Judging Books by Their Covers: Managing the Tensions between Paperback and Clothbound Purchases in Academic Libraries

Alan W. Aldrich

Book purchases are a significant portion of an academic library’s budget. Selecting paperback rather than hardback editions can stretch collection development dollars. This study examines the collection development statements of forty-six academic libraries regarding the selection of pa- perback editions. Some libraries provide vague guidance, while others identify specific price differentials between the costs of paperback and hardback editions as a decision criterion. A new method of using price difference ratios is proposed and tested using four academic disciplines. The results suggest that libraries using such ratios can achieve greater control over costs while meeting collection development goals.

cademic libraries in the United needs of their patrons. An examination of States spent over $112 mil- collection development statements with lion dollars to acquire books aention to paperback selection processes in 2006. This represents 15 can provide insights as to how and under percent of the overall acquisition budget what conditions academic libraries select for these libraries.1 While periodical costs paperback over clothbound editions. The comprise almost 33 percent of academic analysis presented here examines the library acquisition budgets, book expen- content of collection development state- ditures remain a considerable expense that ments from academic libraries to identify requires careful monitoring and control if and articulate the underlying reasons for libraries are to maintain their collections. their book purchase decisions. An alterna- As is the case with periodicals, the cost of tive to current practices as represented in academic books is rapidly escalating. These these statements is offered and a metric costs increased 6.4 percent in 2005 alone.2 for making paperback purchasing deci- Some academic libraries are purchas- sions is presented. ing monographs in paperback format as a means of managing the tension between Why Choose Paper Over Cloth? escalating costs and the need to develop Price is an obvious reason why an aca- and maintain collections that serve the demic library might consider paperbacks

Alan W. Aldrich is an Assistant Professor in the I.D. Weeks Library at University of South Dakota; e-mail: [email protected]. The author would like to thank Carol Leibiger for her thoughtful comments and insights on multiple dras of this paper and two anonymous referees for their work in shaping the end result.

57 58 College & Research Libraries January 2009 over clothbound editions.3 In 2006 the leged window into organizational think- average price for clothbound texts in the ing and intent.11 Collection development sciences, social sciences, and humanities statements articulate the goals and was $62.154 compared to $37.01 for pa- purposes of the library in building and perback editions,5 excluding mass-market sustaining a collection.12 Collection de- books. Additional reasons for considering velopment statements from academic paperbacks include the improved quality libraries of different sizes were gathered of paperback editions, the ability to add and analyzed to identify why and under supplemental bindings to paperback what conditions paperback editions are editions (especially when heavy use is ex- purchased for academic library collec- pected), and the fact that the physical life tions. span of paperback editions oen exceeds These collection development state- the intellectual life span of their content. ments were acquired through a Web- The quality of paperback editions has based search. Google’s advanced search greatly improved over the years through function was used to identify the phrase using acid-free paper, stronger and high- collection development along with either er-quality bindings, and the higher quality one of the terms paperback or paperbacks. presses that are now producing paperback The search results were restricted to the editions alongside hardcover editions.6 Internet domain suffix .edu and to the Many libraries enhance their paperbacks English language. through rebinding or using reinforcing Collection development statements material to increase their durability under were culled from forty-six academic conditions of expected heavy use.7 library Web sites based upon the ex- The intellectual life span of information plicit mention of policies regarding the is rapidly decreasing. Slote points out that purchase of paperback editions. Phrases information in fields such as economics or describing the acquisition of paperback technology and applied sciences is con- editions were copied from each collection sidered out of date aer just five years.8 development statement. Categories were At the same time, Slote also argues against coded as they emerged from the content. weeding a book from a university library Because the phrases used to describe dif- collection unless it has not been checked ferent aspects of collection development out at least once in a twenty-year time are relatively uniform as they apply to span. Evidence presented in a series of the acquisition of paperback editions, the studies focused on the same university categories were stable and easily identifi- library collection strongly suggests that able. Each category was fully developed paperback editions will last sufficiently aer analysis of the initial twenty collec- to be in a collection for twenty years or tion development statements. Since the more with use.9 Jenkins recommends intent was to obtain a range of statements that college libraries shi their purchas- that expressed the different aspects of ing decisions from hardcover to almost collection development and no new cat- exclusively paperback editions.10 The egories were emerging, data collection next section of this paper identifies how was halted aer forty-six statements had academic libraries make decisions regard- been analyzed. ing the purchasing of paperback editions through a content analysis of collection Purchasing Decision Metrics development statements. Academic libraries employ a limited number of metrics when considering the Collection Development Statement purchase of cloth or paperback editions. Data A recent typology of these metrics iden- Goal- and purpose-driven statements tified four different orientations ranging craed by institutions provide a privi- from a cloth-only purchasing policy to Judging Books by Their Covers 59 a policy that explicitly favored selecting paper. Including this type of statement paperback editions for most purchases.13 in the collection development policy in- Of the forty-six libraries in this study, ten troduces a presumption that favors cloth libraries favor the purchase of paperback over paperback editions. Indiana Univer- over cloth editions, while twenty-nine sity at Kokomo also makes its preference libraries identify cloth editions as their for cloth explicit while allowing for the preferred format. Even though the major- purchase of paperbacks when hardcover ity of libraries in this study favor purchas- editions are not available. ing monographs in clothbound editions, The second theme focuses on the almost all of these libraries provide some cost differential between the prices of guidelines for selecting paperback edi- paperback and clothbound editions. tions. The metrics most oen mentioned Twenty-seven libraries in this study when considering paperback editions identified cost differentials as reasons for include the purchase price (twenty-seven considering paperback over clothbound libraries), the amount of use a book might editions. Both Babson College and LSU receive (nineteen libraries), the lasting and A&M College identity a “significant value of the content (ten libraries), and price difference” between the cost of the the quality of the press and/or paper paperback versus clothbound edition as a (three libraries). decision criterion. The statement made by The role played by price in the selection the University of Arkansas at Lile Rock decisions of academic libraries is evident offers an explicit economic justification for in the following statements: selecting paperback editions without pro- • “Paperback monographs for the viding any further guidance. The qualifier regular collection are acquired when sometimes suggests that purchasing trade hardback editions are not available or paperbacks is not a common choice for when there is a significant price difference this library. between the hardback and paperback edi- While price is the dominant consid- tions.” (Babson College)14 eration for academic libraries when de- • “Hardbound monographs will ciding to purchase a paperback edition, normally be selected over paperbacks. factors such as the expected use of a title, Paperback monographs for the regular the lasting value of the work’s content, collection will only be acquired when and the reputation of the publisher can hardback editions are not available or influence the decision-making process as hardback cost is prohibitive.” (Indiana seen in the following statements: University-Kokomo)15 • “The library reserves the right to • “For reasons of economy, trade choose between hardcover and paper- paperbacks are sometimes purchased.” back when both are available; however (University of Arkansas at Lile Rock)16 our preference is to purchase hardcover • “To increase the purchasing power whenever feasible. If the cost of the hard- of the materials budget, paperback mono- cover edition is significantly higher, we graphs will be acquired when there is a may purchase the paperback instead, de- significant price difference between the pending on the demand for and collection hardback and paperback editions.” (LSU level of the title.” (Stonehill College)18 and A&M College)17 • “Where there is an option of pa- The Babson College collection develop- perback or hardback, the choice is based ment policyidentifies twothemescommon upon expected use, lasting value of con- in such documents. The first theme is the tent, and cost differential. As a general acquisition of paperbacks in the absence of rule, hardback or paperbacks with library cloth or hardback editions. This theme is bindings are preferred over consumer present in sixteen of the library collection market paperbacks.” (North Georgia Col- development statements analyzed for this lege and State University)19 60 College & Research Libraries January 2009

• “The exception is where there is Mylar cover applied locally.” (College of an excessive price difference between Wooster)22 hardback and paperback. In making a • “Paperback monographs for the determination, the Library will also con- regular collection are acquired only when sider the long-term value and expected hardback editions are not available. The use of the title.” (University of Hawaii at Libraries generally bind a paperback if Hilo)20 it is the only edition available.” (Baylor • “The Library will consider purchas- University)23 ing a paperback edition, especially when That so many libraries would have this edition is considerably less expensive some sort of binding/reinforcement state- than a hardback edition and when a ment in their policies makes sense, given publisher of high quality has printed the the preference many libraries give to title.” (University of Oregon)21 cloth editions due to expected longevity. Each of these libraries favors the Of the twenty libraries that have binding purchasing of hardcover books when statements in place, fourteen libraries possible. At the same time, these libraries also explicitly favor clothbound editions allow for the acquisition of paperback as their preferred format. editions based upon price and additional The majority of collection development factors. Stonehill College may purchase statements analyzed so far have been from paperback editions based upon perceived libraries at colleges (for instance, Babson demand and the collection level of the College), medium-sized universities title. Conversely, they may not make a (such as Baylor University), or regional paperback purchase even though the campuses of a larger state institution price difference alone favors such a deci- (for example, University of Arkansas at sion. North Georgia College and State Lile Rock). While most of these schools University identifies price aer long-term favor clothbound editions, they each have value and expected use without indicat- provisions in which paperback editions ing any priority of these factors in its might be added to their collections. This, selection processes. Both the University along with the fact that price figures so of Hawaii at Hilo and the University of prominently in the decision to purchase Oregon, respectively, base their decisions paperback editions, suggests the premise to purchase paperback editions on price that an academic library’s collection is or moderated by additional factors. ought to be archival in nature is being Many libraries identify additional modified by pressures from increased ac- conditions such as binding or specifying quisition costs. The next section examines preservation requirements for paperback the collection development statements editions, especially when the library from the libraries at the largest universi- already favors clothbound editions. In ties included in this study. this sample, twenty libraries included • “Books/monographs are normally statements that specifically addressed collected in clothbound editions except binding and/or reinforcing paperback when items are available only in pa- editions ranging from selected books perback editions.” (University of Notre (i.e., reference or heavy-use titles) to Dame)24 all paperback editions added to their • “Current Monographs. This mate- collections. rial is usually acquired in hardcopy. • “The library, if there is a cost sav- Hardbound editions are preferred to ing, will acquire books in paperback over paperback, where available.” (University hardback if the paper quality is sufficient of South Carolina)25 to ensure long term use. The library will • “Paperbacks will be purchased not routinely have all paperbacks bound when cloth binding is unavailable and but rather will protect the covers with a the resource meets all other collection Judging Books by Their Covers 61 development criteria. Mass market pa- This ambiguity grants considerable perbacks will not generally be purchased. agency to librarians selecting volumes If high use and long-term retention is for the library’s collection, even when anticipated paperback resources will be the phrasing of the conditional state- bound. The circulation, reference, collec- ment is strong or unambiguous as to the tion management and technical services organization’s intent. Phrases such as units are jointly responsible for determin- “will consider purchasing a paperback ing which paperbacks to bind.” (Florida edition” are not as strong as if-then condi- A&M University)26 tional statements, and these ambiguities What is apparent in each of these increase the degree of agency enjoyed by large university library approaches in book selectors. Libraries that identify ad- developing their collections is the fact that ditional factors such as the expected use clothbound editions are always preferred or value of the content make the selection except when paperback editions represent process even more subjective. the only choice available. Florida A&M Agency or freedom to act created University is more restrictive by stipulat- through strategically ambiguous collec- ing that all other collection criteria must be tion development statements can be a met before an item will be purchased in powerful and useful tool for libraries as paper format. Implicit in this is the notion organizations. Strategic ambiguity also that only some criteria must be met when has hidden costs. Some of the costs asso- purchasing a clothbound edition. The fact ciated with strategically ambiguous col- that these large academic libraries insist lection development statements include a on purchasing only clothbound editions lack of uniformity between selectors and whenever possible is consistent with the the inability to measure and/or control archival orientation of major university savings achieved through selection of libraries. This orientation is made possible paperback over clothbound editions. in part through their considerably larger acquisition budgets. However, the largest Dual Format Price Data academic libraries are not immune from Some academic libraries try to reduce the cost pressures faced by their smaller uncertainty and ambiguity in the collec- brethren. The Collection Development tion development process by identifying Council of the Yale University library specific price metrics. This section consid- has discussed moving toward paperback ers the impact specific price metrics have preference as early as 2001 in response on developing a library’s collection. These to increased costs, while acknowledging metrics will be examined using a data set many other factors must be considered.27 of dual-format book prices obtained from six months of book reviews published Strategic Ambiguity in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The The collection development statements number of books that would be purchased examined so far take advantage of the in either paperback or cloth formats us- strategic ambiguity inherent in language ing these price metrics is calculated and in spite of local differences in their forms the results checked for consistency with of expression. None of the statements the collection development statement of listed above that highlight price as a key the libraries included in this study. The criterion specify the price differential that ways that these collection development will trigger a paperback purchasing deci- statements manage price is problematic. sion. Phrases such as “considerably less An alternative price metric that addresses expensive” or “significant/excessive price these problems is proposed and tested. difference” are underdeterminate, relying Academic books published simulta- upon local decision makers to make a neously in cloth and paperback editions subjective decision regarding price. were identified from reviews contained 62 College & Research Libraries January 2009 in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The TABLE 1 list prices for both cloth and paperback Frequency of Books in each editions were initially collected over a Subject Discipline fieen-week period beginning on 5 May Anthropology n = 45 books 2006. Four disciplines had the greatest frequency of dual publication texts. The History n = 72 books analysis was continued, selecting only Political Science n = 56 books titles in Anthropology, History, Political Sociology n = 45 books Science, and Sociology.All dual-published Total number of books n = 218 books books in these disciplines were identified along with their prices for a twenty-six week period from 5 May to 27 October when items are available only in paper- 2006. The distributions of frequencies back editions. The exception is when the for dual publication texts in each subject price differential between the clothbound category are presented in table 1. edition and paperback edition is deemed The price differentials between the to be excessive (generally, if the cloth- paperback and cloth editions were calcu- bound edition costs at least $10.00 more lated for each book in the data set along than the paperback edition). In this case, with the average price differences within the paperback edition will be purchased each category. These average differences and will be sent to the bindery.” (Drake are presented in table 2. University)28 There appears to be lile variation in • “Paperbacks will be selected over the average price differences between hardbound editions if the cost of the pa- paperback and cloth editions in anthro- perback edition is substantially ($20.00) pology, history, and political science. As less than the cost of the hardbound edi- subsequent analysis will demonstrate, tion.” (Colgate University)29 there is considerable variation between • “Hardcover bindings are preferred disciplines when different price ratios because of their durability. Paperbacks are considered. are purchased when a suitable hardcover edition is not available or when the price Explicit Price Metrics of paperback is at least $25 less than the Three libraries in this study identified hardcover and high use is not anticipat- specific price differentials that, once ed.” (Christopher Newport University)30 exceeded, would trigger the purchase The average price in 2006 for academic of paperback over clothbound editions. cloth editions was $62.15, compared to Their collection development statements an average price of $37.01 for paperback are presented below: editions.31 The overall average price dif- • “Books/Monographs are normally ferential of $25.14 exceeds each of the collected in clothbound editions except three price differentials specified in these

TABLE 2 Average Price Differences within each Category Category Paperback Cloth Price Differential/ Ratio Anthropology $24.81 $66.82 $42.01 / 2.69:1 History $24.99 $66.82 $42.41 / 2.67:1 Political Science $25.53 $68.58 $43.05 / 2.68:1 Sociology $24.95 $70.18 $45.23 / 2.81:1 Overall average $25.07 $67.60 $43.17 / 2.70:1 Judging Books by Their Covers 63 collection development statements. This a price differential of $10.00 or greater suggests that a large portion of books se- between the paper and cloth prices in lected by these libraries will be paperback the four disciplines presented in this editions. The gap in price between the data set. Colgate University would have paperback and cloth editions presented in purchased 97 percent of their titles (211 table 2 for each of the disciplines collected books) in paperback format using their in this study is even larger than the overall $20.00 or greater price differential. Only average price differences, thus reinforc- seven books would have been purchased ing the belief that paperback editions by Colgate University in cloth format, are favored by these library collection including two books with price differ- development statements. entials of $20.05 and $20.25 respectively. This bias toward paperback editions Christopher Newport University speci- created by these price differentials is fied the highest price difference of $25.00 problematic for these libraries, given the between the paper and cloth edition overall content of their collection devel- prices. As would be expected, fewer books opment statements. Drake University were purchased in paperback formats. explicitly favors clothbound editions, However, if the expected-use criterion probably for their perceived durability. is ignored for the sake of this analysis, This analysis is supported by the fact that Christopher Newport University would Drake University sends paperback edi- have purchased 92 percent of their texts tions to be bound aer their purchase. (200 books) in paperback editions, adding Christopher Newport University is only eighteen clothbound books to their even more explicit in its bias in favor of collection from this set of titles. Use of the clothbound editions. Durability is a pri- fixed-price differential by all three librar- mary consideration as stated in its collec- ies would result in the majority of books tion development policy. The $25.00 price being purchased in the paperback format difference cited by Christopher Newport in spite of the overt preference expressed University as a reason for considering in each statement for clothbound books, paperback purchases is phrased as a all other factors notwithstanding. conditional statement. This cost differ- Drake University sends its paperback ence, coupled with the anticipated lack editions to be bound. The cost of treat- of high usage, is what triggers the deci- ing paperbacks needs to be factored into sion to purchase a title in the paperback the cost differential. A stiff cover that format. Colgate University, while not preserves the cover art can be added indicating a direct preference for cloth for just under $6.00 per volume in 2008 editions in its collection development dollars.32 Additional options, especially statement, indicates that the cost differ- if very heavy use is expected, include ence is treated as “substantial” before a complete rebinding and new covers paperback editions are purchased. This with costs ranging from around $8.00 to suggests cloth editions are the initial $15.00.33 Depending on the services pur- choice for Colgate University’s collection chased, Drake University could realize a development efforts. small savings per volume using its price The price differentials specified by differential. Both Colgate University and these three libraries were compared to Christopher Newport University would the price differentials for each book in realize savings even aer treating their the data set. The smallest price difference paperback editions. Many libraries that between the paperback and cloth prices bind paperbacks use a deferred binding was a political science book with a $15.00 method of waiting until the volume has price differential. Drake University would received a specific number of uses before have purchased 100 percent of their books receiving treatment. This reduces costs (218 books) in paperback format using and increases savings. 64 College & Research Libraries January 2009

Two problems are immediately appar- • “The paperback format will be or- ent with purchase metrics that specify a dered unless at least one of the following fixed-price differential. First, variation ex- situations applies: A hardcover copy can ists among these libraries in terms of what be acquired for less than twice the cost of constitutes a significant price difference the paperback. The Member of the faculty between paperback and cloth editions. or the liaison ordering the book specifies Even though the collection development a format.” (Assumption College)35 statements indicate a marked preference Haverford College and Assumption for clothbound editions, employing these College both use a 2:1 ratio for the price metrics produces the opposite result, differences between paperback and increasing the number of paperbacks clothbound editions. Using ratios rather added to a collection under the guise than identifying fixed-price differences of substantial price differences. Second, resolves the problems associated with fixed-price differentials are problematic inflation or changing prices because because prices do not remain stable over ratios remain stable regardless of the time. Inflation, especially in the publish- direction of the price movements. The ing industry, makes any named price only condition under which a ratio can obsolete within the time frame of a year. become problematic occurs when there The $25.00 price differential instituted by is a different rate of price movements for Christopher Newport University in 2001 paperback and cloth editions. Evaluat- would probably have resulted in fewer ing the effect of the selected price ratios paperback book purchases than the 92 as part of a regular examination of the percent figure derived from our data set library’s collection development policy using 2007 prices. However, libraries that should resolve this issue if it arises. identify specific price differentials as part Since the average price differential of their collection development statements between paperback and cloth editions must reconsider the price point on an an- expressed as a ratio is considerably higher nual basis to ensure the “significant” price than the 2:1 ratio employed by Haverford difference remains significant in terms of and Assumption Colleges, both colleges their collection development goals. ought to make the same number of pa- perback purchases. Paperbacks would Using Ratios as Price Differentials constitute a significant majority of their Two libraries whose collection develop- book purchases if the price ratio is strictly ment statements are part of this study applied without adding the subjective use a different approach in identifying conditions such as the expected use of price differentials. Haverford College and an edition. Assumption College use ratios to identify These assumptions were tested using the price differential that would trigger the data set of dual printed book prices. consideration of a paperback purchase The price differentials between paperback decision. and cloth editions in this data set were • “The Library acquires monographic calculated and compared against a 2:1 ratio material in cloth bindings and on paper of price differentials. Any title with a ratio that meets preservation standards; in of 2:1 or less was treated as a cloth edition cases when the price difference between purchase. There are fourteen titles where cloth and paperback binding is signifi- the cloth price is equal to or less than the 2:1 cant, say, 100% or more, and projected ratio to the paperback price. Both Haver- use does not argue for acquiring the cloth ford andAssumption colleges would have edition, the library acquires the paper purchased 204 books in paperback editions edition and treats it in-house to increase or 93.5 percent of the 218 titles available its life expectancy.” (Haverford College, in dual editions. There were three books February)34 where the ratio was between 2.01 and 2.04 Judging Books by Their Covers 65 to 1. Treating these as cloth rather than tion of this paper examines the impact paperback purchases would result in 92.2 different price ratios would have on the percent of all books in the sample set being number of books a library would select in treated as paperback purchases. paperback format if price were the only Haverford College’s collection devel- consideration being applied. opment statement suggests a preference for clothbound over paperback editions. Ratio Analysis The statement begins with the phrase Because the 2:1 ratio results in paperback “material in cloth bindings and on paper editions from this data set being pur- that meets preservation standards.” This chased over 92 percent of the time, and phrase is immediately followed by the the average ratio of cloth to paperback qualifying statement that introduces the prices as reported in table 1 is consider- conditions under which paperback edi- ably higher (about 2.7:1), new ratios were tions can be considered. The 2:1 price dif- calculated between 2.5:1 and 3:1, using .10 ference ratio used by Haverford College increments. Abinary code was used, with when considering paperback editions is each title exceeding the identified price ra- qualified by conditions of expected use. tio coded as a 1 and titles failing to exceed Furthermore, paperback editions receive the given ratio coded as 0. The number binding treatment aer their acquisition. of titles exceeding the specific ratio were Given that Haverford College appears summed and divided by the N size for to prefer cloth editions for its collection, each category of books in Anthropology, using a 2:1 price difference ratio may be History, Political Science, and Sociology. viewed as overly generous since it favors This value represents the percentage of paperbacks over cloth editions. books that would be purchased in pa- Assumption College, which is on the perback editions if the given ratio was opposite end of the cloth/paperback employed as the sole decision criteria in continuum, expresses a clear preference a library’s collection development state- for purchasing paperback editions in ment. Because the other factors listed for its collection development statement. consideration such as anticipated use or Using a 2:1 ratio that favors paperback quality and longevity of the content re- purchases is consistent with its collec- quire subjective judgments, this analysis tion orientation. However, it is not clear is based solely upon price as the decision from the twenty-nine library collection criteria. The additional factors, when ap- development statements that explicitly plied, should result in smaller numbers identify cloth editions as the preferred of paperback books being added to the format whether a 2:1 ratio would be collection for each ratio being tested. The appropriate or acceptable. The final sec- results are presented in table 3 below.

TABLE 3 Price Differential Ratios Applied to Purchasing Decisions Category Ratio>2.5 Ratio>2.6 Ratio>2.7 Ratio>2.8 Ratio>2.9 Ratio>3.0 Anthropology 33 books 27 books 20 books 16 books 15 books 15 books (n = 45 books) 73% 60% 44% 35.5% 33% 33% History 48 books 40 books 28 books 25 books 23 books 21 books (n = 72 books) 67% 56% 39% 35% 32% 29% Political Science 37 books 29 books 20 books 18 books 14 books 12 books (n = 56 books) 66% 52% 36% 32% 25% 21% Sociology 38 books 29 books 26 books 23 books 19 books 14 books (n = 45 books) 84% 64% 58% 51% 42% 31% 66 College & Research Libraries January 2009

Using a ratio of 2.5:1 as the decision ing identification of what constitutes a metric would result in 66 percent of politi- significant price difference. Guidance is cal science titles and 67 percent of history provided, but no real control is found titles purchased in paperback editions. in these ambiguous collection develop- Conversely, 73 percent of anthropology ment statements. Ambiguous, although titles and 84 percent of sociology titles perhaps not intended in a strategic sense, would be purchased in paperback edi- is the “expected use” of a monograph as tions using the 2.5 ratio. This degree of a selection format criterion. The concept variance between the subject disciplines of expected use is not defined in such a was not evident from the average price way that it can be clearly operationalized. differences presented in table 2. Librarians as professional bibliographers Increasing the price difference ratio to have to rely on their tacit knowledge 2.6 results in a steep decline of the titles gained through experience as to which that would be selected in paperback for items can be expected to receive heavy each of the four subject areas. Anthropol- use and thus be candidates for either ogy, history, and political science would clothbound editions or paperbacks that have paperbacks selected 50 percent of the receive additional binding treatments. time if a ratio between 2.6 and 2.7 were Equally problematic is the use of used. Sociology would favor paperbacks specific price differentials to define what in 50 percent of its purchasing decisions constitutes an excessive price difference if the ratio were between 2.8 and 2.9 times between paperback and clothbound the price difference. Using a ratio of 3:1 editions. The three price differentials would still result in 29 percent of titles analyzed in this work would result in being selected in paperback editions for most purchases being made in paperback anthropology, history, and sociology and editions whenever the choice is available. 21 percent of the titles for history. This flies in the face of many academic libraries’ predisposition toward cloth- Discussion bound editions. Identifying a specific Academic libraries appear to be open to price differential is also problematic when the inclusion of paperback editions into (a) the price differential is low enough to their collections, but not necessarily as cause all purchases to be made favoring a first choice. The language contained paperbacks (why have a differential in the in many academic library collection first place?) and (b) the price differential development statements clearly favors does not take into account discipline-spe- hardbound editions over paperbacks, cific price variations or control for price except when price alone or price along increases over time. with additional criteria, such as the Calculating price differences of pa- quality of press/bindings, comes into perbacks versus clothbound editions as play. However, as this analysis demon- a ratio provides a more effective means strates, there are considerable problems for guiding book purchasing decisions. in aempting to operationalize current Ratios are more stable over time and are practices as represented in these library not influenced by price differences across collection development statements. These subject disciplines. Employing ratios problems include strategic ambiguity and as a determinant of what constitutes a using fixed-price differentials as metrics significant price difference between pa- to identify when monographs should be perback and cloth editions also provides purchased in paperback formats. for greater precision in determining the Strategically ambiguous language number of books that are selected in either used in many collection development format. Library directors or collection statements grants considerable agency to development managers could employ ra- the librarians selecting texts while avoid- tios to determine the percentage of books Judging Books by Their Covers 67 that are acquired in paperback format in metric used provides the desired results general or by subject. Conversely, ratios and not end up favoring that which in could be employed to achieve desired cost principle is least desired. savings in a specific discipline area by set- This study analyzed five different ting the ratio in advance that will trigger ratios of the paperback to cloth price a paperback purchasing decision. ranging from 2.5:1 through 3:1. These Implementing a ratio metric presents ratios were arbitrarily chosen. A library some challenges. Approval plans oen al- that wants to increase or decrease the low identification of the preferred format number of paperbacks considered for for all purchases. Soware would have to purchase would simply use a different be created that identified which editions number. Actual or anticipated preserva- exceeded the desired ratio set by each tion costs can also be factored in when library for the different disciplines being calculating the desired ratio. Regardless selected. It is doubtful that vendors would of what is selected, ratios represent a more want to engage in such specific identifica- controlled and accurate means of begin- tion of materials, especially at the cost of ning the decision to consider a paperback losing clothbound sales. The intangible over a cloth edition. yet important selection criterion of ex- Ratios analyzed in this study were de- pected use is also ignored when using an rived from the prices of dual format books automated approval plan. in anthropology, history, political science, Approval plans that require librarians and sociology. These findings represent to identify which books are desired from and are limited to a subset of the social a provided list would support use of a sciences. Given the variations in price dif- ratio metric as a selection tool. Ratios for ferentials between paper and clothbound each discipline can be easily calculated editions that surfaced during the analy- using a simple spreadsheet program and sis, we ought to expect additional price data from either Choice Magazine or The difference variations across disciplines Chronicle of Higher Education. Once a de- such as between the humanities and the sired ratio is identified as representing an sciences. Using the average price dif- excessive price difference, a spreadsheet ferential between paper and clothbound that identifies specific price points and editions to calculate a ratio results in an their counterparts calculated using the artificial collapsing of true variation since appropriate ratio for each discipline can the average is derived from all disciplines. be easily used by librarians and other If they are to be employed effectively and selectors when considering formats for accurately, what constitutes a reasonable purchase. ratio will need to be calculated for each An argument could be made that subject area. There are also disciplines employing ratios is overly deterministic where ratios might not be needed because and effectively removes librarians’agency either most of the books are published to exercise professional discretion when in clothbound editions or information in making book choices. The amount of the discipline resides mostly in academic agency inherent in a collection devel- journals. Further research over a longer opment policy is a result of the choices span of time on price differences between expressed and allowed within the collec- paper and hardcover editions is needed tion development statement. Any ratio to address these questions. used will function in a deterministic or This study also does not take into ac- advisory role depending on how the col- count factors that influence purchasing lection development statement is framed. decisions such as the life span of disci- The intent is not to create a mechanized plinary knowledge and conditions of and exact system of monograph format expected use. While the stated purpose selection but instead to ensure that the of this study was to focus on price dif- 68 College & Research Libraries January 2009 ferentials to the exclusion of other con- or as being overly mechanistic tools that siderations, some disciplines may move reduce the art of collection development toward purchasing mostly paperback in ways that are not well received? All of editions or e-books based primarily on the these questions point to lines of inquiry rapidly changing information content as needing attention by future research. in the computer sciences. Future research A rationale for using ratios has been identifying these issues would contribute developed and presented in this study. to refining collection development efforts Future research needs to examine these in general. ideas in situ. Each discipline has its own subareas where expectations for increased use are Conclusion common as in methodology texts in the Paperback editions are becoming viable social sciences. Yet how to operational- alternatives to cloth editions as academic ize the identification of expected use libraries move to manage acquisition bud- remains a puzzle, especially given the gets. Collection development statements reliance upon both contextual and expe- include guidelines for paperback pur- riential knowledge sets. Future research chases but oen do so using ambiguous in the area of collection development language that provides lile principled should focus on the identification of tacit guidance or employing metrics that are knowledge elements useful for collec- inadequate and that could result in pur- tion development for both improving chasing decisions that appear contrary collection development within a library to the overall collection development and improving instruction in the area of thrust of the institution. Establishing and collection development. using ratios of price differences between It is easy to critique current practice paperback and cloth editions in gen- while proposing alternatives to said eral or by specific disciplines provides a practices. Future research needs to focus principled basis for guiding the selection on institutions that use ratios in making process when a choice needs to be made purchasing decisions as part of their col- in terms of format. The analysis presented lection development programs. Are cost here provides a clear set of rationales for savings achieved using ratios? Is greater including ratios as part of an academic control and predictability in managing library’s collection development policy. the collection achieved through using This analysis also serves as an initial step ratios rather than fixed price points as de- toward establishing purchase decision cision criteria, as this study suggests? Do ratios in the four disciplines of anthro- librarians making book selections view pology, history, political science, and such ratios as providing useful guidelines sociology.

Notes 1. The Bowker Annual, 52nd ed., ed. Dave Bogart (Medford, N.J.: Information Today, 2007), 420–21, table 3. 2. Jim Milliot, “Book Trade Research and Statistics,” The Bowker Annual, 52nd ed., ed. Dave Bogart (Medford, N.J.: Information Today, 2007), 469, table 2. 3. Stanley P. Hodge, “The Question of Paperbacks for Academic Libraries: Selection, Treat- ment Options, and Durability” in Academic Libraries: Achieving Excellence in Higher Education, ed. Thomas Kirk (Chicago: ALA, 1992), 248–56. 4. Milliot, “Book Trade Research and Statistics,” 473. 5. Ibid., 481. 6. Barbara Hoffert, “The Paperback Bind,” Library Journal 116, no. 2 (1991): 51–55. 7. Joan Stephens, “The Life Expectancy of Paperback Books in Academic Libraries: Eleven Years Later,” Technical Services Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1998): 17–25. 8. Stanley J. Slote, Weeding Library Collections: Library Weeding Methods, 4th ed. (Englewood, Judging Books by Their Covers 69

Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1997), 24–26. 9. Stephens, “The Life Expectancy of Paperback Books in Academic Libraries: Eleven Years Later,” Technical Services Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1998): 17–25; Roger L. Presley and Christina Landram, “The Life Expectancy of Paperback Books in Academic Libraries,” Technical Services Quarterly 4, no. 3 (1987): 21–29; Roger L. Presley and Christina Landram, “The Life Expectancy of Paperback Books in Academic Libraries: A Follow-up Study,” Technical Services Quarterly 7, no 4 (1990): 1–10. 10. P. Jenkins, “Some Thoughts on Purchasing Paperback Books for Small College Libraries,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 4, no. 1 (1997): 25–28. 11. Alan W. Aldrich, “Following the Phosphorous Trail of Research Library Mission State- ments into Present and Future Harbors,” Sailing into the Future: Charting Our Destiny: Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, ed. Hugh A. Thompson (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2007). 12. American Library Association, Guidelines for Collection Development (Chicago: American Library Association, 1979). 13. Alan W. Aldrich, “A Typology of Collection Development Decision Metrics,” paper presented at the Mountain Plains Library Association annual meeting in Albuquerque, N.M. (2007). 14. Horn Library, Babson College, “Collection Development Policy,” Section 2-A (Aug. 18, 2004). Available online at www3.babson.edu/library/research/collection_development_policy. cfm#16. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 15. Indiana University Kokomo Library, “Collection Development Policy” Section XI-C (Apr. 2006). Available online at www.iuk.edu/~kolibry/docs/COLLECTIONDEVELOPMENTPOLICY. pdf. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 16. Oenheimer Library, University of Arkansas at Lile Rock, “Collection Development Policy,” Section VIII-A-7 (May 13, 1997). Available online at hp://library.ualr.edu/policies/col- ldev/colldev.pdf. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 17. The LSU Libraries, “Louisiana State University and A&M College Collection Development Policy,” Section 3-G (1998). Available online at www.lib.lsu.edu/collserv/colldev/policies/g4.html. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 18. MacPhaidin Library, Stonehill College, “Collection Development Policy” (2005). Available online at www.stonehill.edu/library/Acquisitions/colldevpol.htm. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 19. Stewart Library, North Georgia College and State University, “Collection Development Policy,” Section VI-B (July 2006). Available online at www.ngcsu.edu/Adminsrv/Library/Collect ion%20Development%20Policy%20July%202006.pdf. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 20. Edwin H. Mookini Library, University of Hawaii at Hilo, “Collection Development Policy” (2007). Available online at hp://library.uhh.hawaii.edu/lib_services/policies/coll_dev_policy.htm. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 21. University of Oregon Libraries, “Collection Policy Statement” (2007). Available online at hp://libweb.uoregon.edu/colldev/cdpolicies/cdpstate.html. [Accessed on 9 January 2008]. 22. The College of Wooster Libraries, “Collection Development Policy,” Section P (Oct. 9, 2006). Available online at www.wooster.edu/LIBRARY/Collection/cdmain.php. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 23. Baylor University Libraries, “Collection Development Policy,” Section G-5 (Oct. 17, 2006). Available online at www.baylor.edu/lib/resourcemgmt/index.php?id=37810. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 24. University of Notre Dame Libraries, “University Libraries of Notre Dame Collection De- velopment Policy: Types and Formats of Materials Collected” (2005). Available online at www. library.nd.edu/colldev/policy/general_policy.shtml#types. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 25. University of South Carolina Libraries, “Collection Development: General Policies” (2005). Available online at www.sc.edu/library/techserv/cmgenpol.html. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 26. Florida A&M University Libraries, “Collection Development Policy for the Florida A&M University Libraries” (June 2005). Available online at www.famu.edu/oldsite/ACAD/coleman/ CDpolicy.htm. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 27. Yale University Collection Development Council minutes. Available online at www.library. yale.edu/CDC/public/minutes/FY00/Minutes021501.html. [Accessed 23 May 2008]. 28. Cowles Library, Drake University, “Collection Development Policy” (2004). Available online at www.lib.drake.edu/site/aboutCowles/policies.php. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 29. Colgate University Libraries, “Colgate University Libraries Collection Development Policy” (2003). Available online at hp://exlibris.colgate.edu/about/policies/cd_policies.htm. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 30. Trible Library, Christopher Newport University, “Collection Development Policy” (2001). Available online at hp://library.cnu.edu/policy.html#collection. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 70 College & Research Libraries January 2009

31. Milliot, “Book Trade Research and Statistics,” 473. 32. Houchen Bindery Ltd, Utica, Nebraska, charges $5.81 to add a hardcover binding using the original cover art of a paperback edition. 33. Figures obtained on 30 May 2008 from a major east coast bindery that wishes to remain anonymous. 34. Haverford College Libraries, “Haverford College Libraries Collection Development/Man- agement Policy and Bibliographer’s Manual,” Section II-A (Feb. 1999). Available online at www. haverford.edu/library/about/cdpolicy.pdf. [Accessed 9 January 2008]. 35. Emmanuel d’Alzon Library, Assumption College, “Collection Development and Retention Policy” (Spring 2007). Available online at www.assumption.edu/dept/Library/resources/col- ldevpolicy4-07.pdf. [Accessed 9 January 2008].