Introductory article to the Special Issue: Patron-Driven Acquisition: Current Successes and Future Direction

Freeman, Robert S.

Nixon, Judith M.

Ward, Suzanne M.

English

Purdue E-Pubs

Purdue UniversityPurdue e-PubsLibraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and Research Purdue Libraries2010Patron-Driven Acquisition: An Introduction andLiterature ReviewJudith M. NixonPurdue University, jnixon@purdue.eduRobert S. FreemanPurdue UniversitySuzanne M. WardPurdue, ward@purdue.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_fsdocsPart of the Collection Development and Management CommonsThis document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu foradditional information.Recommended CitationNixon, J. M., Freeman, R. S., & Ward, S. M. (2010). Patron-driven acquisitions: An introduction and literature review. CollectionManagement, 35(3-4), 119-124.Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcol20Download by: [Purdue University] Date: 21 October 2015, At: 10:35Collection ManagementISSN: 0146-2679 (Print) 1545-2549 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcol20Patron-Driven Acquisitions: An Introduction andLiterature ReviewJudith M. Nixon , Robert S. Freeman & Suzanne M. WardTo cite this article: Judith M. Nixon , Robert S. Freeman & Suzanne M. Ward (2010) Patron-Driven Acquisitions: An Introduction and Literature Review, Collection Management, 35:3-4,119-124To link to this article:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2010.486957Published online: 18 Jun 2010.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2773View related articles Citing articles: 19 View citing articles Collection Management, 35:119–124, 2010Copyright © Judith M. NixonISSN: 0146-2679 print / 1545-2549 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01462679.2010.486957INTRODUCTIONPatron-Driven Acquisitions: An Introductionand Literature ReviewJUDITH M. NIXON, ROBERT S. FREEMAN,and SUZANNE M. WARDPurdue University, West Lafayette, IndianaLibraries exist for their users, so librarians take user needs into considerationwhen building collections. In the past, this consideration took many forms.Past use suggested that more books of a similar nature would receive futureuse. The librarians’ knowledge about a particular user community’s interestin certain topics drove other choices; a public library collection in a rural areawould include books on some topics unlikely to interest urban dwellers, forexample. Academic libraries would emphasize subjects taught or researchedat the institution. A small liberal arts college’s collection would focus on somedifferent subject areas than a polytechnic institution. A museum library mightbuy few titles outside the field of the fine and decorative arts. Traditionally,librarians relied on book reviews, publisher reputation, and professionalintuition to guide them in the selection of books for their patrons. While mostlibrarians seriously considered users’ requests for specific titles if they met thelibrary’s collection development policies, in general librarians selected thevast majority of titles. To borrow a term from industry, librarians historicallybuilt collections on the “just in case” inventory model.Starting in the late 1970s, the results of several studies showed thatusers in major academic library collections checked out an astonishingly lowpercentage of these largely librarian-selected books (Kent 1979). One fre-quently cited study revealed that 20% of the collection receives 80% of theuse (Trueswell 1969). These studies suggested that the traditional model oflibrarian-selected titles does not serve users, at least not at academic institu-tions, as well as librarians expected. At the same time, skyrocketing interli-brary loan (ILL) figures from the Association of Research Libraries memberlibraries also indicated that local collections do not meet needs adequately(Libraries 2009, 9). Certainly some of the ILL traffic is for unusual, obscure,Address correspondence to Judith M. Nixon, Humanities, Social Science and EducationLibrary, 504 W. State Street, STEW, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2058. E-mail:jnixon@purdue.edu119Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 10:35 21 October 2015 120 J. M. Nixon et al.or specialized titles needed for advanced research, but a large number of re-quests are for “ordinary” titles that normal collection development practicesdid not predict would be needed.Librarians have long recognized the need to base collection develop-ment decisions on analysis (Blake and Schleper 2005; Carrigan 1996; Knievelet al. 2006; Mortimore 2006; Ruppel 2006). Some librarians have tried ana-lyzing filled ILL transactions to select or predict subject areas that should beemphasized in the collection (Aguilar 1986; Byrd et al. 1982; Livingston andMays 2004; New and Ott 1974; Roberts and Cameron 1984; Wender 1969;Wood and Bower 1969). This approach misses the moment of need, how-ever, and at best results in buying books only after the library has alreadyexpended resources borrowing titles one or more times. ILL transactions areexpensive. Even if many of a particular library’s supplying partners are partof a mutually cooperative consortium that does not assess per-loan chargesamong members, there is a cost involved for ILL transactions.By the early 2000s, more and more libraries explored a new approachthat resembled industry’s “just in time” inventory model. When patrons re-quested books through ILL, libraries began buying the titles if they met certainpreestablished criteria generally focused on variables such as price, deliverytime, and appropriate content. After initial use by the requesting ILL patrons,the books (and, later, media titles) were added to the regular library collec-tion. Librarians conducting subsequent use studies on these titles discoveredsurprisingly high circulation figures for these patron-selected titles whencompared with similar traditionally acquired titles, even considering that atleast some of the subsequent use was probably by the same patrons whoplaced the initial requests (Anderson et al. 2002; Perdue and Van Fleet 1999).In one study, selectors’ reviews of patron-selected titles agreed that the vastmajority of them were appropriate for the collection (Anderson et al. 2002).From today’s perspective, the ease and effectiveness of what is nowcommonly called patron-driven acquisitions, or user-initiated collection de-velopment, seem so obvious. What better way to build at least a portion ofthe collection than by letting the users’ directly expressed needs guide theexpenditure of scarce collection development funds? Not only are the re-questing patrons’ needs satisfied, but also it is highly likely that those bookswill interest other patrons in the future.Obvious as the practice seems today, the early implementers encoun-tered snags. For example, Bucknell College’s initial venture in 1990 was onlypartially successful because some book orders were delayed over difficultiessuch as being out of print or requiring prepayment (Perdue and Van Fleet1999). The concept was not fully realizable until the rise of the online book-sellers, when library staff could quickly and easily check price and in-stockstatus with suppliers committed to rapid fulfillment.Librarians began reporting the buy versus borrow programs at their in-dividual libraries (selected examples: Ward 2002; Clendenning 2001; BrugDownloaded by [Purdue University] at 10:35 21 October 2015 Introduction 121and MacWaters 2004; Foss 2007). While these libraries’ purchase criteriaconsidered the same variables, those variables often had very different val-ues. For example, some libraries circulated the book to the ILL patron beforecataloging it; others rush-cataloged the incoming books. Some libraries’ pilotprograms began with very modest funding; others were sufficiently fundedto buy all the books that met the criteria. Maximum cost per book varied.Some libraries also bought books from the used book market or from in-ternational booksellers; others did not. Some libraries reviewed all new ILLloan requests for possible purchase; others only examined titles that hadfailed in the first borrowing attempt through traditional ILL channels. Onebeauty of the model is that each library can set the parameters that suit itbest.By 2003, Library Journal published an article about “purchase on de-mand” (Hulsey 2003), and in 2004 a librarian at the University of Hong Kongoffered an international perspective (Chan 2004). The literature also began toacknowledge the necessary partnerships between library units or functionsthat formerly had had little interaction: ILL with acquisitions and/or withcollection development (Ward et al. 2003). By today, most people reviewingthe literature will be convinced that the patron-driven acquisitions modelhas proved itself on a number of levels, including cost-effective collectiondevelopment; user satisfaction; high subsequent circulation; and flexibility inmeeting local constraints for price, content, and processing. It is no longer arevolutionary concept, but one that is accepted as routine in many sizes andtypes of libraries.Patron-driven acquisition is also a concept that easily and naturallymoves beyond the print and media arenas into electronic books. It is nowjust about as easy to order an individual e-book title from a book jobber’slist as it is to choose a print title from an online bookseller’s site. By addingthe e-book to the catalog and sending the patron an e-mail with the link,the library fulfills the request in a matter of hours instead of days, with everyexpectation that the patron-selected e-book will receive more future use byother patrons than some librarian-selected ones. On this front, the vendorsare so convinced of the model’s success that several of them have developedpatron-driven acquisition versions of their lists. The library loads the records,possibly preselected or refined in some way by the librarians, into its onlinepublic access catalog. There, patrons find e-book records that look the sameas any other e-book records. After a certain number of browses or after acertain amount of time viewing each book, the library pays for the title andadds it permanently to the collection. Librarians were initially cautious ofadding this service, concerned that the ease of selecting an e-book wouldlead to runaway expenses. Recent research by Jason Price and John Mc-Donald, however, indicates that these fears may be exaggerated (Price andMcDonald 2009). During this time of transition between print and electronic(however long it lasts), many libraries may chose to maintain patron-drivenDownloaded by [Purdue University] at 10:35 21 October 2015 122 J. M. Nixon et al.acquisition programs in both formats to satisfy patrons who have compellingneeds to consult either version.The editors are three of the six authors who wrote “Buy, Don’t Bor-row: Bibliographers’ Analysis of Academic Library Collection DevelopmentThrough Interlibrary Loan Requests” for Collection Management (Andersonet al. 2002). Realizing that the program had nearly reached its tenth anniver-sary, the six authors met in 2009 to discuss conducting the same analysis on10 years of data that had been conducted on the initial two years of data.Would the results be similar? Would a program that had appeared promis-ing after its first two years still be fulfilling its promise? Would some earlierhints at unexpected results, such as high subsequent circulation and strongevidence of interdisciplinary use, show development over a decade? Whilediscussing the scope of the new article, however, it quickly became clearthat far more analysis could be done with a decade of data than had beenpossible after only two years. For example, all the patron-driven acquisitiontitles could be compared with all the normally acquired books over 10 yearsto examine circulation patterns. Then a colleague in one of the Purdue Uni-versity science libraries expressed an interest in analyzing the science andtechnology books. Several of us wanted to ponder the effect of this shifttoward patron-driven acquisitions and its effect on collection developmentlibrarians’ roles. With four article ideas already in the works, the editors werepleased when Faye Chadwell, Collection Management editor, accepted theirproposal for a special issue about patron-driven acquisitions.In fall 2009, the editors sent a call for papers to over a 100 libraryListservs around the world. They received 30 paper proposals. The edi-tors selected papers that fell into three major categories: those that bestrepresented practice in the traditional print-based patron-driven acquisitionprograms based on ILL requests; those describing the experiences of earlyimplementers of e-book patron-driven acquisition programs; and those fromlibrarians with truly innovative concepts for involving patrons in the col-lection development process. Despite the wide distribution of the call forpapers, no proposals came from public libraries or from special libraries.The few proposals from international libraries were not among those finallyselected. Although the resulting articles mainly report patron-driven acqui-sitions activities at large American academic libraries, the editors hope thatmany of the ideas and practices will be in some way adaptable to other sizes,types, and locations of libraries.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe editors are grateful to Tim Bowersox, MaryLou Epp, Kathleen CarlisleFountain, Linda Frederiksen, Jeanne Harrell, Marsha J. Hamilton, DracineHodges, Anita M. Kreps, Joyce C. Melvin, Cyril Oberlander, Carmelita Pickett,Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 10:35 21 October 2015 Introduction 123Kate Pitcher, Cyndi Preston, Leslie J. Reynolds, Jane Smith, Mark Sullivan,Sandra Tucker, David C. Tyler, Wyoma vanDuinkerken, and Yang Xu fortheir contributions to the reference list.E. Stewart Saunders made valuable contributions to this issue by offeringsuggestions for articles involving statistics.REFERENCESAguilar, William. 1986. The application of relative use and interlibrary demand incollection development. Collection Management 8(1): 15–24.Anderson, Kristine J., Robert S. Freeman, Jean-Pierre V. M. Hérubel, Lawrence J.Mykytiuk, Judith M. Nixon, and Suzanne M. Ward. 2002. Buy, don’t borrow:Bibliographers’ analysis of academic library collection development throughinterlibrary loan requests. Collection Management 27 (3/4): 1–10.Blake, Julie C., and Susan P. Schleper. 2005. From data to decisions: Using surveysand statistics to make collection management decisions. Library Collections,Acquisitions, and Technical Services 28(4): 460–464.Brug, Sandy, and Cristi MacWaters. 2004. Patron-driven purchasing from interlibraryloan requests. Colorado Libraries 30:36–38.Byrd, Gary D., D. A. Thomas, and Katherine E. Hughes. 1982. Collection develop-ment using interlibrary loan borrowing and acquisitions statistics. Bulletin of theMedical Library Association 70(1): 1–9.Carrigan, Dennis P. 1996. Data-guided collection development: A promise unfulfilled.College & Research Libraries 57(5): 429–437.Chan, Gayle Rosemary Y. C. 2004. Purchase instead of borrow: An internationalperspective. Journal of Interlibrary Loan Document Delivery and InformationSupply 14: 23–38.Clendenning, Lynda Fuller. 2001. Purchase express for any user request: The Univer-sity of Virginia Library offers delivery in seven days. College & Research LibrariesNews 62(1): 16–17.Foss, Michelle. 2007. Books-on-demand pilot program: An innovative “patron-centric” approach to enhance the library collection. Journal of Access Services5(1/2): 306–315.Hulsey, Richard. 2003. Purchase on demand: A better customer service model. Li-brary Journal 128(10): 77.Kent, Allen. 1979. Use of library materials : The University of Pittsburgh study. NewYork: M. Dekker.Knievel, Jennifer E., Heather Wicht, and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2006. Use ofcirculation statistics and interlibrary loan data in collection management. College& Research Libraries 67(1): 35.Libraries, Association of Research. 2009. ARL Statistics, 2007–2008. http://www.arl.org/bm˜doc/arlstat08.pdf.Livingston, Camillo, and Antje Mays. 2004. Using interlibrary loan data as a selectiontool: ILL trails provide collection clues. Against the Grain 16(2): 22–27.Mortimore, Jeffrey M. 2006. Access-informed collection development and the aca-demic library. Collection Management 30(3): 21–37.Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 10:35 21 October 2015 124 J. M. Nixon et al.New, Doris E, and Retha Zane Ott. 1974. Interlibrary loan analysis as a collectiondevelopment tool. Library Resources and Technical Services 18(3): 275–283.Perdue, Jennifer, and James A. Van Fleet. 1999. Borrow or buy? Cost-effective de-livery of monographs. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Infor-mation Supply 9(4): 19–28.Price, Jason, and John McDonald. Beguiled by bananas? A retrospective study of usageand breadth of patron- vs. librarian-acquired ebook collections: Presentation one-book acquisition at academic libraries given at XXIX Annual Charleston Con-ference: Issues in book and serial acquisition, November 5, 2009. Available fromhttp://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm4/item viewer.php?CISOROOT=/lea&CISOPTR=175&CISOBOX=1&REC=2.Roberts, Michael, and Kenneth J. Cameron. 1984. A barometer of unmet demand.Interlibrary loans analysis and monographic acquisitions. Library Acquisitions.Practice and Theory 8(1): 31–42.Ruppel, Margie. 2006. Tying collection development’s loose ends with interlibraryloan. Collection Building 25(3): 72–77.Trueswell, Richard L. 1969. Some behavioral patterns of library users: The 80/20rule. Wilson Library Bulletin 43(5): 458–461.Ward, Suzanne M. 2002. Books on demand: Just-in-time acquisitions. AcquisitionsLibrarian 27: 95–107.Ward, Suzanne M., Tanner Wray, and Karl E. Debus-López. 2003. Collection de-velopment based on patron requests: Collaboration between interlibrary loanand acquisitions. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 27(2):203–213.Wender, Ruth W. 1969. Analysis of loans in the behavioral sciences. Special Libraries60(8): 510–513.Wood, David N., and Cathryn A. Bower. 1969. Survey of medical literature borrowedfrom the National Lending Library for Science and Technology. Bulletin of theMedical Library Association 57(1): 47.Downloaded by [Purdue University] at 10:35 21 October 2015 

Patron-Driven Acquisition:  An Introduction and Literature Review

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&amp;context=lib_fsdocs

Patron-Driven Acquisition: An Introduction and Literature Review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Purdue E-Pubs