ACRL College & Research Libraries News

College & Research Libraries News

Academic Library Approval Plans: A Nationwide Inquiry

John H. Reidelbach Chairperson, Collection Development University Library University of Nebraska at Omaha

Gary M. Shirk Head of Acquisitions Wilson Library University of Minnesota

To date professional inquiry concerning approval plan vendors has centered almost exclusively on the concepts and mechanics of their operation. In 1980, Paul H. Mosher wrote that “we (librarians) talk about rating vendors and evaluating their services, but we seldom ever get around to doing so.”¹ Moshers comments are still valid today, as borne out by an extensive manual and computerized examination of both United States and British library literature since 1960. Literature searches also reveal that scholarly investigation of approval plan vendors tend to be either local or regional in nature and limited in the number of vendors studied.

To remedy these deficiencies in the literature of research regarding approval plans, the authors have embarked on a three-phase program of research. The first phase of research has culminated in a recently published article titled, “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor: A Step-by-Step Process.”² A second phase of research currently underway involves summarizing extensive data previously obtained from eight approval vendors regarding various aspects of their operations and services. A third phase of research commenced in late June. A fiftythree item questionnaire was mailed to approximately 640 academic libraries to request user librarian evaluation of domestic approval vendor services.

The authors had previously reported that eight approval plan vendors would be actively involved in nationwide distribution of the approval plan evaluation questionnaire.³ While extremely grateful for the cooperation expressed by the vendors, the authors were cognizant of the implications and disadvantages of vendor assistance with distribution of the questionnaire. Therefore, a grant was applied for from the University Committee on Research at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. In late May, a grant of $1,400 was awarded from the University Committee on Research partially to cover expenses associated with mailing and followup of the nationwide approval evaluation questionnaire. Additional costs involved in distribution and follow-up of the study are being supported by the University Library at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The questionnaire was initially mailed to acquisitions librarians at all college and university libraries in the United States with book budgets of $50,000 or more. Project director John Reidelbach and co-investigator Gary Shirk now seek responses from all college and university libraries currently dealing with one or more domestic approval plan vendors, regardless of book budget.

The research emanating from this survey will be of interest to library directors, acquisitions, collection development, and reference professionals. Formal and informal discussions at conferences indicate that these individuals continually seek hard data regarding the efficiency of their own and other approval plan dealers. The approval plan vendors themselves will benefit from the availability, for the first time, of a massive body of empirical data regarding librarian satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their own company as well as that of their competitors. Perhaps vendors will use this data to build on their individual strengths and to take whatever measures may be necessary to correct any weaknesses or shortcomings identified by the questionnaire results.

In September 1982, a forty-question test version of the nationwide questionnaire was sent to thirty-one libraries in the eight-state Mountain Plains Library Association (MPLA) region. This test was conducted with two objectives in mind:

a. To ascertain the degree of interest on the part of acquisitions and collection development librarians concerning this particular aspect of library research;

b. To identify and correct omissions or unclear statements before preparation of the final questionnaire.

Both objectives were successfully met. Besponse was exceptional: a 96.7% rate of return was achieved. Because of the overwhelming rate of return in the regional study, the investigators believe interest in the nationwide inquiry will be similarly high. At the tima of submitting this communication approximately 300 questionnaires had been returned.

If you have an active domestic approval plan, did not receive a questionnaire, and wish to participate in this nationwide research effort, please contact John Reidelbach, Chairperson, Collection Development, University Library, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, or phone (402) 554-2846. A copy of the questionnaire will be sent to you immediately. The questionnaire can be completed in approximately 30 minutes.

Position responsibilities in a given library may necessitate that more than one person provide the requested information. It would be most appreciated if the person initially receiving the questionnaire would pass it along to the appropriate person (s) for completion.

The authors wish to assure respondents that their comments will be held in the strictest confidence. Neither library nor librarian name will appear in the article to be published as a result of this study. Furthermore, none of the vendors will be provided access to the individual librarian responses.

Deadline for the return of questionnaires is October 31, 1983. Submission of the final manuscript to a professional journal is anticipated in June, 1984. ■ ■

Notes

1. Paul H. Mosher, “Waiting for Godot: Rating Approval Service Vendors,” in Shaping Library Collections for the 1980s, ed. Peter Spyers-Duran and Tomas Mann, Jr. (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1980), 159-66.
2. John H. Beidelbach and Gary M. Shirk, “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor: A Step-by-Step Process,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 7(1983): 115-122.
3. John H. Beidelbach and Gary M. Shirk, “Besearch in Progress,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 7(1983): 123-125.