Libraries and dissertations

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

The recent thread on libraries and dissertations touched on quite 
a few important points, but I was most struck with Kevin Smith's 
remark, with which I wholeheartedly concur, that the question of 
how libraries make decisions about what materials to purchase 
cannot be discussed without taking into account the context of 
purchasing, a context defined in part at this time by severe 
budget-cutting.  If there is not enough money to acquire 
everything you would like to, something will have to be rejected 
or cancelled. This makes perfect sense--and should be obvious, 
no?

The question is how libraries make those decisions.  Here I am 
inclined to think that librarians know what they are doing, and 
before we second-guess those decisions, we should pause to 
reflect on how much thought goes into those decisions, the 
professional training of the people overseeing the purchases, and 
the community of librarians (as evidenced on this list, among 
other places) that more than any profession with which I 
personally am familiar, shares information with colleagues and 
seeks "best practices."  There is nothing like this on the 
publishing side of the business, where except for the financial 
reporting of the publicly-traded companies, which operate under 
normalizing regulatory policies, no two organizations do the same 
thing in the same way.

Therefore I have to assume that if libraries are making what 
appear to be "mechanical" decisions ("We don't acuire any books 
based on dissertations," etc.), there must be a good reason for 
it.  I don't see how it would be possible for libraries to 
evaluate each and every publication that is offered to them 
without some kind of generalizations.  Suppose libraries would do 
this the "right" way, assessing each publication one at a time? 
Well, the "right" way would be the wrong way, as it would be easy 
to incur $2 in administrative overhead for every $1 saved in 
making "perfect" decisions.

My experience is that most people most of the time do their jobs 
tolerably well.  I just returned from a trip, during which I 
marveled at how an industry could put multi-ton aluminum tubes 
into the air, screen thousands of people for security in minutes, 
and most of the time get me where I need to go on time.  Yet as I 
stood on the security line for about 3 minutes, the people in 
front of and in back of me, were complaining about having to put 
liquids in a separate baggie.  Perspective, people!

If good books are being rejected on the misapplication of some 
algorithm, then it is the publisher's responsibility to rectify 
the situation.  This means finding ways to call exceptional 
titles to people's attention.  Simply getting a book into a 
warehouse or POD facility and letting YBP and Coutts do the rest 
is not publishing. Over the next few years, largely because of 
ongoing budget problems coupled with the rapid migration to 
ebooks, publishers will have to put more time and energy--and, 
yes, money--into marketing.  It may not be a welcome task, and it 
can't possibly be a welcome expense, but it is an essential one. 
Picking on librarians does not seem to me to be productive.

Joe Esposito