Data Analysis: Librarian Survey

This section of the report summarizes and assesses the results of a survey that was sent to academic and specialized libraries to assess their interest in including indie publications in their collections, to ascertain how collection development and procurement works, and to identify barriers to adding indie publications. The survey was sent via email to the City University of New York library listserv (CULIBS), the Art Libraries Society of North America listserv (ARLIS-L), and the listserv for METRO (METRO-L). A total of 54 librarians completed the survey, and 8 agreed to follow-up phone interviews. The libraries represented included large and small academic, art museum, and public research libraries. Question 1 asked the job title of the librarian respondents. The librarians roles were varied and included department and librarian heads in addition to reference, instruction, and acquisitions librarians. No respondents selfidentified as bibliographers.

QUESTION: Does your library have a formal collection development policy? N = 54 Yes = 36 (67%) No = 18 (33%) The fact that 1 out of 3 libraries surveyed does not have a formal collection development policy suggests that the discretion and values of individual librarians and staff members play a major role in the selection process. To the extent this assumption is true, then small and independent publishers that wish to access the academic library market should set as a priority establishing contact with the librarians who choose and/or purchase books and other materials in the areas in which these presses publish. We discuss this concept in greater detail later in this section.

QUESTION: What is your standard process for acquiring new materials? Who makes the final decisions, and how?
PROCEDURE Process 1: Libraries that rely on subject specialists area liaisons bibliographers Process 1A: Subject specialists make the actual purchasing decisions TOTAL (N = 54) 27 15 % 50% 28%

2 PROCEDURE Process 1B: Subject specialists recommend final decisions are made by library head, collection development, acquisitions Process 2: Director/library head only Faculty involvement specified Student involvement specified
Table 1

TOTAL (N = 54) 12 16 16 7

% 22% 30% 30% 13%

The above data indicate that the most common book-acquisition policy in academic libraries involves subject area specialists who are responsible for identifying appropriate titles. In 56% of these scenarios these liaisons exercise the actual selection and purchasing authority. For the remaining 44%, these individuals forward their preferences to a formal acquisitions official or library head, who makes the final decision. Of course, in this as in all arrangements, all decision making occurs within the frequently restrictive constraints imposed by library budgets. In another 30% of cases, the library director or head makes the actual purchasing decisions, sometimes in conjunction with other executives. In some cases the director solicits recommendations from library staff and/or teaching faculty and curators. These latter groups, however, do not participate in the decision-making process, at least in any formal manner. An obvious question here is whether this approach is characteristic of specific types of institutions or whether it reflects the size of the library. Three of the librarians contacted for follow-up interviews were directors of libraries in which they were also the only full-time librarian. Going further, 30% of respondents specifically identified teaching faculty as participants in the collection development process. Faculty involvement generally takes one of two forms. In some instances, as explained in the previous paragraph, facultys primary role is to suggest appropriate titles to the library director or to other acquisitions administrators. In contrast, in institutions where specialist librarians function as departmental liaisons, these individuals typically collaborate with faculty members in their respective departments to identify products that will fill gaps in the librarys current holdings. The nuances of this collaboration vary from institution to institution, with the degree of interaction ranging from close cooperation in some libraries to cursory communications in others. Interestingly, 12% of respondents reported that collection development takes into account student requests for purchases. These schools did not specify whether this process is restricted to graduate studentsparticularly teaching and research assistantsor whether it extends to the undergraduate population as well. This would be an interesting point to examine in greater detail. In sum, then, library directors, specialist librarians, faculty members, and curators all play a visible role in the collection development process. Therefore, small and independent publishers that wish to access the research library market should create strategies to establish direct communications with these individuals.

QUESTION: How do you let patrons know about new acquisitions?

PROCEDURE Display Inform faculty/staff directly Website Blog Library catalog New acquisitions list (unspecified) Libguides Faculty RSS feeds Newsletter Listserve Social media (unspecified) No procedures in place
Table 2

TOTAL (N = 54) 23 23 16 8 8 4 3 2 2 1 1 4

% 43% 43% 30% 15% 15% 7% 6% 4% 4% 2% 2% 7%

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these findings is the continued reliance on traditional procedures for alerting patrons about new purchases: physical displays and direct communications with faculty and curators (frequently via email). In fact, the number of respondents who mentioned displays is almost 50% higher than the number who cited the library website. Conversely, only 6% or fewer utilize current technologies such as libguides, RSS feeds, listserves, and social media. (In contrast, a slightly higher number7%have no formal procedure in place at all.) How small and independent and publishers can utilize this information to connect with libraries is a topic for consideration.

QUESTION: What are your major sources for new purchases for your library? NOTE: Respondents interpreted this question in three ways: Where do you purchase your books? How do you find new titles? What are your major revenue sources?

For the purposes of this report we have restricted the analysis of this question to respondents who adopted the first interpretation.

4 VENDOR1 YBP/GOBI Worldwide Books Coutts (Ingram) Amazon Casalini libri Michael Shamansky/artbooks.com Barnes & Noble Alibris Erasmus Books Karno Books Rittenhouse Harrassowitz Verlag EBSCO Springer Elsevier Natural History Book Service Eastern Book Company AbeBooks.com Strand Books Blackwells Manhattan Books Distributed Art Publishers (D.A.P) Baker & Taylor University presses: unspecified Rare book dealers Book-buying overseas trips
Table 3

LOCATION USA USA USA USA Italy USA USA USA Netherlands USA USA Germany USA USA/Germany Netherlands UK USA USA USA UK USA USA USA

SPECIALTY General Art books General General General: Italy, France, Spain Fine arts: European imports General: Textbooks General Art and architecture Spain and Latin America Medical, nursing, allied health Classical studies General STM and business Science and health Wildlife, science, environment General General General General General 20th-century art and architecture General

TOTAL 11 7 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Among the conclusions we can draw from these data are the following: Research libraries acquire materials from a large number of domestic and foreign providers. Libraries are much more likely to acquire books from aggregators and distributors GOBI, Amazon, Casalini libri, Barnes & Noblethan from individual publishers. Libraries that purchase directly from publishers frequently establish connections with houses that specialize in particular subject areas; for example, Harrassowitz Verlag in classical studies, Elsevier in science and medicine, Springer in STM and business. None of the respondents identified any independent publishers as sources.

It is safe to conclude, then, that independent publishers are an underutilized resource in the
1

Many libraries identified multiple vendors.

milieu of academic libraries. We focus more specifically on this issue later in this report.

QUESTION: Does anyone from your Collection Development/Acquisition Department attend book fairs? If so, which ones?
BOOK FAIR/EXHIBITION Unspecified Unsure Guadalajara Book Fair New York Art Book Fair American Library Association (ALA) Art Libraries Society of North America (ARLIS/NA) BookExpo America (BEA) Los Angeles Art Book Fair New York Comic Con American Authors Association (AAA) Book Fair Artists Book Fair Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Association of Writers and Writing Programs (AWP) Bookfair Brooklyn Book Fair Brooklyn Zinefest Camera Club of New York Zine Fair CODEX International Book Fair CUNY Chapbook Fair Frankfurt Book Fair LIBER International Book Fair: Spain MISS Read: The Berlin Art Book Fair Modern Language Association (MLA) New York Antiquarian Book Fair PEN World Voices Festival Book Fair Small Press Expo (SPX): Maryland
Table 4

NUMBER 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

A minority of librarians surveyed actually attend book fairs. Going further, only 2 indicated they can purchase directly from exhibitors at book fairs or exhibition spaces at conferences because of the need to invoice and pay through institutional finance departments (which can take months). However, even if librarians are not able to purchase books on site, several respondents mentioned that wandering the exhibition area of library conferences is an effective method of finding new publishers from whom they order when they return. Two other noticeable trends are the specialized and the international nature of many of the exhibits and book fairs identified in the responses Specialization is evidenced by the fact that 33% of the events focus specifically on the visual arts. Regarding the international aspect, the list includes 2 events held in Germany and 1 each in Spain and Mexico. In the fact, the Guadalajara

Book Fair matched the New York Art Book Fair as the most frequently cited festival. Given the severe budget restrictions under which most libraries operate, the fact that some librarians are willing to travel abroad suggests that these book fairs represent an important source of information and, perhaps, sales. These conclusions notwithstanding, however, the fact that such a limited number of respondents mentioned generalist events like BEA appears to indicate that for these academic libraries book fairs function more as ancillary sources to be attended when convenient than as major repositories of information relating to collection development.

QUESTION: Does anyone from the Collections/Acquisitions Department belong to any independent publisher associations? N = 54 Yes = 1 (2%) Dont know = 7 (13%) No = 46 (85%) Only a single respondent could state with authority that a staff member from the library belongs to an independent publisher association, and s/he couldnt specify which one. It is not clear what the benefits would be to librarians who join such organizations. Perhaps membership would increase librarian attendance at book fairs? From a different vantage point, it would be interesting to find out whether publishers belong to any library organizations. QUESTION: Do you see a benefit from including books by small/independent publishers and authors in your library collection? N = 53 Yes = 45 (85%) No = 8 (15%)

QUESTION: Why did you answer yes?

REASON Broaden collection; extra perspectives Fill specific needs; niche topics Valuable source for art/architecture Only source; rare or unique topics Local content/authors TOTAL (N = 53) 22 9 7 3 3 % 42% 17% 13% 6% 6%

7 Artists work with independent publishers Differentiate collection from other libraries Valuable source for medical publications Independent authors on staff Not sure Why not?
Table 5

2 1 1 1 1 1

4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

The responses to these questions are encouraging for proponents of a closer working relationship between research libraries and small and independent publishers. An overwhelming majority of respondents perceive indies as valuable and legitimate sources of books and other materials. This observation is extremely significant, because, unlike the massive conglomerates, small publishers cannot expend vast sums of money to establish a highly visible presence in the publishing universe. In addition, the 15% who responded No frequently qualified their comments, suggesting that they would engage indies if these presses offered desired titles that other providers and distributors did not, assuming the librarys budget will accommodate them. In sum, then, the belief that collaborating with small and independent houses would benefit libraries seems to be almost universal. Pursuing this line of thought a bit further, almost all of the reasons cited in the table closely parallel the characteristics of independent publishers identified in the Introduction to this report. Specifically, they reflect the vital role of small and indie houses in filling the gaps; that is, in publishing in subject areas that the giant conglomerates dont consider to be sufficiently profitable. Many respondents referred specifically to extra perspectives and additional points of view as special features of indie publications. Drilling down even further, 9 respondents (17%) either identified indie presses as valuable sources for art books or mentioned the special relationships between artists and small presses. The medical library made the same observation for medical titles. Note also that 3 respondents valued small presses for local content and authors. Clearly, then, the majority of librarians surveyed value small and independent publishers as vital sources for materials they frequently cant access through the major houses and vendors.

QUESTION: What challenges would you face in attempting to increase the number of books by small/independent publishers and authors?
CHALLENGE Finding information on publishers/titles Budget restrictions Prefer to purchase from large vendors/booksellers Difficulties related to forms of payment Titles must fill a specific need Must meet library criteria TOTAL (N = 54) 17 14 7 6 4 3 % 31% 26% 13% 11% 7% 6%

8 Order almost exclusively through Coutts Difficulty locating reviews Little/no time for collection development Cataloging issues Indies dont offer discounts Limited shelf space Order almost exclusively through GOBI Problems associated with using new vendors None
Table 6

3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2%

An analysis of the tabular data reveals two fundamental challenges to conducting more business with small and independent publishers: money and familiarity. Significantly, the two issues are interconnected. Put simply, academic librariesas with libraries in generalare increasingly limited by both budgetary and time constraints. Given this scenario, they tend to adopt the path of least resistance; that is, they purchase the majority of their books from major vendors who (1) consolidate substantial numbers of titles across multiple disciplines in a single website or catalog, (2) provide professional reviews, and (3) offer discounts to libraries that purchase in bulk. In contrast, dealing directly with individual authors and small publishers can be time consuming, in part because the types of connections libraries have with the large vendors simply dont exist. The responses to Question 12 form an effective counterweight to Questions 10-11. The previous questions provided compelling evidence that librarians appreciate the value of small and independent publishers. Question 12 qualifies these results by demonstrating that manyif not mostlibrarians have developed working relationships of convenience with large distributors. Breaking this impasse represents perhaps the most fundamental obstacle to establishing a viable link between indies and research libraries.

CONCLUSION Librarians select books for purchase primarily from the catalogs of book distributors such as Coutts Information Services, D.A.P. and YBP. These aggregators of publications from a variety of publishers - large and indie alike - enable librarians to conduct one-stop shopping, while making invoicing and billing easier. Several librarians mentioned feeling overwhelmed with the amount of self-published authors and small publishers who exist outside the established distributor realm. These librarians relied on curators, faculty, and students to alert them to publications that may fall out of the mainstream of collecting. Lack of a library credit card and the need to have purchases preapproved by administrative departments were two main barriers to purchasing outside the main vendor stream. Respondents also cited budget constraints and limited staff available to do the original cataloging required for some indie publications.

If indie publishers hope to include libraries as customers, they are advised to reach out to the book distributors used by libraries. Otherwise the landscape of indie books is too vast for librarians to be able to approach in any time-effective manner. Until libraries are able to purchase books using credit cards (not happening for many libraries anytime soon), publishers will have to work within the payment structure that for most libraries includes invoices, checks, and administrative approval. Similarly, librarians can expand the types of books offered in their libraries by researching a variety of distributors, including Small Press Distribution, that feature indie publishers. It is also advisable for publishers to send representatives to library conferences either as exhibitors in the vendor area or attendees so that they become better aware of how libraries function and what issues librarians face in collection development.