Cooperative collection development at the Research Triangle university libraries: A model for the nation

College and Research Libraries

Volumn 54, Issue 6, 1993, Pages 470-496

  Dominguez, Patricia Buck ^a   Swindler, Luke ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21344487837     PISSN: 00100870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5860/crl_54_06_470     Document Type: Article

References (133)

1. Indeed, Joe Hewitt and John S. Shipman found that "the theoretical necessity and potential benefits of cooperative collection development are almost universally recognized," and even "libraries reporting no cooperative collection development activity seemed as favorably disposed to the idea of cooperative collection development as those in libraries actively engaged in programs." "Cooperative Collection Development among Research Libraries in the Age of Networking: Report of a Survey of ARL Libraries," Advances in Library Automation and Networking 1 (1987): 191, 198.
2. Database Overlap Study (Chapel Hill, N.C.: TRLN, Oct. 31, 1988), .
3. and TRLN Database Overlap Study (Chapel Hill, N.C.: TRLN, May 1992).
4. Quoted in Minutes of the Department Heads Meeting (Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH), Oct. 24, 1989, 2.
5. U. S. House, Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965: Library Programs (Serial No. 102-35) (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1991): 42.
6. Hewitt and Shipman found only one cooperative collection development program among ARL institutions older than that of the Research Triangle university libraries- and it is confined to the field of religion. 202.
7. Before the creation of the university system in 1963, "UNC" consisted only of the Chapel Hill campus; after that date the formal designation of "Chapel Hill" was added.
8. Robert Estall, Population Change: The American South (London: John Murray, 1989), 5.
9. Louis R. Wilson, The Library of the First State University: A Review of Its Past and a Look at Its Future (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Library, 1960), 23, 27.
10. For statistics on collection size, growth, and expenditures during this period, see Robert E. Molyneux, The Gerould Statistics, 1907/08-1961/62 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1986).
11. and U.S. Advisory Committee on Education, Library Service, report prepared by Carleton B. Joeckel (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off., 1938): 91.
12. For concise discussions of regionalism and the New South ideology, see Charles Reagon Wilson and William Ferris, Encyclopedia of Southern Culture (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Pr., 1989): 1113-15, 1121-22.
13. (Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C., 1935), 7-8.
14. Program of Cooperation, 9.
15. General Education Board, Annual Report 1947/48, 45.
16. See also its Annual Report, 1933/34, 23-25, and 1934/35, 33.
17. Raymond B. Fosdick, Adventure in Giving: The Story of the General Education Board: A Foundation Established by John D. Rockefeller (New York: Harper, 1962), 269-73.
18. E. Morrell, letter to Frank [Porter] Graham, Apr. 6, 1934, and R. B. House, letter to [Robert Diggs Wimberly] Conner, May 14, 1934, Chancellor's Records, R. B. House Series, Faculty Affairs, Special Committees: Intellectual Cooperation with Duke, 1929-1934, University Archives, UNC-CH: 1.
19. Proposed Principles of Procedure for Cooperative Buying Program on the Part of the Libraries of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, n.d., Academic Affairs Library, Librarian's Records, Duke University-University of North Carolina Library Cooperation, 1930-1933, University Archives, UNC-CH.
20. UNC, Report of the Division of Library and Library School 1935/36, 1.
21. General Education Board, Annual Report 1933/34, 33.
22. Memorandum to President Graham on Application to the General Education Board for Funds for Library Research Materials, May 2, 1935, 3, Chancellor's Records, R. B. House Series, Committee on Intellectual Cooperation with Duke University, University Archives, UNC-CH; and Request for Aid in Developing Reference and Research Facilities in the Libraries of the University of North Carolina and Duke University (and its appendices) [May 4, 1935], 15, Libraries Records, Cooperation with UNC Library, AEB Acquisitions, University Archives, Duke University.
23. Robert B. Downs and Harvie Branscomb, "A Venture in University Library Cooperation," Library Journal 60 (Nov. 15, 1935): 877-79;.
24. and Harvie Branscomb and Robert B. Downs, "A Plan for University Library Cooperation," School and Society 42 (July 13, 1935): 64-66.
25. These principles and the specific guidelines for interpreting them are embodied in the Proposed Principles; see also articles by Downs and Branscomb, cited in n.20.
26. "Desiderata," Library Notes (Duke University), no. 15 (Dec. 1945): 13.
27. Robert B. Downs, "American Library Cooperation in Review," College & Research Libraries 6 (1945): 415.
28. Robert B. Downs, "American Library Cooperation in Review," College & Research Libraries 6 (1945): 415, Ibid.
29. Program of Cooperation, 10.
30. Program of Cooperation, 10-11.Ibid.
31. Request for Aid, 12.
32. Request for Aid, 12., Ibid.
33. Request for Aid, 13., Ibid.
34. Request for Aid appendices.
35. Report to General Education Board on Expenditure of Grant to Duke University and the University of North Carolina Libraries for Research Materials, Nov. 16, 1937, 2, Libraries Records, Cooperation with UNC Library, AEB Acquisitions, University Archives, Duke University.
36. [Robert Downs], letter to Harvie Branscomb, July 6, 1936.
37. Duke Documents, 1936-1959, University Archives, Duke University.
38. Cooperation with the University of North Carolina Library in the Collection of Public Documents, Duke Documents, 1936-1959, University Archives, Duke University.
39. See UNC, Report of the Division of Library and Library School 1936/37, 10;.
40. Memorandum of Conference with Mr. Nuremberger of Duke University Documents Department, Sept. 21, 1939, Duke Documents, 1936-59, University Archives, Duke University;.
41. and C. E. Rush, Concise Outline: Agreements and Understandings between the libraries [sic] of Duke University and the University of North Carolina Relative to Library Cooperation [Dec. 1, 1941], 2, Academic Affairs Library, Librarians' Records, Duke-UNC Cooperation: Memoranda, University Archives, UNC-CH. See also G. F. Sherperd, Jr., Carolina-Duke Cooperative Plan for Acquisitions of Documents, Apr. 10, 1942, Academic Affairs Library, Librarians' Records, Duke University-UNC Library Cooperation: 1942, University Archives, UNC-CH, in which the geographical division for state documents becomes more prominent.
42. UNC, Report of the Division of Library and Library School 1936/37, 2;.
43. and Academic Affairs Library, Librarians' Records, Carolina-Duke Cooperation, [1941?], Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, 1934-52, University Archives, UNC-CH, 1; see also Howard E. Jensen, "The Race Relations Collection of the Duke University Libraries," Library Notes (Duke University), no. 23 (Jan. 1950), 9-10.
44. Request for Aid in the Further Development of Materials for Advanced Study in the Libraries of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, [Jan. 1938], 2-3, Chancellor's Records, R. B. House Series, Committee on Intellectual Cooperation with Duke University, University Archives, UNC-CH.
45. Request for Aid in the Further Development, 5-6.
46. Carolina-Duke Cooperation, [1939], 1-2, Academic Affairs Library, Librarians' Records, Duke-UNC Cooperation, University Archives, UNC-CH.
47. Quoted in Friends of the Library (n. d.), 1;.
48. reprinted from The Alumni Review (UNC) (July 1940).
49. See Sturgis E. Leavitt, "University Cooperation," Paper delivered at the Bibliographical Conference, Washington, D.C., Feb. 21, 1942, in his Papers Presented at Various Meetings, 1935-1955, North Carolina Collection, UNC-CH.
50. "Cooperation in Advanced Instruction and Research," in Development of Library.Resources, 42;.
51. and Cooperation in Latin American Purchases Duke-UNC-Tulane, [Oct.? 1939] and Cooperation in Library Purchases between Duke University, Tulane University, the University of North Carolina: Policy and Procedures [1940?], Academic Affairs Library, Librarians' Records, Latin American Cooperative Program, 1938-41, University Archives, UNC-CH.
52. "A Grant for Books on Latin America," Library Notes (Duke University) no.9 (Oct. 1940), 4;.
53. and Rush, 5.
54. Cooperation in Library Purchases, 1-2.
55. "Grant," 4.
56. Cooperation in Library Purchases, 1-2.
57. Cooperation in Library Purchases, 1-2. Ibid.
58. UNC, Report of the Division of Library and Library School 1939/40, 2.
59. University of North Carolina and Duke University Program of Library Cooperation, [May 1, 1942], 2, Libraries: Records of Cooperation with UNC Library, University Archives, Duke University.
60. University of North Carolina and Duke University Program of Library Cooperation, [May 1, 1942], 2-3. See also E. Carl Pratt, "Library Cooperation at Duke and North Carolina Universities," College & Research Libraries 2 (1941): 142-45.
61. "A Grant from the Carnegie Corporation," Library Notes (Duke University), no.10 (May 1941): 5.
62. Memorandum on University of North Carolina and Duke University Program of Library Cooperation, Oct. 8, 1952, 1-2, Chancellors' Records: R. B. House Series, Committee on Intellectual Cooperation with Duke, University Archives, UNC-CH.
63. See B. E. Powell, "Library Cooperation between Duke University and the University of North Carolina," Library Notes (Duke University), no. 31 (Nov. 1955): 13-15.
64. Duke-Carolina Cooperation and Its Extension (DCCE), July 1, 1956, 2, Cooperative Programs Files, Collection Development Department, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH [source hereafter cited as CPF].
65. Cooperative Lending Program of the Libraries of Duke, North Carolina State College, the University of North Carolina and the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina, Aug. 26, 1955, 1, Libraries Records, Cooperation with UNC Library, University Archives, Duke University.
66. DCCE, 2-3.
67. DCCE, 2-3. Ibid.
68. DCCE, 2-3. Ibid.
69. After Tulane dropped out of the cooperative program for Latin America, Duke assumed responsibility for materials from Central America; UNC, for those from the Caribbean islands.
70. See correspondence between Gertrude Merritt (Duke) and Harry Bergholz (UNC) in the fall of 1959, CPF.
71. Benjamin E. Powell, letter to Jerrold Orne, June 9, 1961, and Orne, letter to Powell, June 22, 1961, CPF.
72. See Hendrik Edelman, "The Death of the Farmington Plan," Library Journal 98 (Apr. 15, 1973): 1253.
73. Duke University, The University Libraries: Report to the President 1963/64, 9.
74. John S. Curtiss, letter to Benjamin E. Powell, Apr. 17, 1962; and University of North Carolina-Duke University Cooperative Program in Russian and East European History, n.d.; both from Slavic Bibliographer's Files, Collection Development Department, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH.
75. Duke University-University of North Carolina Working Agreement on Africana Library Materials, [June 1, 1965], CPF; see also, Duke University, The University Libraries 1964/65, 5-6.
76. Tentative Selection Guidelines for Asian Materials, Mar. 15, 1972, Duke-UNC Cooperation, Administrative Offices, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH. These agreements were originally formulated in the fall of 1970.
77. Duke University, The University Libraries 1960/61, 6;.
78. and 1961/62, 4; and 1971/72, 2-3.
79. On the last aspect, see Gary D. Byrd et al., "The Evolution of a Cooperative Online Network," Library Journal 110, no.2 (Feb. 1, 1985): 71-77.
80. Minutes of UNC-CH/Duke Meeting, Jan. 27, 1977, 2, CPF.
81. Memorandum to Miss Florence Blakely, from John S. Shipman, Re Final Report, Title IIC, Strengthening Research Libraries Resources Program, Oct. 28, 1981, 1, CPF.
82. "Notes from the Hanes Meeting of October 15, 1981," 1, CPF, .
83. and John Shipman, 'Total Materials Funds Associated with Cooperative Purchases, FY 1979/80-FY 1991/92" (Chapel Hill, N. C: UNC-CH, Academic Affairs Library, Collection Development Department, Jan. 8, 1992).
84. See John Rutledge's articles: "Collecting French Regional History Cooperatively," Collection Management 8, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 63-77;.
85. and "Collecting Contemporary European Literature for a Research Library," Collection Management 5, no.1/2 (Spring/Summer 1983): 1-13.
86. Program for Cooperative Collection of French Regional Materials, Mar. 2, 1984, 1, West European Bibliographer's Files, Collection Development Department, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH.
87. James Rolleston, letter to John Rutledge, May 17, 1984; and Proposal for the Cooperative Collecting of Contemporary German Belles Lettres between UNC-CH and Duke University, [July 23, 1984], West European Bibliographer's Files, Collection Development Department, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH.
88. Helene Baumann, letter to John Rutledge, Jan. 11, 1989, and Rutledge, letter to Baumann, Jan. 27, 1989, West European Bibliographer's Files, Collection Development Department, Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH.
89. See the CLR grant proposal: Cooperative Information Resources Development: A Constituency Based Policy Analysis [Chapel Hill, N.C.], Oct. 10, 1990.
90. David Stam agrees, citing the experience of the Research Libraries Group (RLG). "Collaborative Collection Development: Progress, Problems and Potential," IFLA Journal, 12, no. 1 (1986): 18.
91. Richard M. Dougherty also shares this view: 'To a financially strapped administrator, cooperation may be seen as a way to generate real dollar savings or to justify future budget reductions. But dollars saved is the wrong measuring rod-library cooperation rarely generates identifiable dollar savings. Cooperative programs in resource sharing and/or shared collection development are better viewed as strategies to enlarge the universe of titles available to library users and/or to speed up the delivery of documents through interlibrary lending/borrowing systems. These two criteria, availability and delivery, are more appropriate measures of the success of cooperative programs." "A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Resource Sharing and Shared Collection Development Programs," Journal of Academic Librarianship, 14, no. 5, (Nov. 1988): 287.
92. See also Sheila T. Dowd, "Library Cooperation: Methods, Models to Aid Information Access," Journal of Library Administration, 12, no. 3 (1990): 66.
93. Hewitt and Shipman found that the expansion of the range of materials available to users, followed by a reduction in duplication, were also major objectives of cooperative programs among research libraries. 207.
94. Paul H. Mosher and Marcia Pankake in particular stress that "programs must be responsive and minimally threatening to local priorities" and that "emphasis should be on nonthreatening models which protect and recognize substantial and long-term institutional program commitments and seek to build on these." "A Guide to Coordinated and Cooperative Collection Development," Library Resources & Technical Services 27 (1983): 425.
95. Donald Simpson agrees. "Library Consortia and Access to Information: Costs and Cost Justification," Journal of Library Administration, 12, no. 3 (1990): 96.
96. Librarians in New York successfully established their cooperative collection development efforts on the assumption that "what libraries were actually doing in collection development in their institutions' self-interest, they would be willing to continue to do in the region's interest. No monitoring or enforcement had been built into the State's program. Enlightened self-interest was, therefore, both the only motivation for following the regional plan and a very appropriate one in a cooperative system." Joan Neumann, "Impact of New York's Collection Development Funds on Resource Sharing," Bookmark 45 (Fall 1986): 26-29.
97. Self-interest, coupled with financial incentives, has also been crucial to cooperation even for institutions within a system. See George J. Soete and Karin Wittenborg, "Applying a Strategic Planning Process to Resource Sharing: The Changing Face of Collaborative Collection Development among the University of California Libraries," Advances in Library Resource Storing 2 (1991): 56-57.
98. George Jefferson says that one of the early attempts at library cooperation in the British Isles failed because "allocation of purposely narrow subjects fields to encourage participation was done arbitrarily," and that "large libraries found ... it was difficult to reconcile this obligation with their duties to local readers." A more successful attempt in Wales assigned subject groups "after participating libraries had submitted their choice of subject." Eventually, however, there were so many objections "to the arbitrary allocation of subject fields," that librarians eventually retreated to an ad hoc method of acquisition. Jefferson attributes the success of a later experiment in the Newcastle area to the fact that "cooperative projects [were] founded on the realism of local circumstances and characterized by pragmatism rather than neat theoretical abstractions." Library Co-operation, 2d ed. (London: Andre Deutsch, 1977), 35-36 and 123.
99. Librarians in Australia are also basing their cooperative efforts on collection strengths as related to local university programs, an organic and therefore successful strategy. See Margaret A. Cameron, "Evaluation and Inter-institutional Cooperation in Collection Development," Australian Academic & Research Libraries 20 (Mar. 1989): 23-28.
100. When librarians base cooperative commitments on local needs, they obviate Maidel K. Cason's concerns about accountability in national efforts. "Accountability in Cooperative Collection Development: The Elusive Ingredient," in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities: Proceedings of the Third National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. Suzanne C. Dodson and Gary L. Menges (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 1984): 245-48.
101. David Stam points out that all cooperative efforts by the founding members of RLG "were entirely voluntary, thereby recognizing the continued autonomy of each institution." "Collaborative," 10.
102. This approach has been essential to the success of other cooperative programs. See Karen Krueger, "A System Level Coordinated Cooperative Collection development Model for Illinois," in Coordinating Cooperative Collection Development: A National Perspective, ed. Wilson Luquire (New York: Haworth Press, 1986), 53-54;.
103. Soete and Wittenborg, 56.
104. and Mosher and Pankake, 425.
105. Such a user-oriented approach allows cooperative programs to work even when institutions vary greatly in the breadth and depth of collections, as in the case of ILLINET libraries. See Krueger, 50-51.
106. In fact, Mosher and Pankake state that cooperative agreements should be reviewed every three to five years and modified to reflect any changes in practice. 429. Martha Smith stresses the same point. "Cooperative Collection Development for Rare Books among Neighboring Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 46 (1985): 160-67.
107. Hewitt and Shipman found ad hoc agreements on expensive research materials and the selection and cancellation of serials to be the most common form of cooperation among research libraries, while systematic divisions of responsibility based on subject, language, country of origin, or format were rare, and when they existed, they were narrow in scope. 191 and also 211-15.
108. Other cooperative ventures have had similar experiences. See Soete and Wittenborg, 53, 55, and 57, and Elizabeth Roberts, "Cooperation, Collection Management, and Scientific Journals," College & Research Libraries, 48 (1987): 247-51.
109. Elizabeth P. Roberts gives an example of such a program between the libraries of Washington State University and the University of Idaho, where UI has responsibility for journals in forestry and mining; WSU, for veterinary medicine, because the other institution does not have academic programs in those areas. "Cooperation," 247-51, .
110. and "Cooperative Collection Development of Science Serials," Serials Librarian 14, no. 1/2 (1988): 19-31.
111. More broadly, David Stam, among others, states that the North American Collections Inventory Project's Conspectus was designed "to present a composite picture of collection strengths and current collection practices in participating libraries." Librarians are using information about these unique collection strengths to build systematic cooperative programs on a national scale. "Collaborative," 11.
112. This was the approach that the Farmington Plan and its national-level successors later adopted. More recently, local and regional cooperative programs, such as the Northwest Regional Consortium for Southeast Asian Studies, have assigned specialized collecting responsibilities for specific foreign countries to their member libraries. On the latter, see Marian Ritter, "Four Paradigms for Sharing Library Resources," College & Research Libraries News 52 (1991): 367.
113. David C. Weber noted that timing is often critical to successful cooperation and that economic motives are found in every example he cites. "A Century of Cooperative Programs among Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 37 (1976): 215, 219.
114. More specifically, Stam states that "RLG was founded in a time of relative financial austerity in US libraries." "Collaborative," 18.
115. Smith also found that administrative support of cooperation is essential, because it helped to ensure the continuance of the policy. "Cooperative, " 160-67.
116. Conversely, one of the major reasons for the failure of cooperation in Louisiana was the lack of support from library administrators and governing bodies. Beverly E. Laughlin, "Barriers to Regional Collection Development," Louisiana Library Association Bulletin 52 (Fall 1989): 45-50.
117. George Jefferson, analyzing the Newcastle approach to cooperative activity, states that "co-operation in the last analysis depends for success upon personalities who induce the wish to co-operate." He also points out "that the authority for projected co-operation should come from a broader base than just the actual libraries concerned and involve the highest executive level of the institutions." Library Co-operation, 122.
118. The administrative link of the libraries of the University of California system via the Office of the President, coupled with an official policy of "One University, One Library," was the key factor in bringing about cooperation in that state. Soete and Wittenborg, 52. Based on'a review of papers presented at a conference on cooperative collection development, Carl W. Deal concluded that "a governing authority should be established to coordinate efforts and respond to and set priorities." "A Model Criterion for Statewide Plan/Process/System," in Coordinating Cooperative Collection Development: A National Perspective, ed. Wilson Luquire (New York: Haworth Press, 1986), 217. Conversely, Hewitt and Shipman found that the lack of an appropriate organizational mechanism was one of the major reasons that research libraries failed to cooperate. 198.
119. Program of Cooperation, 5.
120. On the importance of these processes to successful cooperative programs, see Kurt Pond and Dwight F. Burlingame, "Library Cooperation: A Serials Model Based on Philosophical Principles," College & Research Libraries 45 (1984): 299-301. Conversely, communication breakdowns have contributed to the failure of many cooperative endeavors. Weber, 211.
121. The involvement of those actually selecting materials was also crucial in expanding cooperation within the University of California/Stanford consortium from a one-time, ad hoc Shared Purchase Program to the Shared Collections and Access Program, which also includes on-going and systematic ventures. Soete and Wittenborg, 56-58. Moreover, Mosher has observed that "collaboration is achieved by working ahead, planning, reflecting, and talking with both users and colleagues about the collections, the programs they serve, and about aspirations for the collections of the future. The accomplishment of working collaboration among people doing selection and making collection management decisions is more central to effectiveness than distribution of subject, language, discipline or format." "Collaborative Collection Development in an Era of Financial Limitations," Australian Academic & Research Libraries 20 (Mar. 1989): 12-13.
122. See also his "Cooperative Collection Development Equals Collaborative Interdependence," Collection Building 9, no. 3/4 (1988): 29-32.
123. Mosher cites psychological studies showing that "effective cooperation is most readily achieved by forming small working teams" and that "such groups tend to foster cooperation rather than competition, and collaboration has been shown to strengthen such groups and encourage them to complete more challenging tasks." "Cooperative Collection Development Equals Collaborative Independence," in Collection Management: Current Issues, ed. Sarah Shoemaker (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 1989), 31.
124. See also his "Collaborative Interdependence: The Human Dimensions of the Conspectus," IFLA Journal 16 (1990): 329.
125. This atmosphere of honesty and trust helps promote accountability on the personal level and thereby addresses Cason's concern about the lack of accountability in cooperative collection development. "Accountability, " 245-48.
126. On the importance of allocating staff and time for cooperative activities and providing means of continuous interaction through formal and informal meetings, see Mosher and Pankake, 425, and Deal, 217. Conversely, one of the major problems of cooperative programs is the lack of communication between partners. Hewitt and Shipman, 221.
127. Administrators at other libraries have recognized the importance of full-time staff to run cooperative programs. In 1986 the Illinois State Library established the position of Coordinator of Cooperative Collection Development to supervise cooperation in Illinois. "The establishment of this office has directly influenced the course of cooperative collection development in Illinois." Terry L. Weech, "Networking and Cooperative Collection Management-The Illinois Experience," Collection Building 10, no. 3/4 (1989): 55.
128. Bibliographic and physical accessibility have been central to the success of every cooperative program. See, for example, Deal, 219-20. According to Hewitt and Shipman, 95 percent of the ARL institutions provided special physical access or interlibrary loan privileges to users of partner libraries as part of the cooperative collection development agreements. 219-20. In fact, Mosher and Pankake state that cooperation "presumes easy bibliographic access and delivery in a time frame rapid enough not to have detrimental effect on the work of institutional users." 428.
129. Hewitt and Shipman consider advances in national bibliographic networks in the late 1970s to be one of major factors behind the surge in cooperative programs that occurred during that time. 190 and 203. On the other hand, based on visits to nearly four dozen charter members of OCLC, Hewitt concluded that "coordinated collection development does not arise automatically simply because of the existence of a successful network," but that "strong independent initiatives are necessary." "Impact of Networks on Collection Development," Library Acquisitions 1 (1977): 213.
130. As an indication of how significant they might be, RLG's Conoco Study revealed that selectors in the humanities were willing to change 40 percent of their selection decisions "and rely on collections at other institutions if they could be reasonably sure of both bibliographic access and physical availability of items in those collections (maximum of seven days for delivery of materials)," while science selectors were willing to change up to 50 percent of their decisions if items could be obtained within three days. Mosher, "Cooperative Collection Development," 31.
131. Hewitt and Shipman, 202.
132. In his survey Kraus considers outside financial assistance to be essential. 179. Deal also emphasizes the importance of seed money in initiating cooperative collection development, but considers that "long-term maintenance of programs of cooperative collection development depends upon incorporating their support into ongoing budget allocations." 218-19.
133. See, for example, Bernard G. Sloan, "Resource Sharing among Academic Libraries: The LCS Experience," Journal of Academic Librarianship 12 (1986): 28.