Among Friends

The Research Library Mandate to Accumulate

A Message from Joukowsky Family University Librarian Merrily E. Taylor


graphics
The accumulation begins: The first book donated to the Brown Library
by President James Manning in 1767.

Sometime within the next year or so, the Brown University Library will add its Three Millionth Book, an undisputed cause for celebration. For centuries, research libraries have been defined by their comprehensiveness, whether across a broad range of fields (a university library) or in a specialized subject area. For general research libraries, in an age when most scholarly subject matter came in the form of books and journals, comprehensiveness was most easily judged by size: putting it simply, the more books and journals one put on the shelf, the greater the likelihood that a scholar would find what s/he sought. As recently as the late 1960's, library school students were taught that a research library differed from other libraries in that it "bought everything;" the statement was an exaggeration even then, but nonetheless it reflected the underlying philosophy behind collection development in large research institutions.

In 1907 James Gerould began collecting comparative statistics on research libraries and the so-called Gerould Statistics continued through 1961-62, when the Association of Research Libraries took over the collection and publication of the statistics.* Today, the combined Gerould/ARL Statistics constitute the "oldest continuing library statistical series in North America," and have been used by generations of librarians to monitor the progress of their own institutions, bolster budget arguments, and identify a peer group of libraries of similar size and funding. As a comparative tool, the ARL Statistics must be used with caution; as the introduction to the 1993/94 statistics points out, in comparing any individual library to ARL medians or to other ARL members, one must be careful to make such comparisons within the context of differing institutional and local goals and characteristics.

Despite such disclaimers, for many decades the goal of a North American research library has been to grow, to advance in the ARL statistics, or at the very least to hold one's own. Of course, size is not an end in itself --; the intent of the effort is to provide one's clientele with the most information possible, given available resources. Today, however, as in no time in history, research
libraries find that "the mandate to accumulate" is being tested by other mandates, and that measuring library success by counting things is becoming more problematic than ever.

Major trends identified from the 1993/94 ARL statistics included "large increases in monograph and serial costs, declining acquisitions of serials and monographs, and increased levels of activities for interlibrary loan operations." The relationship among these trends is less obvious than it might appear. While extraordinary inflation is certainly contributing to a decline in the acquisition of books and journals, libraries are also putting more of their financial resources into information which cannot be counted in the traditional sense --; that is, computerized databases, whether housed at home or on a remote computer. In 1988/89, the Brown University Library was spending $8,115 on "electronic information;" today, $158,906 in acquisitions funds supports faculty and student access to a wide array of computerized resources, held at Brown or accessible via the Internet. The availability of these resources --; periodical indexes, "current contents" information, news services, encyclopedias and dictionaries, the holdings of libraries around the world, and more --; not only makes more information available, but also makes it easier for users to locate and request material not owned by Brown. Over the last three years, Brown's total interlibrary loan traffic has increased by 36%. Borrowing requests from Brown users to other institutions went up 27% from 1992/93 to 1993/94, with nearly 18,000 requests processed. As we celebrate our Three Millionth volume, we need to keep in mind that the Brown community also benefits by the Library's provision of information which cannot be shelved and which does not contribute to the volume count.

The "mandate to accumulate" also provides special challenges to libraries like Brown, which are rapidly running out of space. Libraries are considered to be at "working capacity" when they are 85% full, and three of Brown's libraries (the John Hay, the Orwig Music Library, and the Sciences Library) are already beyond this point. There is still a formidable amount of information being produced in print form --; some 800,000 new book titles appeared last year --; and, given the continuing library need to be as comprehensive as possible, we have no inclination to deal with this problem by buying fewer books. Instead, a multifaceted approach is necessary: in the years to come, we may be storing more materials offsite, making periodical backfiles available digitally or in microform rather than in hard copy, and (when possible) making some reference titles available only in electronic form. All of these approaches would save shelf space without reducing the user's ability to obtain information. As "the library of the future" develops, will Brown buy fewer printed volumes in years to come? It is still too early to tell. The death of print has been predicted for no less than fifty years without a noticeable decline in the publication of books or in the proliferation of paper. At the moment, many online resources are still additive; they either have no print equivalent, or for various reasons cannot substitute satisfactorily for their paper counterpart. Nonetheless, the explosion of information in digital form has already had a dramatic impact on the library, and there is no reason to believe that this impact will diminish as electronic sources become ever more varied, commonplace, and useful. The library's mandate to be comprehensive, to provide as much scholarly information for our users as possible, remains unchanged. It is clear, however, that in the years to come," comprehensiveness" will no longer be determined simply by counting volumes on the shelf.

*Comparative data from "Introduction," ARL Statistics 1993-1994, Washington, D. C., Association of Research Libraries, 1995, pp. 5 - 13.

[Library Home Page][Library Publications][Among Friends][Next Article]