the library collection failure quotient: the ratio of interlibrary borrowing to collection size

The Library Collection Failure Quotient:The Ratio of Interlibrary Borrowing toCollection Sizeby Albert Henderson

Understanding the ratio ofinterlibrary borrowing to

collection size (i.e., access toownership) may help us to

understand the performance ofthe collection. The librarycollection failure quotient

(CFQ) is a dynamic indicator.Interpreting CFQ scores

requires references to otherindicators, comparisons with

peer libraries, and informationgleaned from library patrons.

Albert Henderson is Editor of PublishingResearch Quarterly, PO Box 2423,

Bridgeport, Connecticut 06608-0423,[email protected]..

University librarians and directorsof information policy1 face newfactors in their calculus of re-

source allocations. Everyone seems toagree that there are opportunities forchange based on new technology. Not ev-eryone agrees on what the changes shouldbe or how to measure their effect. Fore-most among the challenges, for instance,are the long-term growth of research andits output, new technologies, and dis-agreement about the best use of resourc-es.2–6 Presumably, highest among thegoals of a university is the effective real-ization of its mission of education andresearch. Michael K. Buckland7 exam-ined the question of optimal library size inthe context of allocating financial re-sources to materials, storage, binding, in-terlibrary borrowing, and other costs notincluding the external costs that are borneby library patrons and research underwrit-ers, vital factors addressed later in thisarticle. He observed that “The measure ofservice adopted has been book availabili-ty . . . in terms of the probability that us-ers will find what they seek when theyseek it.”8 F. C. A. Exon and Keith F.Punch reluctantly admitted the continuedvitality of this measure, writing, “Imprac-ticable as the comprehensive collectionmight seem, clients’ demands for it do notdisappear.”9 Every library collection em-ploys some degree of resource sharing. Itis not clear where the optimum balancelies. New information tools are needed toevaluate the “access not ownership” solu-tion to library collection growth.

Well before the viability of plain paperphotocopiers, Fremont Rider declared thatlibrary collection growth, doubling on av-erage every 16 years or so, assured edu-cational efficacy.10 His assertion was

based on the statistical record of majorU.S. institutions from colonial days to1938. He wrote,

There has always existed a direct correlationbetween the educational effectiveness of acollege and the growth of its library, a cor-relation so close and so consistent that itcannot have been fortuitous. [He added] Infact, this may be asserted as almost axiom-atic: unless a college or university is willingto be stagnant, unless it is willing not tomaintain its place in the steady flow of edu-cational development, it has to double itslibrary in size every sixteen years, or there-abouts. When its library ceases to grow aneducational institution dies.11

Rider’s observations matched Derekde Solla Price’s measures of the growthof science research reports (and of sci-entists).12 Price concluded that “Such isthe stuff of cumulative growth, the dis-tinction of scholarship in general, but ofscience in particular.”13 Price used Rid-er’s observations of library growth tosupport his own observations of authorsand the growth of the science literature.The growth of collections has also fig-ured in recent studies that have tiedfaculty effectiveness to comparative col-lection size.14,15

Rider’s finding was controversial, par-ticularly because it seemed to set a stan-dard for a growth rate that many univer-sities abandoned.16 Price insisted that thegrowth of science must level off.17 Incontrast, the investment in academic sci-ence, which produces the journal articlescollected and disseminated by libraries,has shown no sign of slowing.18 Researchoutput, journal articles, also continued togrow.19

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 3, pages 159–170 May 2000159

MEASURING SERVICE

The growth of major libraries has not keptpace with research spending and its out-put, primarily journal articles.20 In thislight, the reputations of many librariestested by Buckland’s “measure of ser-vice” would be badly tarnished. (For ex-ample: see S. G. Brush et al.,21 L.Litwack,22 and J. Shapiro.23) Accessiblecollections have deteriorated and havebeen replaced by substitutes such as in-terlibrary borrowing. Martha Kyrillidousaw the growth of interlibrary borrowingas the dominant service trend reflected byAssociation of Research Libraries (ARL)statistics.24 Typical interlibrary borrow-ing increased 151% since 1986 as pur-chases of serials and monographs de-creased 7% and 25%, respectively.

“Accessible collections havedeteriorated and have been

replaced by substitutes such asinterlibrary borrowing.”

There are many problems with interli-brary borrowing. It is tedious at best.Mary E. Jackson reported that the averageturnaround at 97 ARL members takes 16calendar days.25 Returnable items taketwo days longer. The fill rate reported in1997 for ARL libraries was 85%, consid-erably lower than the 91.6% reported byOCLC for 1979.26,27 The success of bor-rowing, as an alternative to ownership,may also be restricted by copyright guide-lines and administrative rules that limit itsuse.28 The National Federation of Index-ing and Abstracting Services reports adeterioration of coverage by bibliographicdatabases used for interlibrary borrowing,a deterioration stemming from efforts toaccommodate libraries’ financial difficul-ties.29 In earlier years, these services grewsufficiently to offer comprehensive cov-erage of the literature and, thus, justify“access not ownership” in principle. Ad-ministrators are concerned about spend-ing. Costs of interlibrary resource sharingtotal near $30, one third of which is borneby the “lending” institution.30 It is laborintensive and is considered a burden bylarger collections called upon to producephotocopies.31 More than a decade ago,William J. Baumol and Sue Anne BateyBlackman noted the paradox of informa-tion technology as the root of the “costdisease” in libraries.32 The cost disease in

libraries is rooted in the proliferation ofinexpensive technology. Computerizationand the falling prices of computer systemswere expected to reduce the cost of librar-ies. Interlibrary borrowing, among thecostly labor-intensive activities, in-creased.

Eleanor Mitchell and Sheila A.Walters described the shift toward re-source sharing as redefining the library.33

It emerged with the proliferation of theXerox model 914, which made plain pa-per copying commercially viable in the1960s. Patrons could make “fair use” cop-ies in libraries in view of notices warningabout potential copyright infringement.Interlibrary “borrowing” via photocopywas further spurred by the recognition of“library fair use” by the Copyright Act of1976. “CONTU” guidelines establishedby the National Commission on NewTechnological Uses of Copyright Worksaimed to limit interlibrary “borrowing” asa substitute for paid subscriptions.34,35

When CONTU limits were exceeded, thelibrary could pay royalties to a commer-cial document delivery service or send itspatron to another library. Thus, the legal-ization of library photocopying increasedthe complexity of allocation decisions.The library’s position became even morevulnerable in the light of promised tech-nology, the promotion of “access” as anacceptable substitute for “ownership,”and a willingness to sacrifice the univer-sity mission in the competition for finan-cial resources.36 Ann S. Okerson reportedthat electronic licensing made it necessaryto call attorneys in when negotiating sub-scription renewals.37 In recent years, theInternet, fax, CD-ROM, and desktop pub-lishing technologies joined photocopyingin the clamor for “access not ownership.”The promise of information technology toreduce dependence on print materials hasfailed to turn around the climb of interli-brary borrowing reported by ARL statis-tics 38 Every year the volume of borrow-ing increases, while purchases decline.

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

The rush to usurp library finances by “en-emies of the library” described by WaltCrawford and Michael Gorman implied adisavowal of the needs of users in themajor archives represented by the ARL.39

For instance, advocates of lean collectionsoften cite the “80/20 rule” offered byRichard L. Trueswell.40 Trueswell’s ob-servations of satellite libraries indicatedthat 80% of uses were satisfied by 20% ofthe collection. This may be interpreted to

mean that certain collections might safelyeliminate materials that account for 20%of total uses and substantial expense be-cause those needs can be satisfied throughresource sharing. But central research li-braries are different in Trueswell’sview.41 He eventually commented, “If theprimary function of a library is to supportresearch into the farthest depths of obscu-rity (which may be important), then thequestion of size becomes irrelevant.”42

In another famous controversy, con-temporary with the Copyright Act of1976, a study financed by the NationalScience Foundation claimed that the Uni-versity of Pittsburgh spent too muchmoney on books and periodicals that werelittle or never used.43 The study’s prefaceand background statement demonstratedprejudice:

It was our expectation that much of thematerial purchased for a research librarywas little or never used.44 Many factors arecontributing to a need for change, for ex-ample . . .budgets for libraries are gener-ally being kept level or are decreasing,therefore improvements in service mustcome from increases in productivity; the in-crease in cost of library materials continuesto reduce the “real” purchasing power.45

The University of Pittsburgh academicsenate and many others rejected the studyon principle as well as on methodologicalgrounds.46–49

In another effort to justify reduced li-brary spending, a study commissioned bythe Andrew W. Mellon Foundation pro-posed a “virtual” library, “with all theworld’s published riches at one’s finger-tips,” based on developments in informa-tion technology (IT).50 William G. Bo-wen, the head of the Foundation,promised that libraries would pay theirown way with savings from IT.51 Afterspending over $12 million in pursuit ofthis vision, the Mellon Foundation’s lateststudies of technological “access” alterna-tives concluded they are expensive andadministratively challenging and oftencite the “productivity paradox.”52,53Theirfindings echoed prior reports.54–56 Theyfound that IT does not save money forlibraries or publishers when counting inthe costs of infrastructure, preparation,obsolescence, and administrative com-plexities.57 Their attempts at savingmoney through resource sharing alsofailed. They did not foresee, as econo-mists had, that publishers who oncepriced reproduction fees as a trifling ac-commodation now set them as a part of

160 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

their primary income stream and raisedprimary prices as well.58–60

“They found that IT does notsave money for libraries or

publishers when counting inthe costs of infrastructure,

preparation, obsolescence, andadministrative complexities.”

THE PREMATURE PARADIGM

Perhaps the rush to “access not owner-ship” by university administrators waslacking in prudent design. By projectingthe declining purchases of the ARL mem-bership, Ann Okerson and Ken Stubbssuggested when “access” overcame“ownership,” another fundamental prob-lem would arise. They wrote:

If the curve were extended even further, by2007 ARL libraries would stop buying booksentirely, and only purchase serials; by 2017they would buy nothing, and instead accesseverything. But in the near term, at least, thisscenario is unlikely, for as Tom Shaugh-nessy, director of libraries for the Universityof Minnesota puts it, “You can’t borrow, ifno one owns it.”61

A sampling of document delivery in-dicates that major suppliers are outsidethe United States.62 One inference sug-gested by this is that libraries located inthe United States are unable to supplymany articles—a hint of national collec-tion performance failure. Computer com-parisons of ARL collections with theOCLC international database of mono-graphs also point in this direction.63–65

The decline in spending on librarieshas been noted since the 1970s and hasoften been decried.66–75Unfortunately forlibraries, librarians, and library patrons,the economic benefits generated by librar-ies are difficult to protect when compet-ing for resources with administrators.Twenty-five years ago, the funds spent onlibraries by all higher education institu-tions exceeded the value of unspent rev-enues.76,77The relationship reversed itselfbeginning with the 1983/1984 academicyear: unspent revenues began to exceedlibrary expenditures, as they did beforeWorld War II, when the finest science andeducation was centered in Europe. It isalso clear that administrative spending, anactivity that might benefit from econo-mies of scale and savings generated byinformation technology, maintains its

share of spending over the last 20 years orso. Studying recentARL Statistics,onefinds in each year since 1970, 20 to morethan 30 universities have cut libraryspending once or more from what it wasthe prior year.78

The point is that “access not owner-ship” is a choice forced by universitymanagers. Perhaps it is explained by theirparticularly dogmatic view that technol-ogy will increase productivity.79 By brut-ishly disregarding many of the costs of IT,the theory goes, great input savings can beattained. The nub of the “productivity par-adox” is that measurable savings typicalof industrial manufacturing—usuallylower unit costs leading to higher prof-its—cannot be accomplished by investingin IT.80 Baumol and Blackman’s observa-tion that IT appears to increase costlylabor-intensive activity, rather than savemoney, was based on a study of academiclibraries.81

“The point is that ‘access notownership’ is a choice forced

by university managers.”

Policies of “access not ownership”seek financial productivity within hori-zons that deliberately exclude users’ con-cerns. One such approach evaluates thecosts of acquisition solely against num-bers of uses or of borrowings.82 That ap-proach may justify depressing libraryspending. But, it does not inquire aboutcosts to users and to the quality of users’work. It fails to address the interests ofpatrons for whom browsing is essentialand for whom procedures that average 16days are never just in time.

It is unfortunate that the economic re-turns on investments in research are soremote from the interests that control uni-versity spending on dissemination. Thearchitect of science policy, VannevarBush, believed that universities, “arecharged with the responsibility of con-serving the knowledge accumulated bythe past, imparting that knowledge to stu-dents, and contributing new knowledge ofall kinds.”83 If spending on libraries, com-pared with spending on basic science, istaken as evidence, the universities havenot shared the view of science spon-sors.84,85Any savings apparent in univer-sities’ financial statements may be illu-sory when costs to library users are taken

into account. Summing up science policyin the context of the billions invested inresearch, Herbert S. White pointed out:

At the point when our fledgling finally pro-duces a return on investment, we tire of therace. We don’t want to pay anymore, and wequit five yards short of the finish line.86 [Heelaborated] Scientific research fascinates us;dissemination . . . by far thelesser cost, in-terests us not one whit.87

It is no blessing that the economics ofresearch and development (R&D) knowl-edge is difficult to measure. Fritz Mach-lup’s contribution to the knowledge ofknowledge was impressive. He was notthe first to point out that information isboth an input and output of research88

(nor probably was Henry Oldenburg,some 330 years ago89). Information influ-ences productivity. Machlup wrote,“R&D expenditures areinvestment,andthe incremental outputs (or economies)attributable to the application of the R&Dfindings arereturn.”90 The common ideaof automation’s contribution to productiv-ity is that it saves costly inputs such aslabor. That is true where motors replacepeople. In research and education, pro-ductivity means better output. It meansreducing duplications and errors ratherthan reducing inputs. One cannot auto-mate the labor of thinking much beyondarithmetic calculations. Surveys of scien-tists emphasize productivity from infor-mation. Donald W. King et al., for in-stance, questioned 60,000 scientists andengineers’ use of millions of articles andtechnical reports.91 They estimated a sav-ings of $13 billion based on readings cost-ing $500 million. John Martyn’s survey ofscientists indicated that new informationoften compelled respondents to changetheir current projects, also resulting inconsiderable savings.92

CRIME STATISTICS

White offered another compelling idea. Inthe competition for budget dollars, thefailures of a library should become moreimportant than markers of satisfaction.93

Crime statistics, for example, measure thefailures of law and order. The FederalBureau of Investigation’s annual publicitymakes headlines and propels policechiefs’ annual budget requests throughthe approval process. Perhaps failures oflibrary collections could support libraries’budget requests. Library failure scores,based on interview sampling, ranged from20% to 52% at universities such as Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology, Mich-

May 2000 161

igan, Yale, and Case Western Reservewell before the serials crisis becamenews.94–97Such interviews are costly andlaborious. There may be an easier ap-proach to measure rates of performancefailure.

Performance measurement was the fo-cus of recent conferences, which broughttogether over 100 persons from 24 coun-tries.98 The growing emphasis on the useof measures to test performance was thefocus in a number of papers examiningaspects of service quality. They suggestedthat operating ratios, generally usingavailable statistics, were potentially use-ful. Considerable attention was given tothe measurement of performance, partic-ularly where service quality indicatorscan be used for assessment. Kyrillidouoffers 30 ratios of ARL data, includinginternal ratios (e.g., materials as a per-centage of total spending) and per-studentand per-faculty ratios, with rankings ofmembers’ statistics.99 None of these ra-tios compare “access” with “ownership.”Henderson suggested that the internal ra-tio of access to ownership (interlibraryborrowing to collection size) may illumi-nate performance, calling it the CollectionFailure Quotient (CFQ).100 Each borrow-ing represents a specific failure of thecollection, even when the item was col-lected but unavailable. The CFQ reflectsthe performance of the library collectionas it responds to patron demand. UsingARL statistics, Henderson sampled 36 li-braries’ annual interlibrary borrowingtransactions divided by the number ofvolumes in the collection. The averageCFQ score doubled between 1974 and1992. The rising failure appeared to berelated to the widening gap between re-search activity and the growth of collec-tions.

METHODOLOGY

The following CFQ figures and tableswere calculated fromARL Statisticsfor80 North American libraries from 1974–1998, a 25-year period that begins just

before the present copyright law was en-acted. This dataset was selected because itprovides consistently collected reports fora longer period and for a greater numberof well-known research universities thanany other source. All but 14 of the 76 U.S.libraries covered ranked in the top 100 forR&D expenditures in 1995.101 The CFQscore for the group for each year wascalculated and rounded as was its 25-yearmean and standard deviation by using de-scriptive statistics available in a MicrosoftExcel spreadsheet. Descriptive statisticsfor the 25-year period for each librarywere also calculated. To make the figureseasier to read, as integers rather than asdecimals, raw scores were multiplied by10,000. A higher ratio indicates more bor-rowings per volume in the collection, pre-

sumably an emphasis on “access not own-ership.”

RESULTS

Table 1 includes annual descriptive statis-tics of the combined CFQ for the groupbetween 1974 and 1998. Included aremean, maximum, minimum, and standarddeviation. These values are graphed inFigure 1. Table 2 ranks mean CFQ scoresfor 80 universities during the 1974–1998period. Figure 2 graphs mean scores forthree universities: Harvard, Yale, and Il-linois-Urbana. Table 3 ranks standard de-viation of the CFQ scores of 80 universi-ties during the 1974–1998 period. Table 4includes CFQ scores for 80 universitiesfor the last five years.

Figure 1

Table 1CFQ Summary Descriptive Statistics for 80 University Libraries 1974–1998

Year 1974 1985 1988

Mean 26 27 28 28 28 27 27 28 29 31 33 32 35 37 36 38 41 42 43 46 49 53 57 60 63

SD 16 16 17 16 14 14 15 17 16 20 25 24 32 35 28 28 30 21 21 23 24 29 34 42 43

Minimum 2 4 4 7 8 6 4 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 5 2 3 3 6 3 8 11 10 10

Maximum 85 83 81 84 65 71 76 82 73 106 191 194 207 248 224 234 251 107 102 99 101 175 206 309 275


DISCUSSION

“Historical events clarify thepotential of the CFQ for

illuminating dynamic changesin supply and demand of

information as a population ofsocial events.”

Historical events clarify the potential ofthe CFQ for illuminating dynamicchanges in supply and demand of infor-mation as a population of social events.For instance, the “serials crisis” clearlydominates Figure 1: the maximum scoreand standard deviation both peak (248and 35, respectively) in 1987, the yearthat ARL initiated the serials pricesproject, which later announced the crisisamid considerable publicity.102 That wasalso the year that all higher educationinstitutions collectively spent $110 mil-lion less on libraries than the year before,a unique cutback found in tables of ex-penditures that cover 1930–1995.103 Fora more precise view of the serials crisisreflected by CFQ scores, Table 1 (whichreports the data shown in Figure 1 intabular form) supplies the CFQ mean. Itrose from its starting position 42% (11

Table 2CFQ scores for 80 universities 1974–1998 (ranked by mean)

University Mean University Mean

Cincinnati 96 McGill 36

Illinois, Urbana 93 Minnesota 36

Texas A&M 89 Northwestern 35

Boston 71 Iowa 33

California, Santa Barbara 70 Washington State 33

Oklahoma 69 Alabama 32

Case Western Reserve 66 Massachusetts 32

Kent State 65 New York 32

California, San Diego 61 Pittsburgh 32

Connecticut 58 Notre Dame 31

Kansas 58 Temple 31

Brigham Young 55 Virginia 31

Johns Hopkins 55 Georgetown 30

Kentucky 55 Louisiana State 30

Arizona State 52 Georgia 28

Tennessee 51 Syracuse 27

Tulane 50 Arizona 26

Washington U.-St. Louis 49 Brown 26

Oklahoma State 46 Maryland 26

Purdue 45 Michigan State 25

Wisconsin 44 MIT 23

Colorado 43 California, Berkeley 22

Dartmouth 43 Wayne State 22

Florida State 43 Rice 21

Ohio State 43 Cornell 20

Southern Illinois 43 Michigan 20

SUNY-Buffalo 43 Southern California 20

Utah 43 California, Los Angeles 19

Alberta 42 Texas 19

Nebraska 42 Chicago 18

Pennsylvania 42 Duke 18

Pennsylvania State 41 North Carolina 18

British Columbia 40 Princeton 15

California, Davis 39 Toronto 15

Oregon 39 Columbia 14

Rutgers 39 Washington 14

Florida 38 Stanford 13

Missouri 38 Howard 11

Iowa State 37 Harvard 9

Indiana 36 Yale 9

Figure 2

May 2000 163

points) by 1987. Two years after the $110million cut in library spending, ARL pub-lished its report.104 The crisis spurredMarcia Tuttle and others to found theNewsletter on Serials Prices Issues,which emphasized the promise of elec-tronic technology as an inexpensive alter-native to print, while challenging publish-ers’ prices.105 The Association of Collegeand Research Libraries revised its stan-dards for university libraries, eliminatingassertions that weak collections can ham-per research.106

The drop of the CFQ standard devia-tion and maximum scores by 1991 indi-cates temporary relief of the crisis. Othertrends suggest that the serials crisis is farfrom over, however. Most important, themean continued its ascent after 1987, ris-ing 70% (26 points). The standard devia-tion rose eight points past its 1987 high to43. The maximum set a new record,breaking the 300-mark, in 1997. This con-tinuation of crisis conditions is easily cor-roborated by reference toARL Statistics(annual printed edition), Newsletter onSerials Prices Issues, NASIG Proceed-ings, Library Journal,and other appropri-ate media during the last 10 years.

A general trend dominates the 25-yearperiod: all group values generally in-crease. The mean ascends from the mid-20s to around 60. The lowest CFQ scoremore than doubles, and the highest morethan triples. The differences betweenhighest and lowest scores are obviouslymore than triple. The standard deviationalso increases, more than doubling itsstarting position. By the end of the period,all scores are substantially higher than thestarting point.

When comparing individual universi-ties, the ARL CFQ population exhibits aprovocative diversity. Tables 2 and 3 rankthe average mean and the standard devi-ation, respectively, for each of the 80 li-braries over 25 years. The latter measureindicates the volatility of the scores.Higher standard deviations reflect sub-stantial changes. Ranking sets some largecollections apart from others based onperformance. It occasionally challengesthe traditional dominance of collectionsize as the hallmark of quality. For in-stance, the two largest collections, Har-vard and Yale, rank below the lowestquartile on both tables, suggesting greatstability and comparatively low use ofinterlibrary borrowing. The third largestcollection, Illinois-Urbana, is found at theopposite end of both scales. Its mean forthe period is higher than the recent scores

Table 380 Universities 1974–1998 (ranked by CFQ standard deviation)

University SD University SD

Illinois, Urbana 83 Pennsylvania State 12

Cincinnati 70 Kansas 12

Case Western Reserve 53 Southern California 12

Boston 51 Johns Hopkins 12

Ohio State 37 Tulane 12

Tennessee 34 Wayne State 11

California, San Diego 30 Oregon 11

Kent State 28 Alabama 11

Southern Illinois 28 Michigan State 11

Texas A&M 27 Iowa 11

Brigham Young 24 Colorado 11

Oklahoma State 23 Minnesota 10

Kentucky 22 Michigan 10

Oklahoma 21 Syracuse 10

Washington State 21 California, Davis 10

Nebraska 21 MIT 10

Virginia 20 Chicago 9

New York 20 Florida 9

Northwestern 19 Duke 9

Florida State 19 Pittsburgh 9

Pennsylvania 18 Temple 8

Connecticut 18 British Columbia 8

Dartmouth 17 Rice 8

Washington U.-St. Louis 17 Howard 8

Arizona State 17 Cornell 7

Missouri 17 Columbia 7

Brown 16 Texas 7

California, Santa Barbara 15 Georgetown 7

Maryland 15 Georgia 6

Purdue 15 Princeton 6

Wisconsin 15 McGill 6

Alberta 15 California, Berkeley 5

Notre Dame 15 Washington 5

Indiana 14 Harvard 4

Rutgers 13 Massachusetts 4

SUNY-Buffalo 13 North Carolina 4

Louisiana State 13 Yale 4

Arizona 12 Stanford 4

Iowa State 12 Toronto 3

Utah 12 California, Los Angeles 3


Table 4CFQ Scores 1994–1998 for 80 Universities

University

Year

University

Year

94 95 96 97 98 94 95 96 97 98

Alabama 46 52 51 51 49 Michigan 33 39 38 39 38

Alberta 72 54 53 51 65 Michigan State 42 35 35 36 47

Arizona 33 37 42 60 59 Minnesota 31 29 28 32 32

Arizona State 58 59 66 72 69 Missouri 63 62 61 65 67

Boston 84 72 82 79 85 MIT 26 32 36 50 49

Brigham Young 88 78 87 68 71 Nebraska 67 83 74 71 65

British Columbia 47 45 48 53 61 New York 55 60 60 62 61

Brown 47 58 55 53 59 North Carolina 22 22 20 22 26

California, Berkeley 24 26 24 29 27 Northwestern 62 65 63 60 70

California, Davis 46 52 53 58 62 Notre Dame 40 43 45 43 43

California, Los Angeles 22 23 26 28 20 Ohio State 53 57 94 128 162

California, San Diego 101 104 122 115 106 Oklahoma 96 65 118 97 80

California, Santa Barbara 82 90 90 78 119 Oklahoma State 72 67 67 83 119

Case Western Reserve 67 122 157 192 227 Oregon 48 52 57 59 61

Chicago 26 32 36 32 31 Pennsylvania 69 66 69 67 73

Cincinnati 73 175 206 309 275 Pennsylvania State 57 50 49 67 66

Colorado 51 50 53 65 63 Pittsburgh 45 40 38 32 27

Columbia 22 25 29 26 26 Princeton 17 19 18 18 20

Connecticut 78 73 81 91 108 Purdue 61 68 74 72 84

Cornell 27 28 23 23 30 Rice 28 26 33 38 38

Dartmouth 68 65 68 65 68 Rutgers 45 53 57 52 62

Duke 30 34 31 31 29 Southern California 47 41 46 36 34

Florida 36 39 39 48 58 Southern Illinois 62 77 99 105 110

Florida State 75 65 62 75 76 Stanford 16 14 16 20 18

Georgetown 30 37 48 37 38 SUNY-Buffalo 42 45 51 52 49

Georgia 29 28 29 30 32 Syracuse 31 33 40 36 34

Harvard 12 14 15 15 21 Temple 42 50 43 39 40

Howard 3 8 11 10 16 Tennessee 92 115 116 111 118

Illinois, Urbana 73 66 60 56 60 Texas 28 35 29 33 29

Indiana 58 59 50 52 51 Texas A&M 95 110 132 128 167

Iowa 39 46 53 56 54 Toronto 12 14 13 11 10

Iowa State 41 55 67 67 62 Tulane 56 56 77 66 47

Johns Hopkins 69 66 65 62 60 Utah 73 54 55 57 56

Kansas 59 67 68 65 67 Virginia 58 64 64 66 61

Kent State 96 122 115 106 103 Washington 18 18 18 23 27

Kentucky 84 97 83 84 91 Washington State 26 41 44 98 97

Louisiana State 26 40 49 59 63 Washington U.-St. Louis 86 84 72 68 64

Maryland 40 50 55 60 61 Wayne State 34 41 43 43 50

Massachusetts 32 35 36 32 33 Wisconsin 39 44 37 41 47

McGill 29 34 35 36 36 Yale 14 15 15 16 15

May 2000 165

found in Table 4, raising additional ques-tions about the volatility of its perfor-mance. Table 4 reports CFQ scores for thelast four years for 80 universities listed inalphabetical order. Comparing these rawscores for the latest period with the mean(Table 2) and the standard deviation (Ta-ble 3), one may begin to appreciate con-trasts in performance.

Figure 3 compares total library spend-ing by the three universities.107It suggeststhat differences in CFQ scores of the Uni-versity of Illinois-Urbana compared withHarvard and Yale universities may origi-nate in allocations of financial resourcesthat unbalance the supply and demand ofinformation. Growth in collection devel-opment spending at Illinois-Urbana isroughly half that of the other two univer-sities. Are these differences significant inrelation to national spending on academicR&D? Academic R&D produces the pub-lications—primarily journal articles—thatare collected by these libraries. Throughbibliographic databases, citations, andother references, the published workproduct of academic R&D stimulates de-mand. The gap between what is publishedand what can be supplied locally presum-ably underlies the interlibrary borrowing.

Academic R&D spending increasedroughly eight times during 1974–1995.108

Output worldwide exhibited comparablegrowth.109,110 Collection developmentspending by Harvard, Yale, and Illinois-Urbana universities increased seven, six,

and four times, respectively.111 All fellshort, compared to academic R&D invest-ment, and showed rising CFQ scores. TheUniversity of Illinois-Urbana library’sspending fell most short of the rising de-mand for information; it demonstrated thesharpest CFQ rise.

Dramatic as the CFQ’s relationshipwith the gap in collection developmentspending and R&D growth may appear tobe, it would be necessary to establish con-texts for the performances indicated bythe data. Figure 3 indicates dramaticchanges in the CFQ scores of the Univer-sity of Illinois-Urbana, rising sharply inthe 1980s to peak at 251 in 1989, thendropping precipitously in 1990. A seriesof events affecting information supplyand demand is reflected by these data.Although it is beyond the scope of thisarticle to develop detailed contexts for asingle CFQ history, the arc in Figure 3raises some interesting general issues.

CFQ scores may be affected by alter-natives to interlibrary borrowing. Whenlibrary service fails to meet Buckland’smeasure, users may resort to other strate-gies. These include bypassing the libraryentirely, a user tactic that would producelow CFQ scores and cloud other indica-tors of collection performance, includinginterviews taken in the library. This pos-sibility creates a basic problem in assign-ing weight to any operating ratio used tomeasure effectiveness. A CFQ must beplaced in a context. Relating to a CFQ,users’ options, such as commercial docu-ment delivery services, travel to other li-brary collections, resource sharing by net-worked researchers (in contrast tonetworked libraries), and the direct pur-chase of books and periodicals by theirusers, are generally undocumented by li-brary managers or by anyone else.Clearly, the growth of such alternativesinvites further research into patterns ofdissemination and the behavior of stu-dents, faculty, and researchers.

Although the patrons sampled in Jack-son’s survey were, “very satisfied withILL [interlibrary loan] services,” Jacksonmakes no claim that patrons felt the aver-age 16-day turnaround was a desirablesubstitute for the immediate access pro-vided by open stacks.112The flaw in Jack-son’s method was that no control groupserved to measure results. Consider thesituation of the average researcher whoreceives a photocopy after 16 days anddiscovers unfamiliar but obviously impor-tant citations. The intellectual origins of apaper traced through citations routinely

cross interdisciplinary boundaries andmay not be fully disclosed in the latestpublication.113 Interlibrary borrowing ser-vice is obviously so out of synch with thisresearcher’s needs as to be unacceptable.Buckland wrote, “Since a user considersthat the library is unlikely to hold a givenitem, then he may not bother to seek it inthe library.”114 Thus, low CFQ scoresmay indicate library collections servemembers well. Or, it may indicate thelibrary is shunned and its performance isirrelevant.

Users may be provoked into bypassingthe library by impoverishment that ren-ders it incapable of providing service.James Shapiro told us:

I’m embarrassed to report that my own uni-versity, Columbia, with one of the largestcollections in the country, ranked far lower[than Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Yale,and Chicago “libraries that are still a plea-sure to use”], spending a meager 2.55%, or$28 million, on its libraries (which helpsexplain why I have had to spend so muchtime at other libraries and why a survey byColumbia’s library revealed that more than90% of Columbia’s professors no longer setfoot in the main library).115

Columbia University’s CFQ scoreswere relatively low, perhaps becausemany of its members avoid, rather thanuse, its library as Shapiro describes. Hegoes on:

Universities are seeing serious threats to col-lections that in some cases have taken 200years or more to accumulate. . . . In the1970s, it was possible for a scholar in thehumanities to undertake serious research atany one of 60 or 70 top university libraries.A decade from now, I suspect that this num-ber will be reduced by half, at least.116

Growth of collection developmentspending at Columbia University approx-imates the growth of academic R&D,nearly eight times during 1974–1997.117,118

This appears to rule out a simple imbal-ance of library/research growth as thecause of Shapiro’scri de coeur. It is likelythat another factor has upset supply anddemand. For instance, if university pro-grams expand faster than the library, fail-ures in library performance might wellfollow. Columbia University’s allocationof spending on its library dropped from3.22% to 2.93% of the educational and gen-eral expenditures during 1979–1990119

Shapiro commented that it reached a newlow at 2.55%.120This represents a drop of20% in nearly 20 years. Jacques Barzunindicated that Columbia University and

Figure 3


its peers spent about 6% of its budget onits libraries during the late 1960s.121Fromthat benchmark, the overall cut would bemore than half. Although Columbia Uni-versity’s library might have kept up withdemand appropriate for its 1974 pro-grams, perhaps by 1995 its total programshad greater needs.

Harold E. Varmus, director of the Na-tional Institutes of Health, recently en-riched the picture of bypassing libraryservices. He complained to a congres-sional committee that researchers wereusing grants to purchase journals, presum-ably ones no longer supplied by the li-brary, costing the agency “millions of dol-lars.”122 This user tactic has probablygrown. Using outside funds, such asgrants, to purchase subscriptions was re-ported by 8% of 750 individuals surveyednearly 20 years ago.123 At that time, thecancellation of library subscriptions ac-counted for just over 1% of responses byindividuals. Roughly 20% indicated theyformerly used a library copy, but this hadbecome impractical. The disappearance ofoutside funds, such as grants, accountedfor cancellation of journals by near 7% ofrespondents. The number one reason forlibrary cancellations was given as budgetcurtailments. Based on the continuing ag-gressive library cancellations reported bypublishers and libraries, it is not unrea-sonable to speculate that those responseswould be more numerous if the samestudy were done today.

Leon Litwack described a more radicalexample of bypassing not only the library,but the entire institution. “We have al-ready sustained losses in faculty and grad-uate students directly related to the dete-riorating quality of the library, and thistrend will be accelerated.”124 As outgoingchair of the University of California-Ber-keley academic senate’s library commit-tee, Litwack summarized concerns raisedby faculty, students, and staff: “The grav-ity of the crisis cannot be overstated.”125

Like Columbia University, the Universityof California-Berkeley’s CFQ scores in-dicate a relatively stable, low mean. Ber-keley’s spending on collection develop-ment grew 5.5 times, well short of theeight times growth of academic R&D.More important, perhaps, library spend-ing as a percentage of total educationaland general spending during 1979–1990dropped nearly 20%.126 Collection devel-opment spending peaked at Berkeley in1995, turning down in the followingyears.127

White points out that information pol-

icies favor library savings over researchproductivity, a penny-wise pound-foolisheconomy in the eyes of an informationscientist.128 The fundamental economicsof research emphasize the timeliness, ac-curacy, and usefulness of dissemination.The system of science journals in theUnited States places two thirds of theeconomic burden on its users who devotethe most resources of time and money toacquiring and reading; the balance is di-vided among libraries, publishers, andauthors.129 The users’ burden is undoubt-edly shared by the sponsors who under-write their expenditures. To the extentthat research is hampered by collectionfailures, users and their sponsors sufferfrom duplication and error that may rangeinto the billions of dollars annually.

A high CFQ may imply such losses aspart of the dynamic interaction of supplyand demand. Brown pointed out that fi-nancial support for libraries has notgrown at the same pace as the researchexpenditures that have spurred the growthof the literature130Supply and demand areout of step, he observes, probably becausethe agencies that finance research are sep-arate from those financing libraries. Pres-ident Dwight D. Eisenhower warned thatthe research contracts had replaced intel-lectual curiosity.131 Perhaps administra-tive indifference to the rising CFQ and theimplications of wasted research dollars isrelated. Perhaps the dogmatic pursuit of“access not ownership” will destroy re-search communications in addition todec-imating library collections. The present sit-uation suggested to D. J. Brown that thenew media options will not survive if uni-versities are unwilling to provide a marketfor them.132

CONCLUSION

If the measure of library service is thatpatrons obtain what they seek when theyseek it, the CFQ is indeed an indicator offailure. Its most appropriate uses are tomeasure changes over a period of timeand in comparison with peer libraries. Asan operating ratio that reflects supply anddemand, responding to patron behavior inthe context of a growing collection, it canhelp to evaluate library performance andto make decisions about the effective bal-ance of resource allocations. As a directreflection of “access not ownership,” itmay provide both local and global per-spectives. As a “crime statistic,” it maysupport improvements in financial sup-port and service innovations. It is anindicator that can be calculated for any

library keeping interlibrary loan and col-lection size statistics, providing a tool forcomparisons with peer collections of anysize.

“If the measure of libraryservice is that patrons obtain

what they seek when they seekit, the CFQ is indeed an

indicator of failure.”

Not that the CFQ offers a complete orprecise evaluation of collection perfor-mance or the contribution of the library toits universities’ mission of research andeducation. The CFQ must be used in asetting that considers context and otherinfluences, including related allocationsof resources and external growth of aca-demic R&D. It cannot assess failures inbrowsing or timeliness of access. Indeed,where patrons bypass the library, the CFQunder-reports failures of collection per-formance.

More important, perhaps, is the CFQ’sillumination of financial allocation poli-cies justified by 1970s photocopyingtechnology, “library fair use,” and newerapplications of IT to research communi-cations. The grand theory of administra-tors has not been evaluated through anytest of information science. Researchers,faculty, and other library users haveraised serious challenges. The CFQ maywell provide a tool that will help sort outthe wisdom of “access not ownership.”

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. The phrase “directors of information pol-icy” refers to university and governmentagency managers, legislators, and otherswho influence or control spending onsponsored research and libraries.

2. D. J. Brown,Electronic Publishing andLibraries. Planning for the Impact andGrowth to 2003(London: Bowker-Saur,1996).

3. M. K. Buckland, Redesigning LibraryServices: A Manifesto(Chicago, IL:American Library Association, 1992).

4. W. Crawford & M. Gorman,Future Li-braries: Madness, Dreams, and Reality(Chicago, IL: American Library Associa-tion. 1995).

5. M. Gorman, “The Treason of theLearned,”Library Journal119(3) (Febru-ary 15, 1994): 130–131.

6. A. Henderson, “Information Science andInformation Policy. The Use of ConstantDollars and Other Indicators to Manage

May 2000 167

Research Investments,”Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science50 (April 1999): 366–379.

7. M. K. Buckland, Book Availability andthe Library User(Oxford, England: Per-gamon Press, 1975).

8. Ibid., p. 141.9. F. C. A. Exon & K. F. Punch, “The Self-

sufficient Library Collection: A Test ofAssumptions,”Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science48(1997): 11–16.

10. F. Rider,The Scholar and the Future ofthe Research Library (New York:Hadham Press, 1944).

11. Ibid., pp. 8–9.12. D. J. de S. Price,Science Since Babylon

(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1961; Enlarged ed., 1975).

13. Ibid., p. 173.14. J. C. Baughman & M. E. Kieltyka, “Fare-

well to Alexandria: Not Yet!” LibraryJournal124(5) (March 15, 1999): 48–52.

15. N. A. Van House, “Library Resources andResearch Productivity in Science and En-gineering: Report of a Pilot Study,” inCommunications in Support of Scienceand Engineering. A Report to the NationalScience Foundation. (Washington, D.C.:Council on Library Resources, 1990). pp.IV B-1–IV B-54.

16. A. Henderson, “The Bottleneck in Re-search Communications,”Publishing Re-search Quarterly 10(4) (Winter1994–1995): 5–21.

17. Derek J. de Solla Price,Little Science, BigScience—And Beyond(New York: Co-lumbia University Press, 1963; Enlargeded., 1986), p. 17.

18. National Science Board,Science & Engi-neering Indicators 1998 NSB 98–1(Ar-lington, VA: National Science Founda-tion, 1998), Appendix Table 5–2.

19. R. T. Kaser, “Secondary Information Ser-vices: Mirrors of Scholarly Communica-tion,” Publishing Research Quarterly11(3) (Fall 1995): 10–24.

20. A. Henderson, “Information Science.”21. S. G. Brush, Sankar Das Sarma, Michael

E. Fisher, Edward Ott, & Azriel Rosen-feld, “A Library as Good as the FootballTeam? Professors Seek AdministrationCommitment on Library,”Faculty Voice(College Park, MD) 11(4) (February1997): 1–4.

22. L. Litwack, “Has the Library Lost ItsSoul?”California Monthly: The Magazineof the California Alumni Association108(4) (February 1998). Available:http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/monthly/monthlyindex/febo98/library.html.

23. J. Shapiro, “University Libraries: The7-Per-Cent Solution,” Chronicle ofHigher EducationXLIV(16) (December12, 1997): B4–5.

24. M. Kyrillidou, “Introduction,” inARL Sta-tistics 1996–97,edited by M. Kyrillidou,M. O’Connor, & J. Blixrud (Washington,

D.C.: Association of Research Libraries,1998), pp. 5–17.

25. M. E. Jackson, “Measuring the Performanceof Interlibrary Loan and Document DeliveryServices,” ARL: A Bimonthly Newsletter195 (December 1997) [Online]. Available:http://www.arl.org/newsltr/195/illdd.html;See also M. E. Jackson, “Loan Stars. ILLComes of Age,”Library Journal 123(2)(February 1, 1998): 44–47.

26. Ibid.27. OCLC Online Computer Library Center,

Inc., “Resource Sharing and the 10th An-niversary of the OCLC Interlibrary LoanSubsystem,”OCLC Newsletter180 (July/August 1989): 12–16. Table indicates thatinterlibrary loan fill rates, excluding can-celed requests, dropped from 91.6% to89.7% between 1979–1988, and averagefill times increased from 11.1 days to 12.4days.

28. R. Bustos,Interlibrary Loan in CollegeLibraries, Clip Note #16 (Chicago, IL:American Library Association, 1993).

29. Kaser, “Secondary Information Services.”30. M. M. Roche,ARL/RLG Interlibrary Loan

Cost Study(Washington, D.C.: Associa-tion of Research Libraries, 1993).

31. P. R. Paustian, “Collection Size and Inter-library Loan in Large Academic Librar-ies,” Library Research3 (1981): 393–400.

32. W. J. Baumol & S. A. B. Blackman,“Electronics, the Cost Disease, and theOperation of Libraries,”Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science34 (1983): 181–191.

33. E. Mitchell & S. A. Walters,DocumentDelivery Services: Issues and Answers(Medford, NJ: Learned Information,1995), pp. 8–9.

34. U.S. National Commission on New Tech-nological Uses of Copyright Works,FinalReport (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1978).

35. U.S. Library of Congress, Register ofCopyrights, Library Reproduction ofCopyrighted Works (17 U.S.C. 108) Sec-ond Report. PB88–212014(Washington,D.C.: National Technical Information Ser-vice, 1988).

36. M. Gorman, “The Treason of the Learned,”Library Journal119(3) (1994): 130–131.

37. A. S. Okerson, “The Transition to Elec-tronic Content Licensing: The Institu-tional Context in 1997,” inTechnologyand Scholarly Communication,edited byR. Ekman & R. E. Quandt (Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 1999), pp.53–70.

38. Kyrillidou, “Introduction,” Table 3.39. Crawford & Gorman,Future Libraries,

Chapter 7.40. R. L. Trueswell, “Some Behavioral Pat-

terns of Library Users: The 80/20 Rule,”Wilson Library Bulletin 458 (January1969): 461.

41. R. L. Trueswell, “Growing Libraries:Who Needs Them? A Statistical Basis for

the No-growth Collection,” inFarewell toAlexandria: Solutions to Space, Growth,and Performance Problems of Libraries,edited by Daniel Gore (Westport, CT:Greenwood Press, 1976), pp. 72–104.

42. Ibid.43. A. Kent, K. L. Montgomery, J. Cohen,

J. G. Williams, D. L. Shirey, S. Bulick, R.Flynn, W. N. Sabor, U. Mansfield, J. R.Kern, & M. Miller. A Cost-Benefit Modelof Some Critical Library Operations inTerms of Use of Materials(Springfield,VA: National Technical Information Ser-vice, 1978; NTIS PB 282 059).

44. Ibid., p. ii.45. Ibid., pp. 1–2.46. C. Borkowski & M. J. N. MacLeod, “Re-

port on the Kent Study of Library Use: aUniversity of Pittsburgh Reply,”LibraryAcquisitions: Practice and Theory3(1979): 125–151.

47. R. N. Broadus, “The Use of Serial Titlesin Libraries with Special Reference to thePittsburgh Study,”Collection Manage-ment5 (1983): 27–41.

48. R. M. Hayes, “The Distribution and Useof Library Materials: Analysis of Datafrom the University of Pittsburgh,”Li-brary Research3 (1981): 215–260.

49. M. J. Voigt, “Circulation Studies CannotReflect Research Use,”Journal of Aca-demic Librarianship5 (1979): 66.

50. A. M. Cummings, M. L. Witte, W. G.Bowen, L. O. Lazarus, & R. H. Ekman,University Libraries and Scholarly Com-munication (Washington, D.C.: Associa-tion of Research Libraries, 1992), p. xxiv.

51. W. G. Bowen, “How Libraries Can Helpto Pay Their Way in the Future,”Logos7(1996): 237–241.

52. R. Ekman & R. E. Quandt, editors,Tech-nology and Scholarly Communication(Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress, 1999).

53. The “productivity paradox” refers to dis-appointments in failure to realize cost sav-ings from information technology on ascale realized from mechanical technol-ogy. Information economists, such asFritz Machlup, had pointed out that infor-mation productivity comes in output thatreduces error and duplication (rather thansaving labor). See F. Machlup,The Pro-duction and Distribution of Knowledge inthe United States(Princeton, NJ: Univer-sity Press, 1962), p. 188. See also Baumol& Blackman, “Electronics . . . .”

54. K. Hunter, “Things That Keep Me Awakeat Night,” Against the Grain9 (February1997): 40–42, 74.

55. C. B. Lowry & D. A. Troll, “Carnegie-Mellon University and University Micro-films International ‘Virtual libraryproject,’” Serials Librarian 28 (1996):143–169.

56. Mitchell & Walters,Document DeliveryServices.

57. R. E. Quandt & R. Ekman, “Electronic


Publishing, Digital Libraries, and theScholarly Environment,” inTechnologyand Scholarly Communication,pp. 1–14.

58. T. K. Lindsey, “Copyright Fees Escalat-ing,” Newsletter on Serials Prices Issues101 (November 23, 1993).

59. R. W. Meyer, “Consortial Access VersusOwnership,” inTechnology and ScholarlyCommunication,pp. 223–249.

60. W. P. Zahray & M. Sirbu, “The Provisionof Scholarly Journals by Libraries ViaElectronic Technologies: An EconomicAnalysis,” Information Economics andPolicy 4 (1989/1990): 127–154.

61. A. Okerson & K. Stubbs, “Remembranceof Things Past, Present . . . andFuture?,”Publishers Weekly239 (July 27, 1992):22–23.

62. Association of Information and Dissemi-nation Centers,ASIDIC Survey of Docu-ment Delivery Services 1996 Report(Ath-ens, GA: ASIDIC 1996).

63. A. H. Perrault, “The Shrinking NationalCollection. A Study of the Effects of theDiversion of Funds from Monographs toSerials on the Monograph Collections ofResearch Libraries,”Library Acquisitions:Practice and Theory18 (1994): 3–22.

64. C. A. Schwartz, “Modeling Scholarly Lit-erature,” Publishing Research Quarterly10(2) (Summer 1994): 29–35.

65. C. A. Schwartz, “Empirical Analysis ofLiterature Loss,”Library Resources andTechnical Services38 (1994): 133–138.

66. B. M. Fry & H. S. White,Economics andInteraction of the Publisher-Library Rela-tionship in the Production and Use ofScholarly and Research Journals(Wash-ington, D.C.: National Science Founda-tion, 1975). Reprinted asPublishers andLibraries: A Study of Scholarly and Re-search Journals(Lexington, MA: DCHeath, 1976).

67. National Enquiry into Scholarly Commu-nication, Scholarly Communication. TheReport(Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hop-kins University Press, 1979).

68. R. Talbot, “Lean Years and Fat Years:Lessons to Be Learned—College and Re-search Libraries,”Bowker Annual(1984),pp. 74–82.

69. Advisory Panel for Scientific Publica-tions, “The Cost Effectiveness of ScienceJournals,”Publishing Research Quarterly8(3) (Fall 1992): 72–91.

70. A. Henderson,Cost Effectiveness of Sci-ence Journals. Supplement to The ReportPublished In Publishing Research Quar-terly Fall 1992 (Bridgeport, CT: AlbertHenderson, 1992).

71. Cummings et al.University Libraries andScholarly Communication,Chapter 3.

72. U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics,Status ofAcademic Libraries in the United States,NCES 97–413 (Washington, D.C.: Gov-ernment Printing Office, 1997).

73. Henderson, “Information Science and In-formation Policy.”

74. Crawford & Gorman,Future Libraries,pp. 148–149.

75. Anonymous, “To Publish and Perish,”Policy Perspectives7(4) (March 1998).

76. U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics,Digest ofEducation Statistics 1997,NCES 98–015(Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, 1998) Tables 327, 334. “Unspentrevenues” refers to the revenues, shown inTable 327, that remain after subtracting allexpenditures shown in Table 334.

77. A. Henderson, “Solving Library Puzzles,”Against the Grain11(6) (December 1999/January 2000): 32.

78. ARL Statistics,Data series Produced byAssociation of Research Libraries, up-dated annually [Online]. Available:ftp://www.arl.org/stat/machineandhttp://www.arl/org/stats/stat.html.

79. Quandt & Ekman, “Electronic Publish-ing,” p. 3.

80. D. H. Harris, editor,Organizational Link-ages: Understanding the ProductivityParadox (Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press, 1994).

81. Baumol & Blackman, “Electronics . . . .”82. B. R. Kingma,The Economics of Access

versus Ownership: The Costs and Benefitsof Access to Scholarly Articles via Inter-library Loan and Journal Subscriptions(Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 1996).

83. V. Bush,Science—The Endless Frontier,NSF 90–8 (Washington, D.C.: NationalScience Foundation, 1945; Reprint 1990),p. 19.

84. Brown,Electronic Publishing and Librar-ies,pp. 41–43.

85. Henderson, “Information Science and In-formation Policy.”

86. H. S. White, “The 26-mile, 380-yard Mar-athon,”Library Journal115(19) (Novem-ber 15, 1990): 51–52.

87. Ibid.88. Machlup,The Production and Distribu-

tion of Knowledge,p. 145ff.89. H. Oldenburg, “Introduction,”Philosoph-

ical Transactions [of the Royal Society,London] 1 (1665).

90. Machlup,The Production and Distribu-tion of Knowledge,p. 188.

91. D. W. King, J.-M. Griffiths, N. K. Ro-derer, & R. R. V. Wiederkehr,Value ofthe Energy Data Base,DOE/OR/11212–1(DE82014250) (Oak Ridge, TN: Techni-cal Information Center, U.S. DepartmentOf Energy, 1982).

92. J. Martyn, “Unintentional Duplication ofResearch,”New Scientist377 (1964): 388.

93. H. S. White, “Fairy Tales from the Won-derful World of Library Politics,”LibraryJournal 120 (January 1995): 58, 60.

94. B.-A. Lipetz, “Catalog Use in a LargeResearch Library,”Library Quarterly 42(1972): 129–39.

95. P. M. Morse,Library Effectiveness: A

Systems Approach(Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press, 1968).

96. W. N. Saracevic, M. Shaw, & P. B. Kantor,“Causes and Dynamics of User Frustrationin an Academic Library,”College & Re-search Libraries38 (January 1977): 7–18.

97. R. Tagliacozzo & M. Kochen, “Informa-tion Seeking Behavior of Catalog Users,”Information Storage and Retrieval6(1970): 363–381.

98. A. Lakos, “The State of Performance Mea-surement in Libraries: A Report from the2nd Northumbria International Confer-ence,”ARL Newsletter197 (1998) [Online].Available: http://www.arl.org/newsltr/197/perform.html.

99. M. Kyrillidou, Developing Indicators forAcademic Library Performance: Ratiosfrom the ARL Statistics 1993–94 and1994–95(Washington, D.C.: Associationof Research Libraries, 1996).

100. Henderson, “The Bottleneck in ResearchCommunications.”

101. National Science Board,Science & En-gineering Indicators 1998, Appendix Ta-ble 5–4.

102. Association of Research Libraries,Re-port of the ARL Serials Prices Project(Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1989).

103. U.S. Department of Education,Digest ofEducation Statistics 1997,Table 334.

104. Association of Research Libraries,Re-port of the ARL Serials Prices Project.

105. M. Tuttle, “The Newsletter on SerialsPrices Issues,”Public-Access ComputerSystems Review2 (1991): 111–127.

106. Association of College and Research Li-braries, “Standards for University Li-braries: Evaluation of Performance,”College and Research Library News50(1989): 679–691. Prior revision printedin College & Research Library News40(1979): 158–167.

107. SeeARL Statistics.108. National Science Board,Science & En-

gineering Indicators 1998, Appendix Ta-ble 5–2.

109. Kaser, “Secondary Information Services.”110. Henderson, “Information Science.”111. SeeARL Statistics.112. Jackson, “Measuring the Performance of

Interlibrary Loan.”113. An excellent demonstration of founda-

tions of discovery is offered by G. Hol-ton, H. Chang, & E. Jurkowitz, “How aScientific Discovery Is Made: A CaseHistory,” American Scientist84 (1996):364–375.

114. Buckland,Book Availability and the Li-brary User,p. 45.

115. J. Shapiro, “University Libraries: The7-Per-Cent Solution,” Chronicle ofHigher EducationXLIV(16) (December12, 1997): B4–B5.

116. Ibid.117. See ARL Statistics.118. National Science Board,Science & Engi-

May 2000 169

neering Indicators 1998, Appendix Table5–2.

119. Cummings et al.,University Librariesand Scholarly Communication,p. 33.

120. Shapiro, “University Libraries: The7-Per-Cent Solution.”

121. J. Barzun,The American University(Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress, 1968; 2nd ed. with a new intro-duction, 1993), pp. 174, 196.

122. P. W.Campbell, “NIH May Use the Inter-net to Distribute Findings of Research Fi-

nanced by Its Grants,”Chronicle of HigherEducation45(35) (May 7, 1999): A33.

123. H. S. White, “Factors in the Decision byIndividuals and Libraries to Place orCancel Subscriptions to Scholarly andResearch Journals,”Library Quarterly50 (1980): 287–309.

124. Litwack, “Has the Library Lost Its Soul?”125. Ibid.126. Cummings et al.,University Libraries

and Scholarly Communication,p. 33.127. SeeARL Statistics.

128. White, “The 26-mile, 380-yard Mara-thon.”

129. D. W. King, D. D. McDonald, & N. K.Roderer, Scientific Journals in theUnited States. Their Production, Use,and Economics. (Stroudsburg, PA.:Hutchinson Ross, 1981), p. 221.

130. Brown, Electronic Publishing and Li-braries,pp. 41–43.

131. D. D. Eisenhower,Farewell Address(January 17, 1961).

132. Brown, Electronic Publishing and Li-braries,p. 152.


the library collection failure quotient: the ratio of interlibrary borrowing to collection size

Documents