College and Research Libraries


The Accuracy of Federal Academic 
Library Statistics 

AMERICAN ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS Were 
overjoyed to receive the annual ( 1962-
63) compilation of academic statistics so 
early (February) and yet including so 
high a percentage (70 per cent) of the 
institutions surveyed. 1 A closer exam-
ination of the figures revealed, however, 
certain imperfections and misleading in-
clusions and omissions that deserve some 
attention and analysis. This is not a crit-
icism of the Library Services Division, 
but rather of a great many of the re-
spondents. 

The figures given for "volumes" and 
for "volumes added," especially in rela-
tion to expenditures indicated for "books 
and other library materials," should 
cause particular concern. There are, to 
say the least, many rather odd figures 
here. For example, one library, without 
any footnote explanation, suddenly in-
creased from less than twenty-five thou-
sand volumes added during 1961-62 to 
more than three times that number, while 
the amount shown for "books and other 
library materials" only increased approx-
imately 50 per cent. Upon inquiry, the 
librarian of this institution stated that 
"from storage in one attic we removed. 
forty thousand items, some of which have 
been cataloged, but in the main we are 
as yet unsure of the number which will 
be added. The addition of a large number 
of volumes also included about one-fourth 
public documents, state and federal, and 
almost fifty thousand volumes in micro-
text." The preceding year neither of these 
items had been counted, but somehow, in 
this and other academic libraries, 1962-

1 Increased to 90 per cent in June, with the ALA-
LAD published supplement. All figures herein are 
based on the original document. 

BY ELI M. OBOLER 

Mr. Oboler is University Librarian, Idaho 
State University, Pocatello. 

63 became a great year for including mi-
crotexts in "volumes added during the 
year" and "number of volumes at end of 
the year." 

As a matter of fact, although this par-
ticular institution did not bother to state 
publicly that microtexts were included for 
the first time, five institutions did so state. 
Interestingly enough, at the same time 
thirteen academic institutions included a 
footnote stating that their figure for 1962-
63 ({excludes microprints, microcards, 
microfilms, and other forms of micro-
text." Just what valid comparisons may be 
drawn from such utterly different figures 
is puzzling. 

The farther one goes into this labyrinth 
or wonderland of academic statistics, the 
"curiouser and curiouser" they get. Under 
"number of volumes at end of year," only 
three institutions indicated "estimated" 
in a footnote. Yet eighty-nine others had 
figures for this item ending in round num-
bers. It would take considerable statisti-
cal coincidence for so many libraries to 
come to the end of one particular year 
with exactly "50,000" or "10,000" or 
similarly obviously rounded-off figures. 
Yet they did not admit that their count 
was estimated; therefore, such figures go 
in to be compared with the data given 
by those who have kept very strict count. 
Upon examination of these eighty-nine 
institutional reports, one finds that in 
1961-62 forty-eight gave rounded-off fig-
ures. 

The above phenomena merely give 

494 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 



grounds for speculation, but one could 
draw rather definite conclusions from in-
stitutions which, when asked specifically, 
as the questionnaire did, for "number of 
volumes added during fiscal year (report 
actual number of volumes acquired, DO 
NOT subtract volumes withdrawn)" went 
ahead and gave "net" figures. How would 
it have been possible for such institutions 
to have determined net figures without 
first having the gross figures? Since they 
had the gross figures, why did they not 
give them as requested in the question-
naire? 

Further examination is also revealing. 
Included in the footnotes were various 
explanations referring to the specific data 
on "number of volumes at end of year" 
and "number of volumes added during 
year." One footnote stated, "excludes mi- -
croprints . . . " as cited above. Some 
stated, "an estimated figure"; some stat-
ed, "excludes bound periodicals," al-
though the definition of volumes given on 
page one of the questionnaire stated 
clearly that "a volume is any printed, 
typewritten, mimeographed, or processed 
work, bound or unbound, that has been 
cataloged or fully prepared for use. In-
cludes microcards, microfilms, micro-
prints, and other forms of micro text." 
Some stated, "excludes government docu-
ments." Some stated, "change in fiscal 
year on a calendar basis; the number of 
volumes added is for eighteen-month pe-
riod." Some stated, "includes only fully 
cataloged and processed books and peri-
odicals," which sounds like another way 
of saying "excludes microtext," but could 
mean any one of a number of things. One 
said, "includes data for high school li-
brary." Is this a useful statistic for com-
parative purposes within academic cir-
cles? One said, "excludes microfilms and . 
recordings; includes 150,000 microcards." 
This same institution indicated a little 
over 150,000 volumes in 1961-62 and 
over 400,000 for 1962-63. One footnote, 
which is used by several institutions, 
stated, "excludes government documents." 

NOVEMBER 1964 

The instructions on page one of the ques-
tionnaire are not clear. The key phrase 
here is "fully prepared for use." Is a 
government document that has been as-
signed any kind of a classification num-
ber arranged any particular way so that 
it can readily be found and circulated 
"fully prepared for use?" Different li-
braries, obviously, differ on this. One 
library states in a footnote that its listing 
of "number of volumes at end of year" 
includes "government serials." 

This all seems to indicate the necessity 
for clarification by definition of what is 
wanted by the United States Office of Ed-
ucation and by the library profession; a 
better understanding of what is being 
asked for is needed by those who fill in 
the questionnaires. Furthermore, the Of-
fice of Education should probably print 
only those statistics that make sense. 

For example, does it make sense to 
print a particular figure for one year 
in a category such as "number of vol-
umes at end of year," and a figure next 
to it of "number of volumes added dur-
ing year" that could not be compatible? 
Here are a few examples of such incom-
patibility. 

One institution, in 1961-62, had fewer 
than fifty thousand volumes. It indicates 
five thousand volumes added during year, 
and then shows one hundred thousand 
volumes at the end of 1962-63! Another 
showed sixty thousand volumes at the 
end of 1961-62, an addition of nine thou-
sand volumes during this past year, and 
then claims over one hundred thirty 
thousand for "number of volumes at end 
of year" 1962-63. Still another shows 
less than ninety thousand last year, addi-
tions of less than seven thousand, and 
total volumes now of almost one hundred 
thirty thousand. This is remarkable arith-
metic! 

Another school's holdings went from a 
little over seventy thousand last year to 
over one hundred thousand this year, 
with "number of volumes added during 
year" being indicated as under five thou-

495 



sand. How can one add under five thou-
sand to just over seventy thousand and 
come up with a total of over one hundred 
thousand? Such figures as these should 
not be included in a compilation of com-
parative data. At least, such figures should 
have been indicated as "estimated." One 
of the most interesting examples of arith-
metic found was of a school that had un-
der twenty-five thousand books in 1961-
62, claimed gains of well under a thou-
sand, and then showed the number of 
volumes at end of year at over thirty-five 
thousand! 

Correspondence with college librari-
ans leads to the conclusion that the pres-
sure to "keep up with the Joneses" has 
become, in many instances, so consider-
able that academic librarians have simply 
put down figures that look nice rather 
than accurate figures. 2 

It is to be hoped that the studies now 
in process under the auspices of the 
Council on Library Resources, aimed to 
standardize library statistics, will be suc-
cessful. At least, academic librarians 
should be aware of what they are doing, 
and the Office of Education should be 
aware of what it is doing. Putting to-
gether indiscriminate statistics into what 
look like highly organized charts and ta-
bles will still produce results and figures 
which are misleading and inaccurate. 
What good is the so-called analytic re-
port, if the statistics it analyzes are dis-
parate and dissimilar? 

2 The state university library supervised by this 
writer has well over three hundred thousand govern-
ment documents. These are not included in the totals 
reported to the federal government, because such 
publications, although they are kept in bureau order 
and within each bureau by type of publication and 
then numerically, are not considered by us as being 
"fully ready for use" in terms of the government 
definition . Those few documents in the writer's 
library which will get better use if they are fully 
cataloged and specified and placed among the books 
in the regular collection are included in the totals, 
but no others; nor, in this library, have microtexts 
in any form been included in final reported totals, 
mainly because of the confusion as to how they are 
to be counted. 

William H. Carlson, director of librar-
ies of the Oregon State University, re-
cently said that "figures appearing in 
such statements [referring to statements 
as the ones issued by the Office of Edu-
cation and the Association of Research 
Libraries] are very rough and sometimes, 
in a comparative sense, even misleading 
evidence of comparative strength. Some-
times, too, the figures used become sus-
pect. Over decades and centuries the 
process of adding annual accretions to 
the accumulated base, and withdrawing 
the worn out, the lost, and the obsoles-
cent may get badly out of gear .... Com-
mon-sense observation also indicates that 
sometimes, either knowingly or unknow-
ingly, figures used have become padded."3 

Federal academic library statistics as 
now presented are undoubtedly accurate 
reports of replies to questionnaires, but 
a great many of the individual items pre-
se·nted are inconsistent or obviously falla-
cious. No matter how precise and clear 
the questions asked may be, academic li-
brarians must still rely on the accuracy 
of replies. And no one can examine the 
1962-63 figures, especially in relation to 
previous data, without strong misgivings 
as to their usefulness for comparative 
purposes because of the many distortions 
and inaccuracies they contain. 

Action on a nationwide scale toward 
achieving the obviously impossible-
complete and accurate figures on the 
holdings of all academic libraries-is 
imperative. Each college or university 
head librarian perhaps has the profes-
sional obligation to make a physical in-
ventory of his library's holdings at least 
once each five years; he certainly should 
provide accurate statistics yearly to the 
Office of Education. 

•• 
a "The Field Headquarters of the Mind : Measures 

of Library Excellence," Improving College and Uni-
versity T eaching, XII (Spring 1964), 68-69. 

496 C 0 L L E G E A N D R E S E AR C H L I B R A R IE S