields in which it al- ready has strong collections. No libraries expressed the opinion that the develop- ment of new fields should prevent the ad- dition to those in which they already had depth. 4. Obligation to the region or state. The library also has a local regional responsibility, that of assisting in preserv- ing the written record of its immediate area. Such collecting should be based on sound planning and division of work with other institutions, but with the academic library lies a particular responsibility. The story of the institution's own history es- pecially must be preserved, including full faculty archives and collections of alumni publications. 5. Quantity of print and near-print mate- rials. Librarians no longer believe like Win- sor that they should preserve all they can. They fully realize that the grgwing vol- ume of print has made it impossible for them to collect everything. They can be strong only by being weak. The piling up ' of materials is progressing along a rising parabolic curve. Under such conditions the attempt to be strong everywhere will only result in being mediocre everywhere. It seems better to subordinate certain fields in order to have the library a first- class research instrument in some fields. 6. Regional resources. Only four of the fifty-five reporting libraries stated that they were influenced in their acquisition program by holdings of neighboring libraries. Some of the state- ments seem to indicate, however, that al- though cooperative measures of acquisi- tion are not prevalent among American academic libraries, they are likely to in- crease in the future. 7. Personal convictions of librarians. Library collections are bound to be in part the products of librarians' personal convictions: 445 "Since research is reported first in jour- nals, the library should have at least the last ten years of the important journals in every field of the curriculum." "The scholarly output of the major university presses should be acquired al- most in toto." "I have always believed it to be of par- amount importance to approach the prob- lem realistically and not clutter shelves with a considerable body of free materials on the assumption that perhaps some day it may be wapted by someone." 8. Book fund allocation system. The book fund allocation system, it will be seen later, places primary responsibility for the development of the library collec- tion on the · faculty. It is, therefore , a major factor in determining the ultimate shape and strength of the collection. 9. Financial resources of the library. It seems self-evident that the financial re- sources of the library would impose lim- its on the ultimate shape and strength of the collection. Selectors. If libraries are classified ac- cording to their role in the selection of library materials, they seem to fall into three categories: (I) self-effacing librar- ies, (2) libraries in which materials are selected by the faculty with the aid and advice of the library, and (3) libraries in which materials are selected by the li- brary with the aid and ad vice of the fac- ulty. I. Self-effacing libraries. These libraries are characterized by over-reliance on the faculty and a twenti- eth-century version of a nineteenth-cen- tury outlook on book selection. Libraries in this group disclaim almost all responsi- bility for the development of the collec- tion. If there are titles which they think ought to be in the library, they recom- mend them to the faculty who in turn recommend them to the library. These li- braries admit that the faculty neglects certain areas and is responsible for the addition of insignificant items, but the responsibility for the collection not being the library's, they abstain from taking appropriate countermeasures. With the administration of the research fund under the control of the library committee, li- braries in this group generally also lack the authority to pass upon expensive items. Among these libraries there are cases where the library's jurisdiction is limited to a mere ten to twenty per cent of the entire book budget. Libraries in this category number less than half a dozen. 2. Libraries in which materials are selected by the faculty with the aid and advice of the library. The selection pattern in this category is familiar. Book selection for the univer- sity departments is left almost entirely in the hands of the faculty. In some institu- tions a departmental library representa- tive is designated periodically as the one person authorized to approve purchases from the fund allotted to a given depart- ment. The librarian and the library staff supplement and round out faculty buying in the various fields, and select those works which are not specifically needed for the work of particular departments. They also call faculty members' attention to impor- tant publications in their fields. Materials generally selected by librarians in this class include bibliographies, reference books, titles listed in the popular reviewing media, titles listed in professional and sub- ject journals, and new periodical titles. Periodical subscriptions in some instances, however, need the formal or informal _ap- proval of either a committee of librarians, or a committee of faculty members. 3. Libraries in which materials are selected by the library with the aid and advice of the faculty. These libraries, numbering six, repre- sent in the writer's opinion the avant- garde of librarianship in the matter of library responsibility in book selection. They come closest to the Metcalf-Osborn ideal of selection by library subject specialists.I3 At Columbia, for instance, according to the annual report of the di- rector of libraries, supervising librarians 13 Metcalf, op. cit., p. 29 3-3 03 ; Andrew D. O sborn, "The D evel opment of Library R esources at Harvard: Problem s and P otentialities," Harv ar d Library Bulle- ti n, IX (1955), 197 -2 13. 446 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES and department heads do the day-to-day selecting of publications for the collec- tions under their immediate control. Al- though faculty members make recom- mendations as to items to be purchased, the library relies upon its staff members to watch listings and reviews of new pub- lications and to check bibliographies for the purpose of finding significant publica- tions which should be acquired.14 A major midwestern library, evidently recognizing the library's present and fu- ture obligation to itself and the university. in addition to the traditional order de- partment, has a book selection depart- ment: "The work of book selection here is performed by our Book Selection Depart- ment, by some of our divisional librarians, and by some of the library committees of the colleges · and of the departments of the Literary College. In the fields of the hu- manities and social sciences, the book se- lection department of the library does the basic work of selecting both current and retrospective publications, referring national bibliographies, catalogs, etc., t& the various divisional libraries and depart~ ments after the Book Selection Depart- ment had done the basic job. "In the natural and applied sciences, our book selection department does not undertake the selection work at all but defers to the divisional library when the divisional librarian has been authorized to do the selection work for the college or department. In the few cases where the college or department wishes to retain the authority to select the books in its fields, the Library Committee of that' college or department does the basic selection work. Responsibility, however, for the develop- ment of the collections in all fields re- mains with the director of the University Library and at any time, if we feel that a library committee is not doing an ade- quate job, we are free to buy additional materials for that collection out of the library's general book funds." Another library in the same category reports: "A close cooperation with the graduate faculty has permitted a recipro- 14 Columbia University Libraries. Report of the Director of Libraries, 1949/50-1952/53 . NOVEMBER 1957 cal arrangement whereby graduate study plans are tailored to fit the library's strongest fields, and in turn the library has attempted to build its strongest areas within fields of interest of the graduate faculty." This last quotation may be taken to il- lustrate two points: First, a "class three" library, being more independent, may actually be in a more advantageous posi- tion to meet the faculty than either a "class one" or a "class two" library. Sec- ond, greater independence for a library, or to phrase it differently, less library de- pendence on the faculty does not preclude library-faculty cooperation. In the matter of library-faculty cooperation, it should be realized, of course, that the personality and competence of the librarian will al- ways remain a rna jor factor. AcQUISITION PoLicY-YEs oR No? This heading may very well be re- garded as inappropriate and unrealistic. All libraries as a matter of fact have some kind of an acquisition policy. By the very process of being selective in the materials that they add to their collec- tions, libraries are following a policy. The policy may be illogical, inconsistent, and self-contradictory at times, yet it is a policy. The question may be asked: Since all libraries have a policy, why do not more of them endeavor to have a good policy? All libraries aspire to have a good collection. Would not a good collection be more likely to result from a good policy than from a bad policy? The arguments against an acquisition policy, it has been seen, are manifold and not without surface validity. Li- brarians by and large do not seem to be opposed to a written acquisition policy as such. They recognize the desirability but question the feasibility of producing a workable policy. Written acquisition policies, they feel, are out of date before they are drafted. It is the writer's view that if an acquisition policy is properly written, the emphasis will be on flexi- bility. The policy, therefore, should not 447 be dated before it is drafted. In its es- sence the policy should come close to being a permanent document, or at least a document which should not be difficult to keep up to date. Academic institu- tions generally do not reverse themselves very often in their aims and objectives. An occasional change in the curriculum should no more necessitate the rewriting of the policy than the insertion of a new sheet into Moody's requires the disposal of the whole volume. The claim that acquisition policies are difficult to formulate when it is not clear what the university's curricular and re- search intentions are may be true but does not reflect the entire picture. "Cur- ricular and research intentions" denote the future. Since changes are ordinarily gradual and slow, it would appear that contemplated curricular changes form but a minute fraction of a university's program and would, therefore, be un- likely to stand in the way of an acquisi- tion policy. Tradition can hardly be regarded as a valid argument against an acquisition policy. Although the future is built on the past, the past cannot be permitted to regulate the future. "Delegation of book selection respon- sibility to the faculty renders the draft- ing of an acquisition policy impossible." It would appear that "difficult" is a more appropriate word than "impossible" and that a librarian with skill, tact and a de- gree of ingenuity should be able to ob- tain the faculty's support. The writer would also like to point out that a li- brarian, as has been shown, does not need to be "stuck" with a system that delegates book selection responsibility in toto to the faculty. While it would certainly be desirable for the faculty to cooperate in the draft- ing of an acquisition policy, the library staff, the writer believes, can do the job alone if necessary. The faculty may per- haps be reluctant to take the lead in the wnung of a policy, but if the library assumes prime responsibility for the doc- ument their reluctance may change to cooperation. "Satisfaction with the status quo" does not necessarily imply dissatisfaction with a change in the status quo. As an argu- ment against a written acquisition pol- icy, it has validity only if it is based upon an appraisal of the library collection. If it is not, then "satisfaction" may merely be blindness to reality. Should a library go to the pains of making an evaluation of its collection, it might as well go one step further and formulate a policy as in- surance against possible future deterio- ration of the collection. The claim that it is impossible to pro- duce an acquisition policy can be easily disproved by existing acquisition pol- icies. It should be noted that some of these policies have been written by li- braries in the one million volume class. The greatest difficulty in the formula- tion of an acquisition policy seems to be the drafting of a policy that is useful and workable. It must be recognized that the difficulty is great, yet libraries do exist that have been able to surmount it. The writer hopes that this paper will con- tribute, at least to a small degree, toward rendering the task somewhat less unman- ageable. CoMPONENTs It must be · clear that there is no one acquisition policy applicable in its en- tirety to two libraries. It must be equally clear that there is no acquisition policy that can give a clear-cut answer to all questions of acquisition. Acquisition pol- icies will facilitate the making of judg- ments and decisions; the judgments and decisions, however, will still have to be made by the librarian. Most written acquisition policies con- tain some of the elements listed previ- ously. None contains all of them. To be effective and meaningful an acquisition policy should be based on an evaluation 448 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES of the library collection, and an identi- fication of the library's clientele. Unless a library makes an evaluation of its collection (the University of Chicago made one in 193015) it will never know for certain what its strong and weak points are. Without that knowledge ac- quisition becomes a haphazard process, at least as far as· filling gaps and build- ing to strength are concerned. Without that knowledge ac;quisition also becomes ~asteful, for a library may be unneces- sarily strengthening its weak points in- stead of improving its strong points. The statement that a library must serve its constituents has been turned into a truism if not a platitude. The statement, if it is not to be pious, should be carefully analyzed by the librarian. Who exactly are the users of the library? Which are the important fields of re- search on the campus? In which subjects is work at the Ph.D. level offered, and at the M.A., and M.S. levels? Do the li- brary's strong fields coincide with those in which the doctorate is given? Does the library have an obligation to people other than the faculty and students? Can the library afford to cater to the cultural needs of its users? Can the library af- ford to build for the needs of the scholar of the future, and to what extent? The next logical question for the li- brarian to ask and answer seems to be: What specific classes of materials should the library endeavor to acquire in order to support the needs of its clientele? Should the library collect manuscripts and archives? If so, what are the limita- tions? The works of which composers should the library attempt to acquire? What will be its policy toward phono- graph records? How wide a map cover- age should the library have? How wide a newspaper coverage? Should the li- brary make available newspapers from all the cities in the state? The major 15 M. Llewellyn Raney, University Libraries (Uni- versity of Chicago Survey, v. 7) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933). NOVEMBER 1957 cities in the United States? Which for- eign newspapers? Which newspapers should be preserved, and for how long? What should be the policy toward rare books, documents, microfilms, micro- cards, and periodical sets? Knowledge of the collection and knowledge of the clientele are, there- fore, the sine qua non elements of the good acquisition policy. The two must be necessarily interdependent and com- patible with each other. A collection that proves weak in the clientele's fields of interest and research must inevitably be strengthened. While a library may be weak in fields in which it should be strong, it may also be strong in fields in which its strengths do not meet any of the clientele's needs. This leads to a third point that it would be desirable to incorporate into the acquisition pol- icy. Which are the library's untapped strong collections? What shall be the library's policy toward them? Shall they be strengthened or preserved unchanged? Other features of varying importance that have a rightful place in an acquisi- tion policy are statements on the li- brary's interpretation of its collecting ob- ligations toward materials of ephemeral interest such as current affairs pam- phlets, and its collecting obligations with regard to materials pertaining to the region and state. In the formulation of a policy a library will, of course, be in- fluenced by the existence of library re- sources in the immediate vicinity. If pos- sible, these resources should be clearly identified. Once a policy has been draft- ed, if it is to serve its purpose, it must be implemented. Whose primary respon- sibility is the implementation of the ac- quisition policy? IMPLEMENTATION It seems obvious that if an acquisition policy is to serve its purpose it must be implemented. It seems equally obvious that before an acquisition policy can be 449 implemented it must be understood and supported by both the libFary and the faculty. The primary responsibility, how- ever, must be on one or the other. It is the writer's conviction that the librarian ought to assume responsibility for the development of the library col- lection. If a librarian fails to act the part of a librarian, what is he? He is a custo- dian of books, a glorified research assist- ant, a business .manager at the most. It is difficult to understand how librarians on the one hand aspire to be accepted as the professional equ.als of lawyers, doctors, professors, etc., while on the other hand they hold themselves in bondage by not accepting the responsi- bility that is truly theirs. Librarians ought to consult with the faculty; librar- ians ought to take advantage of the spe- cialized advice that is available to them, but librarians ought not to depend on the faculty to do three jobs, teach, do re- search, and develop the library collec- tion. It is unfair to the faculty, and it is unfair to the library. Both stand to suf- fer. Several librarians in the study com- mented upon the fact that the faculty could not be depended upon to do a systematic and consistent job of book selection. Orr and Carlson in their Sur- vey of the Library of Texas A . and M. College report that "A number of fac- ulty members interviewed by the sur- veyors were frank to admit that they had not been as active as they should have been in developing the library and that they had not always, even at existing budgetary levels, used all the money available to them."16 If the premise that librarians should be actively responsible for the · develop- ment of the book collection is accepted, then it would follow that they should also control the book budget. Appor- tionment-notwithstanding the general 16 Robert W. Orr and William H. Carlson, A Sur- vey of the Library of Texas A. and M. College, Octo- ber, 1949 to February , 1950. (College Station: Texas A. and M. College, I950.) library fund or the special research fund generally under the direct supervision of the librarian-means probable faculty control of selection policy. Non-appor- tionment means library control of selec- tion policy. The position of the librarian who advocates both library respo.nsi- bility for the development of the book collection and apportionment does not seem tenable. The librarian who favors faculty responsibility . for the develop- ment of the book collection with the aid and advice of the librarian must by implication favor apportionment. The librarian who favors library responsibil- ity for the development of the book collection with the aid and advice of the faculty must by implication favor non-apportionment. If so few academic libraries have a written acquisition policy, perhaps part of the explanation lies in the character- istics of the apportionment plan. The very fact that so many different depart- ments with different interests are in- volved in the apportionment plan un- doubtedly makes it more difficult, if not more cumbersOine, for the librarian to arrive at an intelligent and useful policy, satisfactory to both the faculty and the library. It may be argued that in many instances the librarian exerts direct con- trol over as much as 50 per cent of the total book funds, and that, therefore, he is placed in a good position to for- mulate a long-range acquisition policy. There appears to be little doubt that a case can be made for this argument. It also can be said, however, that since the librarian already controls the money with which he buys periodicals, back volume sets, reference tools, and bibli- ographies, all of which are vi tal to the library, there is no good reason why he should not also control the second 50 per cent, especially since much of this goes into the purchase of current titles which could just as well be paid out of the general library fund as out of the 450 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES evidently superfluous departmental ap- portionments. Why should the librarian have to work with one hand tied behind his back when the use of both hands would give him the greater flexibility which Vosper regards as a primary req- uisite of any book budget system?17 CoNCLUSION In every age remnants of the past and forerunners of the future blend with the present. The acquisition policy in the American academic library of today confirms this dictum. During the last part of the nineteenth century when the birth of 1nodern scholarship caused libraries to emerge from their static condition and develop in all directions, the collections under _ faculty impetus grew without the benefit of either the continuity or the control that the li- brarian could have insured. Today like- wise, as has been noted, there are still academic libraries growing under faculty impetus without the benefit of either continuity or control. In the majority of academic libraries, fortunately, the librarian through cultivation of faculty relations, a small degree of library initi- ative, and an increasing awareness of the need for planning, does exert a bene- ficial influence on the growth and the development of the collections. A small minority of libraries has gone one step farther. Without minimizing the impor- tance of the contribution that the fac- ulty can make in building up the li- brary, they have come to the realization that library collections are more the 17 Robert Vosper, "Allocation of the Book Budget: Experience at U.C.L.A." CRL, X (1949), 215-18. NOVEMBER 1957 librarian's responsibility than that of the faculty. They have also come to understand that acquisition policies can be more easily defined under library leadership than under faculty guidance. Very little has been said in this paper on the subject of cooperation. Yet the logical outgrowth of an acquisition pol- icy is library cooperation. Until libraries know in which fields they are strong and in which fields they are weak, it will be difficult for them to form regional agreements that will supplement rather than duplicate regional library re- sources. An acquisition policy for the same reason might also come to form one of the bases for ins ti tu tional cur- ricular agreements. Carried to the ulti- mate, the acquisition policy might even develop to be the eventual foundation for library resource planning on a national level. Cooperation needs to take two forms. One is the common agreement to share certain highly expensive facilities and personnel. It may even be desirable to transfer stu- dents from one institution to another, from one state to another, for highly spe- cialized study. The other is to agree that when one or two institutions are especial- ly strong in certain highly specialized fields of study, another institution will strive for strength in some other field. Institutional self-restraint and confidence in the validity and significance of its own program, can prevent an overexpansion of costly graduate and professional facilities. Competition among institutions should promote diversity, not a sterile uniform- ity.18 18 Commission on Financing Higher Education. Na- ture and Needs of Higher Education. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.) '451