Acquisitions allocations: Fairness, equity and bundled pricing

Portal

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 209-224

  Packer, Donna ^a  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1542303166     PISSN: 15312542     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/pla.2001.0048     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Melanie Harris, "Division of Funds Within the Library: Allocation of the Materials Budget in an Academic Library," Australian Library Review 9 (May 1992): 99-101.
2. Shirk, Gary M. "Allocation Formulas For Budgeting Library Materials: Science or Procedure?" Collection Management 6 (3/4) (1985): 38.
3. Others who make similar complaints include Jasper G. Schad, who thought formulas are attractive "because they seem fair" and noted that "allocation decisions are often heavily influenced by extraneous factors, such as campus politics and power," in his article "Fairness in Book Fund Allocation," College & Research Libraries 48 (1987): 484.
4. Charles W. Brownson, "Modelling Library Materials Expenditure: Initial Experiments at Arizona State University," Libranj Resources and Technical Services 35 (January 1991): 93 states that "allocation formulas seek to control selection by constraining development with limits on growth, with the constraints being thought to relate in some way to collection development policy." However, it could be argued that any allocation, no matter how derived, acts as a constraint. At Arizona State at the time of Brownson's writing, there were sufficient funds to provide for "core materials" through approval plans, blanket orders, subscriptions, and other "non-discretionary" items "too essential to risk" through what Brownson considers imperfect allocation plans.
5. Richard Hume Werking, "Allocating the Academic Library's Book Budget: Historical Perspectives and Current Reflections," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (3): 143.
6. Others who make similar defenses include David S. Sullivan, "Budgeting for Users:Rethinking the Materials Budget," The Acquisitions Librarian 6 (1991): 15-27.
7. Laura O. Rein et al., "Formula-Based Subject Allocation: a Practical Approach," Collection Management 17 (4) (1993): 25-48.
8. Interestingly, John M. Budd and Kay Adams, in their 1987 survey of acquisitions allocation practices, specifically asked whether libraries used an allocation formula. They found that of 129 libraries responding affirmatively, 100 (77.5 percent) indicated they are pleased with this means of allocation, and 105 (85.4 percent) stated that, to the best of their knowledge, the faculty is pleased with the formula.
9. John M. Budd and Kay Adams, "Allocation Formulas in Practice", Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 13 (1989):385.
10. Mollie Niemeyer et al reported in 1993 that reaction from teaching faculty at Central Missouri State University to the use of a formula showed general satisfaction.
11. Mollie Niemeyer et al, "Balancing Act for Library Materials Budgets: Use of a Formula Allocation", Technical Services Quarterly 11(1) (1993): 43-60.
12. Werking, 143.
13. For example, the new Grove's Dictionaries publications, such as the New Grove Dictionary of Opera Online and the Nezv Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2d ed.) Online and the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics Online (published by the Institute of Physics and distributed by Grove's).
14. The American Chemical Society, for example, charges institutions a lower rate for print only than for web only or print plus web subscriptions. (2001 rates are posted at: http:// pubs.acs.org/rates200l/inst/print.html for print, and web and print plus web at http:// pubs.acs.org/rates20O1/inst/veb.html (both most recently verified on December 20, 2000).
15. Donna Packer, "Acquisitions Allocations: Equity, Politics and Formulas," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (November 1988): 276-286.
16. Joanne Schneider Lopez, "The Great Leveller: the Library Budget," Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 12 (2) (1988): 230.
17. David S. Sullivan, 20.