ACRL College & Research Libraries News

Association of College & Research Libraries

Research Forum: Overlapping viewpoints

By Paul Mosher Deputy Director of Libraries Stanford University

The point that Jeffry Larson makes about the desirability of overlap among smaller instructional collections is well taken (C&RL News, October 1985, pp.486-87). It seems obvious to me that the smaller the collection the greater the probability, and even the desirability, of overlap—particularly in instructional components—of the collection.

But my point was not that smaller libraries should reduce the levels of duplication in their instructional collections. I would argue quite the re verse. My point was to emphasize the benefits of collaboration and resource sharing among libraries in the support of their research, not their curricular, efforts. We all realize that the research components of our universities require us to develop research collections of lesser or little used materials in many fields. These materials may not need to be duplicated as heavily if we are better aware both of the patterns of acquisition and the strengths of existing holdings of other libraries in some of these areas where we are pressed continually to expand our research holdings.

It behooves large libraries to examine this issue carefully and determine the degree to which overlap in collecting may be desirable, and hopefully to arrange patterns of collecting which tend to take advantage of the strength of other libraries’ collections.

So I think Larson has misconstrued my point, without it in any way damaging the substance of the points he makes about instructional collections in smaller libraries. His conclusion that the finding of less-than-expected overlap among instructional collections should give collection developers pause about what direction they should pursue in strengthening these libraries is an excellent one and should be made.