College and Research Libraries DAVID C. GENAWAY and EDWARD B. STANFORD Quasi-Departmental Libraries All 167 heads of academic units at the University of Minnesota T unn Cities campus were surveyed regarding department-sponsored libraries that are independent of the university library system, i.e., quasi- departmental libraries. A tripartite questionnaire was used to test two hypotheses and to gather operational data on these libraries. Some of these findings are presented, along with a description of the typical quasi-departmental library and some recommendations. uNOFFICIAL "QUASI-DEPARTMENTAL LI- BRARIES" sponsored by academic depart- ments are a common phenomenon at most universities, yet they are seldom discussed in the literature of academic librarianship. Although there is ade- quate coverage of the broader issues of departmental libraries and centraliza- tion and decentralization, only a few studies were found that relate directly to quasi-departmental libraries. 1 Univer- sity library administration principles note that decentralized departmental li- braries are usually less efficient and more costly. 2 Few investigations into their origins have been conducted. How and why do quasi-departmental libraries originate? What functions do they serve? What, if any, relationship is there between quasi-departmental li- braries and the university library sys- tem? Answers to these questions would aid library administrators in assessing these libraries and the problems they present in long-term university library planning. THE PRESENT STUDY For purposes of this investigation the David C. Gena way is associate dean of libraries, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond. Edward B. Stanford is profes- sor in the University of Minnesota Library School. term "quasi-departmental library" is de- fined as "a collection or library initiated by and for faculty and students of a given department or combination of de- partments and not supported with uni- versity library funds or operated by university library staff," hereafter col- lectively referred to as "QD libraries." The term "academic unit" is used to dis- tinguish teaching and research units from administrative units, such as the personnel department, the bursar's of- fice, and plant services. It was hypothesized that the emer- gence and/ or maintenance of quasi-de- partmental libraries are related to the awareness, use of, and attitudes toward the services provided by the university · library system. A second hypothesis stat- ed that quasi-departmental libraries emerge out of a need, real or believed, for services not provided in the univer- sity library system. In order to test the above hypotheses and to discover commonalities in origin, function, and the relationship of quasi- departmental libraries to the university library system at one institution, a tri- partite questionnaire was sent to the 167 heads of academic-research and teach- ing-units at the University of Minne- sota Twin Cities campus. The Universi- ty of Minnesota was chosen as a case study because it exemplifies conditions common to most large universities: wide I 187 188 I College & Research Libraries • May 1977 geographical distribution of diversified colleges and numerous interdisciplinary studies. The first part of the questionnaire was designed to determine the respon- dent's awareness of services currently offered by the university library system and was related to the first hypothesis regarding awareness of, use of, and at- titudes toward university library ser- vices. Are department heads aware of the "gifts and exchange" section of the university library and its operation? How frequently do department chair- persons use the various services of the li- brary and with what success ratio? How do they characterize the official library they use most frequently in terms of space, collection adequacy, environment, proximity, and courtesy of the staff? The second part of the questionnaire elicited opinions regarding services not currently available in the university li- brary system that might affect the rise of such independent libraries. This sec- tion tested the second hypothesis that such libraries emerge out of a need, real or believed, for services not provided in the university library system, necessi- tating supplemental holdings in depart- mental quarters under departmental control. What are the respondent's atti- tudes toward a possible document de- livery system, photoduplication service, and an on-line computer terminal for bibliographic and location inquiry? In the last part of the survey instru- ment, specific etiological and operational data regarding quasi-departmental li- braries were obtained, such as age, hold- ings, and expenditures. The respondents were divided into two groups: the WITHQD group (those toith quasi-departmental libraries) and the NONQD group (those without quasi-departmental libraries). The dif- ferences in response patterns were com- pared. There were 108 usable returns: sixty-seven in the WITHQD group and forty-one in the NONQD group. (From 167 departments originally solicited for information, a 7 4 percent response was received with eighteen responses un- usable.) All tabulations were made on the university's Cyber 7 4 computer using the "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" and its programs: code book, condescriptive, and crosstabs. 3 In the interest of brevity only a por- tion of the complete findings of the study are presented here, and the con- straints and qualifications of the com- plete study have been omitted. The findings of this research might not be completely applicable to other institu- tions, although the University of Min- nesota does seem to typify library conditions commonly found in most large universities. The findings are presented in three parts, corresponding to the three sec- tions of the study instrument. Two sec- tions discuss the findings in relation to the first two hypotheses. The third sec- tion will include a profile of a typical QD library as derived from the responses regarding the operational data of QD li- braries. HYPOTHESIS I. AwARENESS OF, UsE OF, AND ATIITUDES TOWARD UNIVERSITY LmRARY SERVICES Awareness of Library Services The response patterns of heads of academic units did not support the hypothesis that QD libraries emerge be- cause of unawareness of services provid- ed by the university library system. The awareness of the "gifts and exchange" section could contribute, as a causal fac- tor, to the origin of QD libraries. If departmental faculty were unaware of this channel, they might donate their books directly to their departments where they would be initially housed. The WITHQD group of respondents, however, was actually more aware of the library's gifts and exchange service ( 84 percent indicated knowledge of the service compared to 64 percent of the NONQD group). Use of Library Services There was some support for the hy- pothesis that a relationship exists be- tween use of university library services and the emergence and/ or maintenance of QD libraries. Of the four time pe- riods offered as choices, the modal re- sponse of the WITHQD group regard- ing frequency of use of the university libraries was only "once a month,'' while the modal response of the NONQD group was "once a week." The WITHQD group used the official library and its services less frequently than the NONQD group and also participated less frequently in the book selection process. It is difficult to judge which is the cause and which is the effect, i.e., does existence of a QD library in a de- partment foster less use of library ser- vices or are department heads likely to maintain a QD library because they are dissatisfied with their experiences at the official library? The latter explanation was supported by the response to a question regarding library search attempts and actual docu- ment retrievals. Only 67 percent of the WITHQD group found documents sought after in the official library more than 50 percent of the time, while 83 percent of the NONQD group had the same (50 percent) success ratio. Attitudes toward Present Library Services The strongest support for the first hypothesis is in the area of attitudes toward university library services. A greater percent of the WITHQD group indicated a less favorable attitude to- ward the official library they use most frequently in terms of space, environ- ment, and proximity, but not with re- spect to collection adequacy or staff courtesy. Thirty-four percent of the Quasi-Departmental Libraries I 189 WITHQD group considered the official library they used most frequently small and crowded, while only 27 percent of the NONQD group indicated the same response. Thirteen percent of the WITHQD group viewed the official li- brary quarters as unattractive, compared to 5 percent for the NONQD group. Twenty-two, or 33 percent, of the WITHQD group indicated that the of- ficial library they use most frequently was "too far" from their office. Of these twenty-two, nearly half indicated (in response to another question) that their QD library was "in the same or adjacent building" or "less than a block away" from the official library they use most frequently! Only 24 percent of the NONQD group felt that it was too far. The official library collection was rated adequate by both responding groups. More than 90 percent of each group rated the library staff courteous and helpful. In evaluating the above responses it should be noted that attitudes of the present department head may or may not reflect the prevailing attitudes at the earlier point in time when the QD library was begun, possibly many years before his or her arrival on campus. However, such libraries are usually cur- rently maintained at least with the ac- ceptance and support of the department head. HYPOTHESIS II. NEED FOR LIBRARY SERVICES NOT PROVIDED Attitudes toward Potential Library Services A majority of both groups responded favorably to possible new or additional services in part two of the question- naire. This suggests that the expansion of university library services in these areas might help obviate the need for future QD libraries. Seventy-nine per- cent of the WITHQD group and 66 per- cent of the NONQD group thought that 190 I College & Research Libraries • May 1977 a document delivery system would be "helpful," and 15 percent and 17 percent of each group respectively rated such a service as "essential."4 Eighty-eight percent of both groups indicated that an on-line terminal for interface with the official library system would be either "helpful" or "essential." Thirty-one percent of the WITHQD group, compared to 20 percent of the NONQD group, rated it as "essential." Both a document delivery system and on-line computer search terminals could help transcend the distance factor by bringing library services closer to facul- ty offices. Attitudes toward these (for the most part, presently nonexistent) services might be related to the estab- lishment of QD libraries. The strong indication by one or both groups that such services were consid- ered "helpful" or "essential," if they could be provided, would suggest that the availability of such service might help obviate the need for future li- braries. The fact that a slightly greater percent of the WITHQD group felt that such services would be helpful sup- ports the "need for services not pres- ently available" hypothesis. QD LIBRARY DATA The · following section summarizes the factual data on- the origins, functions, characteristics, and relationship of these libraries to the University of Minne- sota library system. Origins There was a wide range in the dates of origin of the QD libraries, extending from 1935 to 197 4, when the present survey was undertaken. In 1964 the university had issued .a policy statement requiring central approval for the establishment of departmental libraries, 5 but it is difficult to determine if this policy had any ef- fect on the formation of new libraries: fifty-four percent of the libraries were est~blished prior to 1964, and 42 per- cent were founded since that date. (Four percent of the libraries studied gave no response to this question.) The most important factors in origin, in order of frequency stated, includ- ed the following: gifts, consciously "planned," grant funds, and memorial endowments. If "planned," the most frequently cited reasons were the need for unique materials, more hours of ac- cessibility (presumably by faculty keys since the university library system hours were actually longer than those of the QD libraries), distance from the near- est official library, increased availabillty of space, and delay in processing time in the university library system. Inci- dentally, 50 percent of the QD libraries · were believed by heads of departments in which they are located to contain 25 percent or more unique material (not elsewhere available in the university li- brary system). Although librarians might speculate that so called uunique materials" may actually exist in one of the official libraries, this study confirmed there are several types of "publications" the official library does not contain and might not want to (such as mimeo- graphed reports, departmental staff or working papers, periodical article re- prints, and student and faculty research ) . Functions The primary function of Q D li- braries mqst frequently indicated was the retrieval of information or research and reference. "Reference" should not be confused with the broader function of collection interpretation provided by most academic libraries and found to be virtually nonexistent in quasi-depart- mental libraries. With varying degrees of thoroughness, Q D libraries also pro- vide the normal functions of acquisi- tions, processing, and circulation. One very important function pro- vided by quasi-departmental libraries should not be overlooked. Both by defi- nition and by practice, they do supple- ment the university library collections by providing not only additional copies of publications in heavy demand but also in many cases unique material not acquired by the library system. They provide such materials without'universi- ty library funds and without university library staff. In most cases, the funds used for these libraries would not in any event be readily available or trans- ferable to the university library budget. The acquisition function of QD li- braries was performed mostly through faculty members who selected materials for inclusion from such sources as other faculty, publishers, and government agencies. Materials were arranged for use mostly by various locally devised broad topic or classification schemes with few author, title, or subject cata- logs or indexes. Few QD libraries have a complete, systematic processing system as is found in the university's official li- braries. Processing time was believed to be slightly shorter in QD libraries than the department heads judged it to be in the main library system. These libraries were, however, comparatively weak in the organization and staffing functions. Their circulation policies followed no uni- form pattern and were relatively infor- mal. One-third had a noncirculating policy for all their materials. In the others, items usually circulated for an indefinite period of time or a very short period, with few "in between" times. The r~ference function found in most academic libraries is by and large nonexistent in quasi-departmental li- braries, because very few of them have professional or even paraprofessional staff, and few have even one person who devotes full time to the library. Most are staffed, if at all, with part-time sec- retarial help. The hours of accessibility are generally much less than those of the official library system, but this is fre- quently compensated for by keys issued to faculty or students for after-hours use. The most frequently cited advan- Quasi-Departmental Libraries I 191 tages were convenience of location and unique materials. With minor exceptions as noted above, their functions are not signifi- cantly different in kind from those of the university library system. Although the quality of processing and indexing is generally less detailed or complete than that of the university library sys- tem, it was believed to be slightly fast- er. The willingness to sacrifice quality for speed might support the secm:Kl hy- pothesis, namely, faster service in getting new publications to the shelves. Characteristics Approximately 50 percent of the li- braries studied have an annual budget under $500. Only 12 percent had operat- ing expenditures of $5,000 or more. Forty-three percent contain 1,000 vol- umes or more, but nearly 30 percent have collections of 500 or fewer items. The collections consist of books, peri- odicals, and government documents in that order. In 51 percent of the cases, a quarter or more of the collection is al- leged to consist of unique materials. Most QD libraries were housed in de- partmental offices. Further characteris- tics of Q D libraries could best be summarized in a modal or typical quasi- departmental library as follows. Profile of a Typical Quasi-Departmental Ubrary As derived from the responses to the questionnaires, the following is a typi- cal quasi-departmental library at the University of Minnesota. In most cases the mode (most frequent) response was used to determine the characteristic. It is at least sixteen years old and lo- cated in the same building with an offi- cial library or at least less than a block away from one. It was founded partly because of a gift of library materials from a faculty member and partly "planned" because the department need- ed special materials not provided by the 192 I College & Research Libraries • May 1977 library system. The primary function is informational, i.e., the retrieval of specific information and research and reference. It is not very influential as a departmental asset in the recruitment of faculty and students. It is likely to be increasing presently both in size and in use. It is growing because more funds are available or because it is becoming better organized. Its greatest period of growth was within the last five years. "In room use" is available to all uni- versity students and faculty, but admis- sion after hours is by key only for eligi- ble faculty and students. A combination or mixed circulation policy (some cir- culating and some noncirculating) is followed, with most items being checked out for an indefinite period of time. Occasional losses may occur as the result of an unsupervised or minimally super- vised check-out system. The largest portion of its budget is derived from departmental "supply and expense" monies, with some additional research grant or contract funds (fed- eral, state, or other public). It is fuo st likely to have a reported budget of less than $500 but may have considerably more through absorbed (unreported) overhead expenditures. Most of its ac- quisitions are related directly to the cur- riculum or to faculty research interests. The head of the department is the chief administrator and approves ex- penditures, but additions to the collec- tion generally are selected by faculty and/ or students. Staffed on a part-time basis by secre- tarial help devoting ten to twenty hours a week to the library, it may have occa- sional supplemental help from a librari- an (professionally trained with a mas- ter's degree in library science ) or paraprofessional (undergraduate de- gree with some courses in library sci- ence) paid by the department. The librarian may be a part-time student on hourly rate or a salaried staff member variously called ''research specialist" or "research associate." It is open forty-eight hours a week. Half of the collection consists of books, a third periodicals, and the rest distributed among government publica- tions, microforms, and audiovisual ma- terials. Most likely the library holdings include 1,000 or more volumes, with up to 25 percent of the collection being unique, i.e., not available in the official university library system. Classified by broad topic only and indexed by author and title but not subject, the collection was developed mostly through faculty gifts, publishers, friends, and the gov- ernment, in that order. Housed in the departmental office area, its chief advantages to the depart- ment are its location and its unique materials, but it offers few special ser- vices not provided by the university li- brary system. The availability of "free" photocopy service within the depart- ment may constitute a hidden advantage faculty enjoy by having their own QD library within their department. Relationship to the University Library System By virtue of their physical location on campus, all of these libraries are es- sentially a part of the university, even though they are not a part of the uni- versity library system. Given the unique materials that many of them seem to contain, these libraries do serve to sup- plement the holdings of the university library system. They do so with funds and personnel that are not generally available to the university· library sys- tem. The majority of them allow "in library use" by all persons in the univer- sity, and only a few are exclusive, al- though in practice they are used primarily by members of the depart- ment and their students. Items pur- chased · for the collection are generally related to specialized interests of the department. Forty-six percent of the de- partment heads indicated that they felt that these libraries actually encouraged greater use of the main library system. A majority of the respondents believed their QD library essential to the teach- ing and research function of the de- partment. Very few of the respondents admitted to doubts about justifying ex- penditures for these libraries. CoNCLUSIONs This study seems to indicate that more research should be conducted in other institutions regarding the causes for the development of QD libraries. They do constitute the fringe areas of demands for library services and often are the beginnings of what later become official departmental libraries. Many of the official libraries at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus had their origins in QD libraries. Given the above findings, one might ask what kinds of services university libraries ought to provide. Instead of surveying librarians to determine potentials for improved services, perhaps the needs of official library users should be explored through applied research. This investi- gation was one of few studies relating to university library administration that solicited large-scale cooperation from the heads of academic units or consum- ers of library information and services. The problems presented by QD li- braries could be approached in two ways. First, there could be application of "first aid" or short-range planning. These libraries do exist, some of them providing a notable service without di- rect cost to the university library. Nota- ble examples at the University of Min- nesota are the Journalism Library, Industrial Relations Center, Economics Research Library, and the Waite Me- morial Library (agricultural and ap- plied economics). Ignoring them official- ly does not make them go away; nor indeed should they. In what ways can existing QD libraries and the university library system be of mutual benefit? Quasi-Departmental Libraries I 193 MINITEX, the University of Minne- sota's Interlibrary Teletype Exchange service (a cooperative statewide system for making all state resources available to citizens throughout the state), 6 has compiled a list of campus-wide library periodical holdings and regularly uses these QD libraries' unique periodical files to supplement university library re- sources for providing single photocopies of requested articles to the academic and public library community through- out the state. 7 Some assistance in organization and technical services, the area in which these libraries are weakest and the uni- versity is strongest, might be provided. In return the university library might receive copies of the index tools thus generated. This would also allow for greater campus-wide standardization of bibliographic information in the even- tuality that the university library might someday become more closely involved in QD library operations. These QD libraries .might possibly be coordinated through a loose federation or consortium for better service. This could perhaps further eventual integra- tion into the official library system. Such cooperation could be expected to lead to more awareness by the heads of de- partments of the costs and problems of such libraries, and it could encourage a closer relationship between depart- mental faculties and the university li- brary administration. The cooperation of the department heads in this Minnesota study evidenced a high degree of interest in campus li- brary service. The WITHQD group not only favored a centralized library sys- tem more than the NONQD group, but it also expressed a clear preference for centrality of location (one or two main buildings with few satellite libraries), a central catalog, and a more flexible circulation policy. In other words, it appears that they would prefer to have a closely integrat- 194 I College & Research Libraries • May 1977 ed library system if it could more ade- quately meet their needs. With the data obtained in this survey and other future surveys, improvements can perhaps be made in some official library services, such as the space and environmental as- pects and the processing delay. A second, more long-range approach could examine more closely perceived needs for future libraries. If the need is only believed, maybe better library faculty communications would solve the problem. If the need is real, perhaps user modes of inquiry and information transfer should be studied to assist the library in adapting its services to meet patron needs more effectively. Surveys to determine users true modes of inquiry ought to be conducted to explore viable alternatives to impos- ing the library mode of inquiry on pa- trons. How do scholars and students actually search for information? Why, as most user studies report, is it that the library is frequently the last place searched? Is it because the material that is needed is too often not available un- til months after it is requested? Li- braries should have these materials when the patron needs them. Planning of library services should take account of the differing competen- cies of researchers-faculty, graduate student, or undergraduate-to accom- modate differences in approach by level as well as by discipline. Can the official library system make provisiOns for ephemeral but important current re- search materials such as pamphlets, re- search progress reports, and staff papers? Studies of user needs and search meth- odology, coupled with this study's find- ings regarding the origin, function, and relationship of QD libraries, might be useful in long -range planning for more responsive academic library service. REFERENCES I. The most helpful and relevant publications are those by Broberg, Dougherty, Legg, and Cooper listed below: Broberg and Dougher- ty for their systematic methods; Legg for her directory and more accurate approach to his- tory and funding; Cooper for her effort to identify these libraries and explore their bases. The first two studies are not compre- hensive enough in scope to bear directly on this present study, and the last two are con- cerned primarily with identification rather than commonalities in origin, function, etc. J. W. Broberg and R. E. Dunbar, "Current Status of Departmental Libraries in Chem- istry," Journal of Chemical Educ.ation 28: 435-36 (Aug. 1951). Richard M. Dougherty and Laura L. Bloom- quist, Improving Access to Library Re- sources: The Influence of Organization of Library Collections and of User Attitudes toward Innovative Services (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 197 4). Diana C. Legg, "Directory to Small Librar- ies at the University of Minnesota which are Affiliated with the College of Liberal Arts and Whose Holdings Are Not Included in the Wilson Library Union Catalog" (Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota, Library School, 1971 ) . Mary Ella Lewis Cooper, "Survey of Small Libraries Independent of the Mirabeau B. Lamar Library, University of Texas, 1965/ 66" ( M.L.S. report, University of Texas, Austin, 1967). 2. Guy R. Lyle, The Administration of the Col- lege Library, 4th ed. (New York: H. W. Wilson, 1974), p.45-47. 3. Norman Nie, Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull, SPSS: Statistical Package for the So- cial Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970). 4. For a discussion of a document delivery sys- tem see Richard M. Dougherty, "The Evalu- ation of a Campus Document Delivery Ser- vice," College & Research Libraries 34:29- 39 (Jan. 1973). 5. "University of Minnesota Libraries: A Pol- icy Statement for their Government and Ad- ministration," College & Research Libraries 25:504-6 (Nov. 1964). 6. Alice E. Wilcox and Nancy H. Marshall, "MINITEX and WILS: Responses to Access Needs," RQ 13:299-307 (Summer 1974). ( MINITEX is Minnesota Interlibrary Tele- type Exchange. WILS is Wisconsin Interli- brary Loan Service.) 7. Mary Oxborrow, ''ACK (the Alternate Card Katalog)," MINITEX Memo . (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 197 4 ) .