DAVID C. WEBER A Century of Cooperative Programs

/ '1 Among Academic Libraries

.~ A REVIEW OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS sumed by fire in 1801. The University among colleges and universities over the of Pennsy~vania' s chief distinction in last century leads to the conclusion that 1776 was that during the Revolution it a few very significant developments and had received a gift of scientific books changes have taken place during the from Louis XVI. Columbia stor~d its past decade after ninety years of la­ volumes during the war in the city hall borious and diverse effort toward coop­ or elsewhere; British soldiers took them erative programs dominated by the ef­ to barter for grog, and only six or seven fects of national policy and economic hundred volumes were found-thirty conditions. It is an interesting history, years later-in St. Paul's Chapel. By the one made difficult by the plethora of time of the Revolution, Yale had col­ data. The present paper uses a histori­ lected over 4,000 volumes in its library. cal perspective in order to assess b~er The College of William and Mary had the present and the immediate future. a very few thousand volumes. Harvard The first part chronologically prese~ts had lost all but 404 volumes of its li­ selected examples of cooperative pro­ brary by fire in 1764, yet by the Revo­ grams. The latter section includes de­ lutionary War it had been rebuilt prob­ tails on a few programs of current spe­ ably to nearly 10,000 volumes. cial significance, comments on some By 1876 the circumstances were mark­ strengths and weaknesses, and reaches edly different. Great libraries had come 111 . a few conclusions. upon the American scene. Some remark­ able librarians had created most of the EARLY HISTORICAL REVIEW essential concepts and policies for li­ Before reviewing the past century, it brary administrative methods. Collec­ ...., may be worthwhile taking a brief look tions began to grow rapidly, with a great at circumstances in academic libraries deal of attention necessarily given to >1 two hundred years ago. At that time cataloging and classification. The year academic libraries in America were in­ 1876 was momentous in that the Ameri­ deed insignificant by today's perspective. can Library Association was formed. 1 Dartmouth had 305 volumes. Brown The American Library ] ournal was University owned 312 volumes including founded with four of its twenty-one as­ 't fifty-two received in 1772 which were sociate editors "leading the profession" "by far the greatest donation our little from university libraries. The Library ~ library has yet had." Princeton had Bureau was established as a supply more than 1,200 volumes, all to be con- house providing a major force toward I 205 206 1 College & Research Libraries • May 1976 standardization. It also was the year in a combination of capital as by a com­ which the classic -volume, Public Li­ bination of labor. In.such an enterprise braries in the United States of America; the first most important thing to be Their History, Condition and Manage­ aimed at is perfection of work. . . . ment, was published by the United Other points might be mentioned but a review of the methods proposed is States Bureau of Education. One looks not the object of this report. We be­ in vain, however, in that major volume lieve that it will be far better for us to of 1,187 pages for any statement re­ work with the Library Association, garding cooperation among academic li­ though we may differ in opinion as to braries. some details, than to undertake any Cooperative cataloging was one of the separate work in this state.2 very first interests of the new library as­ The decade of the 1890s witnessed sociation. A committee was formed to the beginnings of major national pro­ devise a plan for continuation of grams of academic library cooperation. Poole's "Index to Periodical Literature," It did not come unannounced onto the and another committee tackled the mat­ scene. There had indeed been discus­ ter of standardization of cataloging. sions over several previous decades, at Several articles in the Library I ournal least since 1851, and no doubt there may discussed plans for cooperation in in­ have been a large number of local ar­ dexing and cataloging. Yet it was a rangements of such cooperation. In Committe·e on Cooperation in Indexing 1898 the librarian of the University of and Cataloguing College Libraries, California announced willingness to which was appointed August 1876, that lend to other libraries that would lend is significant with respect to academic to the University of California. cooperation. It was formed by the li­ In January 1898 the American Li­ brarians of the University of Rochester, brary Association began publishing Cornell University, Vassar College, Syra­ analytic cards as a shared indexing/ cata­ cuse University, and the New York State loging program. The copy for these • Library. This committee presented to cards was prepared by five major li­ the University Convocation of the State braries for articles in some 250 serials. of New York in July 1877 a substantial The H. W. Wilson Company took over report which called upon college li­ this analytic activity in June 1919 for braries to speak out on any special incorporation into the International In­ adaptation of the cooperative catalog­ dex of Periodicals. ing movement which was required for their special wants: INTO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY At present the work is chiefly in the In another consideration, the librari­ hands of the public libraries. . . . In an of Princeton University, Ernest C. making this report your committee do Richardson, proposed in the spring of not wish to be understood as endorsing 1899 "a lending library for libraries" fully all the methods proposed by the and suggested that this might be the Li­ committees of the Library Association. brary of Congress or an independent It is very doubtful whether as good organization. cataloging can be done, in the manner The Library of Congress issued a pol­ proposed, by a considerable number icy governing interlibrary loans in 1907 of libraries, even under very explicit rules, as might be expected of one or and lent to such an extent that by 1909 two experts, who should work for pay it loaned. 1,023 volumes to 119 libraries + under the general direction and criti­ -including forty-nine academic li­ cism of the committee. Cooperation braries which accounted for half of can be secured quite as effectively by these loans. An ALA interlibrary loan A Century of Cooperative Programs I 207

code was first published in 1916. papers and a few manuscripts on be­ If a union catalog of holdings is per­ half of Harvard University, Brown mitted within the definition of coopera­ University, Northwestern University, tion, there were then major develop­ the John Crerar Library, and the Ameri­ ments, notably so in the first decade of can Antiquarian Society. One or two this century. The first regional union features of this joint effort are of note: catalog was created in 1901 at the Cali­ In Venezuela and Bolivia and partly fornia State Library. After first being also in Brazil the purchases consisted limited to periodicals, it was soon en­ of collections which had to be divided larged to cover all nonfiction. The Na­ among the cooperating institutions, tional Union Catalog was established in and naturally included a fair amount 1900. In November 1901 the Library of of material which, either because the Congress began selling copies of its cooperating institutions already had it printed catalog cards as well as galley or because the class of material in proofs of these cards. During the win­ question is not collected by the institu­ ter of 1901-02 it began the donation of tions which I represented, can be sold complete "depository" sets of cards to to other libraries in this country. The certain libraries. Some libraries receiv- purchase of collections on joint ac­ count in this manner was a new ex­ ,.; ing these began immediately to file them periment. It did not seem to me to be 1 into their public card catalogs, thus con­ wholly satisfactory. The chief difficulty stituting union catalogs. The University was that the material could not be of Chicago Library from 1913 and the readily divided until my own return Harvard College Library from 1911 to this country, with the result that no published printed cards, the scope de­ one knew until I did return how much signed to supplement LC and comple­ each institution was liable, and hence ment each other. Chicago distributed its I was considerably hampered in mak­ cards from 1913 until1917. (When Chi­ ing further purchases. As it finally cago began distributing its cards May 2, turned out, one institution acted to a 1913, those titles also owned by Har­ large extent as banker for the other in­ stitutions, which evidently is pleasant vard, about 30 percent, appeared with enough for the latter, but is not quite the symbol "UCL-HCL.") The Univer­ fair to that institution which has the sity of California issued them from misfortune to be the banker .... When 1915 to 1917. In July 1918 the Universi­ the collections came to be divided it ty of Chicago began publishing analytic was soon felt that the only possible cards for certain European serials. The way to divide the cost among the in­ University of Michigan published for stitutions interested was to devise a some time after 1924; the University of system of points. A pamphlet was Illinois started in 1926. Wesleyan Uni­ counted as one point, an unbound vol­ ume as four, and a bound volume as • versity published cards sold to thirty­ 4 two research libraries from 1934 until eight. World War II. The Library of Con­ It seems quite certain that the in­ gress established its Cooperative Cata­ crease in publishing in the 1850s and loging Division in 1932.3 the economics surrounding the Civil Another cooperative endeavor is that War brought an end to the common of joint acquisition programs. Perhaps practice of publishing library catalogs the earliest example is the 1913-14 periodically in book .form. It also there­ t South American buying trip to eleven . by hastened the adoption of unitary countries by Walter Lichtenstein, the catalog cards which during the last Librarian of Northwestern University. quarter of the nineteenth century be­ He acquired 9,000 volumes plus news- came the prevalent mode for listing 208 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976

holdings and facilitated sharing of bib­ is the Duke University and the Univer­ liographic data. If the more affluent sity of North Carolina interlibrary proj­ times of the 1880s and 1890s resulted in ect. In 1931 these two institutions agreed phenomenal growth of collections, it to ~pedal book collecting areas, and the may have been predictable there would libraries exchanged author cards for be an upsurge in cooperative proposals their catalogs. Four years later a mes­ and the beginning of national coopera­ senger service commenced. Two other tive programs. ;North Carolina institutions joined in Despite the 1927 publication of the 1955, and full borrowing privileges great Union List of Serials in Libraries were extended to all members of each of the United States and Canada, it institution. would seem that the decade of the 1920s An example of contractual arrange­ was not a period of new concepts in ments among several libraries is the academic library cooperation. With the Joint University Libraries founded in crash of 1929 and conditions of the 1936 by Vanderbilt University, George Great Depression, however, there was Peabody College, and Scarritt College impetus for cooperation which led to for Christian Workers. Operating un­ new programs of which a few among der a joint board of trustees, the facili­ academic libraries may be cited. ty is an independent entity, jointly Dozens of new union card catalogs owned and financed by the partici­ were begun in the 1930s, stimulated by pants.5 Ano.ther example is The Clare­ the vast federal relief program. One re­ mont Colleges library system which be­ sult was the 1940-41 survey under the gan in 1931 when a contractual arrange­ sponsorship of the ALA Board of Re­ ment among the Claremont Graduate sources of American Libraries which School, Pomona College, and Scripps recommended their future coordination College established a joint order and to assure thorough coverage, minimum catalog department to serve the three li­ overlap, and sound fiscal support. braries. As a predecessor to cataloging-in-pub­ A 1933 example of an arrangement lication and the National Program for for reciprocal borrowing privileges is Acquisitions and Cataloging (NPAC), the Atlanta University Center Corpora­ the Cooperative Cataloging Program be­ tion in Atlanta, Georgia. With an initi­ gan in 1932. Within ten years nearly 400 ating grant from the General Educa­ U.S. and Canadian libraries contributed tion Board it included Atlanta Univer­ data for 60,000 scholarly titles for LC sity, Morehouse College, Spelman Col­ editing and publication. lege, Morris Brown College, Clark An informal arrangement among sev­ University, and in 1957 the Interdenom­ eral institutions constituted the Coop­ inational Theological Center.· .. erating Libraries of Upper New York, Another variation of interinstitution­ CLUNY. Formed in 1931, it included al cooperation is the unification of aca­ ,. Buffalo University, Colgate University, demic libraries under state control. This the Grosvenor Library, Hamilton Col­ was pioneered in 1932 by the Oregon lege, Syracuse University, Cornell Uni­ State Board ·of Higher Education which versity, and Union College. This group appointed one director of libraries for functioned until 1939 as a clearing­ the entire state system and established house for mutual problems and coop­ the principle of free circulation among erated on a union list of periodicals all state institutions. It also set up a + and the joint purchase of microfilm of central order diVision which now takes early English publications. the form of a combined author list of An example of a formal agreement all books and periodicals in the state A Century of Cooperative Programs f 209 system maintained in the Order Depart­ program born of disconcerting ment of the Oregon State University Li­ experiences with European ac­ brary "to eliminate unnecessary duplica­ quisitions during and immedi­ tion of materials."6 ately following World War II. This major cooperative pro­ MORE RECENT EVENTS gram was one of the most ef­ A highly selective list of other coop­ fective and • significant over erative programs of the past forty years many years. With 1965 as an would include the following: example, fifty-two libraries ac­ 1942-0pening of the New England quired 22,419 volumes, consti­ Deposit Library ( NEDL) as a tuting the total research publi­ cooperative storage facility of cations from fourteen coun­ Boston College, Boston Uni­ tries, in addition to area assign­ versity, Harvard University, ment receipts from the less­ M.I.T., Radcliffe College, Sim­ developed countries. mons College, Tufts Univer­ 1951-0pening of the Midwest Inter­ sity, and four nonacademic li­ Library Center, later to be braries. known as the Center for Re­ 1944-The Cooperative Committee search Libraries, by ten mid­ on Library Building Plans ini­ western university libraries as tiated by President Dodds of a cooperative akin to the Princeton to concern itself NEDL but with a program for with common problems in the joint buying and different cate­ planning for and design of gories of deposit or center academic library buildings. ownership. 1946-The Cooperative Acquisitions 1956-Initiation of the Foreign News­ Project for Wartime Publica­ paper Microfilm Project a_s a tions conducted by the Library cooperatively filmed, shared­ of Congress which, over three positive-copy program managed years, shipped nearly a mil­ by the Association of Research lion volumes from Europe to Libraries, the offspring of Har­ 113 participating American li­ vard's duplicate sale program braries. begun in 1938. 1948-Formation of the Universal 1959-The Latin American Coop­ Serial and Book Exchange, Inc. erative Acquisitions Program (previously named the U.S. (LACAP), begun as a com­ Book Exchange). Of the ini­ mercial endeavor for about tial members, 106 ( 76 percent) forty academic libraries. 7 were college or university li­ 1961-Congress authorized · expendi­ braries; they continue to de­ tures under Public Law 480 of posit about 70 percent of the blocked currencies for acquisi­ material exchanged, and they tion and cataloging of multi­ receive about the same percent­ ple copies of publications age of 'the total distributed. from eight countries. Managed 1948-Start of servic.e under the by the Library of Congress, Farmington Plan to about sixty this PL 480 program benefited research libraries of a coordi­ over 300 academic libraries, nated foreign acquisition pro­ with materials from Ceylon, gram for current mateJCials of India, Indonesia, Israel; Nepal, research value-a cooperative Pakistan, United Arab Repub- 210 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976

lie, and Yugoslavia. four cooperatives begun in the late 1965-The Medical Library Assist­ 1960s may be cited as typical. The Five ance Act, creating, among oth­ Associated University Libraries (FAUL) er programs, the eleven Re­ in New York (Buffalo, Rochester, Syra­ gional Medical Libraries pro­ cuse, Cornell, and Binghamton) cur­ viding interlibrary loan and rently includes assigned subject special­ reference and consultation ser­ ization for acquisitions, delivery service, vices to a broad region. Seven photocopying, reciprocal borrowing, ex­ are located in universities: panded interlibrary loan service, and Harvard, University of Wash­ joint research projects. ·The Librarians ington, Wayne State, UCLA, of the Council of Independent Ken­ Emory, Texas, and Nebraska. tucky Colleges and Universities encom­ 1966-The National Program for passes twenty-one colleges active in joint • Acquisitions and Cataloging purchase, assigned subject specialization, (NPAC), managed by the Li­ reciprocal borrowing privileges, expand­ brary of Congress and initiated ed interlibrary loan service, and produc­ by the Association of Research tion of union lists and directories. The Libraries. Middle Atlantic Research Libraries In­ 1966-The New York State Refer­ formation Network (MARLIN) of sev­ ence and Research Library Re­ en universities includes delivery ser­ sources Program ( 3Rs Pro­ vices, photocopying, mutual notification gram) established to .facilitate of purchase, production of union lists use of research library materi­ and directories, expanded interlibrary als. loan, and special communication ser­ 1967 -Incorporation of the Ohio Col­ vices. The North Dakota Network for lege Library Center ( OCLC) Knowledge of seventeen college and as a cooperative cataloging ser­ university libraries plus thirteen public vice for Ohio colleges and uni­ and special libraries includes all of versities. MARLIN's program except purchase 1968-The Center for Chinese Re­ notification and also provides mutual search Materials, formed by reference services, reciprocal borrow­ the Association of Research Li­ ing, and operation of a special biblio­ braries for acquiring, reprint­ graphic center. ing, and distributing selected One or two cooperative liaisons were valuable but inaccessible Chi­ ·formed every year or so from 1930 until nese scholarly materials. 1960 when there was a sharp increase. 1973-The Research Libraries Group, The Delanoy-Cuadra directory lists the formed of Harvard Universi­ births: four in 1964;· seven in 1965; ty, Yale University, Columbia eleven in 1966; sixteen in 1967; twenty­ University, and the New York four in 1968; twenty-four in 1969; and Public Library, to undertake a at least nineteen in 1970.8 If one had a program of coordinated collec­ comparable mortality list, one might tion building, reciprocal access speculate that some of these would fal­ privileges, delivery service, and ter. Yet a spot check found none of a common computer storage of those listed as formed during the 1960s catalog records for their col­ were deceased by 1975. lections so as to enhance coor­ dinated acquisitions and re­ SHORT-LIVED EFFORTS ALSO source sharing. PROVIDE LESSONS The composition of prograins for Yet it must also be recorded that some A Century of Cooperative Programs I 211

• major attempts at cooperation among and decisions was lacking. Furthermore, academic libraries petered out or failed, "it had become apparent that a latent though much may have been learned. conflict of purpose had begun to form An evaluative history of library cooper­ between the interests of the inter-insti­ ation is faced with problems. Joe W. tutional Project comprising divisional, Kraus has written: i.e., medical libraries, and the interests of the individual university library sys­ Several difficulties present themselves tems where the medical library is but at the outset. The literature of library 11 · cooperation is very large and most of one of the integral units." the articles are uncritical. Although Another which did not last long was most of the cooperative enterprises of the Colorado Academic Libraries Book libraries are announced and described Processing Center, which also operated in some detail in library periodicals, for only three years. This Colorado there are few evaluative reports that project began in 1965 with nine academ­ give a clear account of the success of ic libraries. The test phase, operated for a venture and the factors leading to fourteen institutions, lasted from early success or failure. Unsuccessful ones, 1969 until 1973 and covered the full in fact, simply seem to fade away. Costs of a cooperative effort are par­ tange of acquisitions, cataloging, pro­ ticularly hard to ascertain, in part be­ cessing, and bookkeeping. Its problems cause many expenses are absorbed in were incompatibilities among library the participating libraries, and in part procedures; changes not made by all of because standard reporting procedures the individual libraries; differences in have generally not yet been devel­ size, traditions, and service philosophies; oped.9 and failure to recognize that errors were One may here cite the Columbia-Har­ inevitable. Turnaround time was below vard-Yale medical library computer­ expectation and generally inferior to based cooperative c·ataloging program . that obtained when libraries ordered di­ that was terminated after operating rect from publishers or jobbers. Com­ from 1963 to 1966. As stated in the re­ munication breakdowns accounted for search proposal issued in December many problems. Geographical separa­ 1962 from the Yale Medical Library, tion of participants was partially to the objective of the project was to test blame, and staff did not understand the the feasibility of using a computerized center's role or how it would affect their catalog to provide rapid and improved jobs, future, and status. Furthermore, information services in medical li­ "centralization, cooperation, and com­ braries. An on-line system was projected; puterization have created a library en­ the significant achievements were the re­ vironment that is completely alien to 12 cording of 23,000 titles and the auto­ many librarians." Its final processes mated production of catalog cards. (It were phased out in 1973. was the precursor of OCLC.) An array The most successful acquisition and of technical problems concerned input processing centers, both founded in procedures. A change in data format 1969, are the Cooperative College Li­ standards was needed. Authority files brary Center, Inc., in Atlanta, and the were lacking. The subject treatment Massachusetts Central Library Process­ caused great problems, as did error-de­ ing Service in Amherst. From the latter, tection procedures. There were prob­ thirty-one institutions were provided ac­ + lems of staff cooperation. and communi­ quisition support and cataloging; a mil­ cation.10 Operational methods among lion items have been processed by its the three participants varie

straints which constitute mass produc­ and the means for a major e·ffort in­ • tion methods. The program was success­ volving a legal instrument, highly ex­ ful in bringing public higher education pert professional staff, fund-raising librarians together in an organized way, programs, and locally contributed effort. which was timely since the Common­ The more prevalent existing programs wealth Legislature eliminated funding found among 125 consortia ( of which for fiscal year 1976. 60 percent were incorporated) may be More often those cooperatives that tabulated as follows: 14 were weak were merged into other pro­ reciprocal borrowing privileges-97 grams, reduced to a smaller practical expanded interlibrary loan service element, or superseded by a newer, -80 larger, and more effective program. An union catalogs or lists-78 example of a program which served its photocopying services-72 time is the Farmington Plan of 1948 to reference services-50 1972 which was obviated as strength was delivery service-44 gained by the National Program for Ac­ mutual notification of purchase- quisitions and Cataloging (Title II-C 40 of the Higher Education Act signed in­ special communications service-35 to law November 8, 1965). The PL 480 publications programs-34 program was also a factor.13 catalog card production-34 other cataloging support-33 DIVERSITY IN RECENT EFFORTS joint purchasing of materials-30 Academic library cooperation is clear­ assigned subject specialization of ly flourishing. After many experimen­ acquisitions-28 tal starts, there seem to have been per­ Quite clearly there are few complete­ sistent efforts since the 1930s. Such pro­ ly innovative programs. An effort like grams continued to grow in number and the Research Libraries Group contains magnitude after World War II. It may elements from a number of programs indeed be asserted that the efforts since of the past forty-five years. In his recent World War II have become more for­ article, "An Historical Look at .Resource mal, more extensive, and far more ex­ Sharing," Basil Stuart-Stubbs concluded: pensive than previous efforts. Develop­ If the word network wasn't prominent ments such as the New England Deposit in the vocabulary of our pioneers, the Library and, particularly, the Center concept was there. In fact, although for Research Libraries demanded active the centennial of Samuel Swett Green's participation and support by college proposal for interlibrary lending will presidents. A program such as the N a­ be celebrated next year [i.e., 1976], tiona! Program for Acquisitions and and although the dimensions of coop­ Cataloging involved Congressional lob­ eration among libraries have increased bying with resultant major appropria­ enormously, there have been few intel­ tions and sweeping impact. The forma­ lectual innovations in the interim tion of the Ohio College Library Cen­ years. Wherever the spirits of our predecessors now abide, they must be ter demonstrated that cataloging opera­ waiting for the realization of their an­ tions could be effectively supported cient hopes.15 daily through on-line access to a single computer system. Formation of the Re­ Just as there are few completely novel search Libraries Group indicated that twists to academic library cooperation, not only the libraries of OCLC but also so also one can find little novelty in the the largest academic and research li­ impetus for and obstacles to cooperative braries in the nation found the need programs. Joseph Becker has cited the A Century of Cooperative Programs I 213 motivating factors of service, econom­ after Charles C. Jewett left Brown Uni­ ics, and technology.16 John P. McDonald versity to become Librarian of the new­ expanded these to include financial con­ ly established Smithsonian Institution, striction, cost sharing, availability of he proposed the stereotype printing of funds, pressure of numbers, resource cataloging data.19 However, the spirit of improvement, service improvement, man­ cooperation was blunted by the difficul­ agement improvement, image enhance­ ties of organizing the business and the ment, and technological development. unexpected warping of the plates. The To these nine forces urging coopera­ Library of Congress card distribution tive enterprise, he has also cited a num­ plan of fifty years later pursued this ber of obstacles. same promise of a new technology which could solve problems of individ­ If there are incentives to cooperation, there are also many problems and dif­ ual libraries. ficulties that limit or frustrate our best efforts at collective action. There is, HISTORICAL LESSONS for example, a persistent attitude that The relative impact of these obsta­ assigns cooperative activities low pri­ ority and low or no budget. This view­ cles will change with respect to each co­ point insists that cooperation be under­ operative endeavor. Furthermore, each taken as a part-time extra duty and endeavor is commonly a mix of several then only after more important work incentive factors and must cope with a has been accomplished. There are variety of obstacles.20 What can be con­ other attitudes that have proved diffi­ cluded from this review of cooperative cult to overcome. It is asserted that co­ programs over the last century? operation causes delay and incon­ In 1945 an assessment was made by venience resulting in a general deteri­ Robert B. Downs. His study revealed oration in service. Other complaints are that cooperation is expensive, that certain important principles which it involves high effort for low return, have influenced the success or failure that there are inequities in contribu­ of various kinds of library cooperation. tions and benefits, and that coopera­ First, distance is a handicap, and it is tion is often ill defined or redun­ easier for libraries not too far removed dant.17 from each other to work together. Sec­ These problems may be endemic with ond, regional library cooperation has any -cooperative program-less visible its greatest opportunities in those areas with inadequate book resources. Third, where cooperation between two depart­ libraries should not be asked to give ments of a single library is concerned up anything but rather to assume posi­ but exposed to view and psychologically tive responsibilities and receive direct much more difficult to resolve when co­ benefits. Fourth, agreements must be operation between two institutions is flexible enough to provide for expan­ undertaken. When one remembers that sion and adjustment. Fifth, complete almost any two institutions are disparate elimination of duplication between li­ in program, financial support, and a braries is not possible or desirable. host of other variables, one may wonder Finally, only a comparatively limited whether any cooperation can be effective number of libraries are at present and lasting.18 equipped to make any substantial or effective contribution to a general pro­ The challenges, the opportunities, gram of cooperation on the research and the problems do not seem to change level.21 fundamentally with the ,. passing of time. This may be true even for techno­ A university president provided an­ logical development. In 1851, three years other assessment. 214 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976

It is my personal judgment that those of these programs rides some wave pat­ that work best are of two sorts: they tern of popularity and success. Each in­ are either between universities, or dividual library tries its ability to swim parts of universities, of equal status in the current, but none operates apart and quality or, at the other extreme, from circumstances in its own institu­ between universities, or parts of uni­ versities, that differ widely in status tion. Library changes can be found to or quality .... But where the grada­ be closely derivative of their institution­ tions in quality are small in extent but al conditions and/ ot national circum­ noticeable, co-operation is exceedingly stances.23 difficult .... the obstacles to co-opera­ The cause and effect can sometimes tion are not material. ... [They] are be clearly traced. For example, projects found in the mind and spirit of rna~. supported by the Library Services and They are institutional pride and insti­ Construction Act Title III (signed into tutional jealousy.... They are inertia law July 1966) for intertype coopera­ and complacency. It is self-satisfac­ tives obviously show derivation from tion, institutionwise, that makes the that federal law. One can cite the 1972 building of effective co-operation a difficult thing. And I would say, final­ Cooperative Information Network in ly, that it is an irrational provincialism California which was formed of 250 or an emotional particularism on the libraries, including the University of part of college faculties which makes California campus at Santa Cruz, the co-operation difficult.22 Universities of Santa Clara, San Jose To some extent there are cycles of State, Golden Gate, and Stanford to­ popularity. Within a decade after the gether with over a dozen community New England Deposit Library was colleges and the U.S. Naval Postgradu­ opened, the Center for Research Li­ ate School. Yet the New England De­ braries and the Hampshire Inter-Library posit Library was born of space prob­ Center came along, soon followed by lo­ lems mounting during the depression cal storage facilities for Princeton Uni­ years, although the concept was pro­ versity, the University of Michigan, and posed by Harvard's President Eliot. In the University of California at Berke­ the fall of 1901, Eliot wrote that ley. At the moment, computer-related the increasing rate at which large col­ programs are clearly looked upon as lections of books grow suggests strong­ holding great promise. They are the ly that some new policy is needed con­ prime, but not the only, objective of cerning the storage of these immense consortia such as NELINET founded masses of printed matter.... It may in 1966, SOLINET ( 1974), MIDLNET be doubted whether it be wise for a (1974), and CLASS (1976). For in­ university to undertake to store books stance, MIDLNET, the Midwest Region by the million, when only a small pro­ portion of the material stored can be Library Network, includes research li­ in active use. Now that travel and braries and state networks in Michigan, sending of books to all parts of the Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, country has become cheap, it may well Iowa, and Missouri; it aims to develop be that great accumulations of printed faster delivery of books to users; to co­ matter will be held accessible at only ordinate library planning, development, three or four points in the country. and research in the Midwest; to attract . . . The unused might be stored in a federal funds available for regional li­ much more compact manner than they are now, even in the best-arranged brary network development; to provide 24 a voice in the emerging national library stacks. network; and to develop a coordinated The concept is venerable, but it had to program of materia,ls preservation. Each await implementation until the massive - A Century of Cooperative Programs I 215

Widener Library was full in the 1930s. operating institutions in the Midwest. Then the New England Deposit Library Four areas of activity were initially out­ was justified and financed. lined: Timing is often key, as with the NEDL. The Center for Research Li­ The deposit into a common pool of the braries was initiated under the name infrequently used library materials held by the participating institutions Midwest Inter-Library Center. But ten in order to reduce their local · space years before its foundation President needs, and also to make more readily Robert M. Hutchins of the University available when needed more complete of Chicago asked Keyes D. Metcalf to collections than any one of the partici­ conduct a study of such a cooperative pating libraries itself could reasonably facility for twelve Midwest universities maintain for its own exclusive use. ) stretching from Ohio to Minnesota and Michigan to Missouri. Eleven of the The cooperative purchase and cen­ twelve university presidents approved tralized cataloguing and housing of in­ frequently used library research ma­ the idea, and only one was opposed. terials that were not already adequate­ However, eleven of the twelve librari­ ly available to the participants. ans opposed the idea, and only one ap­ proved of it. Metcalf suggested the mat­ The centralized acquisition and cata­ ter be put off until after the approach­ loging [sic] of the materials acquired ing war. When a new study was then by the participants for their own col­ made, it turned out that all but one of lections. the librarians had changed and all but The coordination of the acquisitions one of the presidents had retired. Elev­ of the individual participating libraries en out of twelve current incumbents of to avoid unnecessary duplication.25 both groups then approved. Thus can ten years change attitudes toward inter­ A building for the center was occupied library cooperation. in 1951. Within a dozen years the coop­ Recent cooperative examples face erative acquisition program had been most if not all of the problems treated given increased emphasis. The most sig­ above, develop under similar motiva­ nificant shift came in 1963 when the tions, and seem to follow principles in- , center invited Stephen A. McCarthy and fluencing their success which are the Raynard C. Swank to survey the pro­ same as similar programs of past dec­ gram and make recommendations deal­ ades. One significant difference seems to ing with concerns such as the gradual be the greater legal and administrative assumption of many characteristics of formality required. In this connection, a ~ national interlibrary center while its it may be useful to review the purposes base of support was primarily r~gio-!}al; for creation of the Center for Research questions of whether the center's activi­ Libraries, the Ohio College Library Cen­ ties were truly worth their cost to the ter, and the Research Libraries Group. members; how it could be of better ser­ These may be typical of the next sig­ vice to all of the nation's research li­ nificant wave of developments. braries ( and potentially of Canada and Mexico as well); and how it might most E-XAMPLES OF INCREASED FoRMALITY effectively broaden its base of support. The most significant recommendation The Center for Research Libraries was that: was incorporated in 1949 by ten univer­ sities as a nonprofit corporation with the The Center should formally cease to primary purpose of increasing the li­ be a regional. agency and should be­ brary research resources available to co- come a national institution. 216 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976

All suitable methods of bringing about per-student costs in its member col­ this change should be fully explored. leges and universities. Techniques for achieving these goals include library In seeking the best means of becom­ and the new library-like information ing a national research library center, servicing techniques, such as dial-up the possibility of a relationship with 'installations, audiovisual centers, and the Association of Research Libraries computer assisted instruction. Al­ and contractual relationships with the though "academic libraries" of the im­ Library of Congress and other federal mediate future must be looked upon agencies should be thoroughly investi­ as including all of these activities, only gated.26 the traditional library is presently Among many recommendations and common to all institutions which are changes in the acquisition program, this OCLC members. Therefore, major em­ change to a national scope and altera­ phasis in planning and development tions of its governance, funding, and will continue to be for activities asso­ ciated with classical library operations. operations have been especially signifi­ However, OCLC will stand ready to cant, and have led to an increase in its participate in newer information ser­ membership from the original ten uni­ vicing activities, and it may well be versities to a present total of sixty. that furnishing powerful computation The Ohio College Library Center was service will be among its earliest ac­ incorporated in 1967 by nine public and tivities.28 private colleges and universities as a not­ for-profit corporation. There were fifty­ In 1974-75, participating libraries cat­ four members during 1967-68. The· aloged 2,555,055 books; the data base OCLC Articles include the statement contained over 5.3 million locations. that: Cataloging using existing records in the on-line catalog increased to 84.7 percent. The purpose or purposes for which Use of records for catalog production this corporation is formed are to estab­ by libraries other than the one inputting lish, maintain and operate a computer­ ized, regional library center to 'serve the record rose to 41.8 percent. This in­ the academic libraries of Ohio (both dicates a major operational interlibrary state and private) and designed so as endeavor. to become a part of any national elec­ The Research Libraries Group was tronic network for bibliographical formed by Columbia, Harvard, and communication; to develop, maintain Yale Universities and the New York and operate a shared cataloging pro­ Public Library to develop a common gram based upon a central computer bibliographic system, cooperative acqui­ store; to create, maintain and operate sitions, shared resources, and a program a computerized central catalog (inven­ tory) of books and journals in the of book conservation. The presidents + participating libraries; and to do such of the three universities gave their research and development related to strong endorsement to the RLG concept, the above as are necessary to accom­ and the Trustees of NYPL demonstrat­ plish and to extend the concept.27 ed their support by voting in October 1974 to allow materials from the re­ That same year the OCLC trustees ap­ search libraries to be sent to other RLG · proved a general statement of two prin­ ·members on interlibrary loan. The Re­ I cipal goals for the organization: search Libraries Group is governed py These goals are, 1) increase of re­ a board of directors with working com­ sources for education and research to mittees on policies and programs for faculty and students of its member in- · preservation, collection development, se­ stitutions, and 2) the deceleration of rials, readers services, bibliographic pro- A Century of Cooperative Programs f 217 cesses and control, and systems and tech­ tributed to the National Union Catalog nology applications. It has created a indicates records which constitute inter­ joint bibliographic center and appoint­ library loan potential for other institu­ ed a president and vice-president for tions as well as potential shared catalog­ systems. It was incorporated in Decem­ ing. In 1974-75, academic libraries con­ ber 1975 as a not-for-profit corporation. tributing the largest number of cards The certificate of incorporation present­ were the following: ly includes the statement: University of Texas 124,209 The nature of the activities to be con­ Harvard University 113,830 ducted, or the purposes to be carried University of Wisconsin 105,386 out by the corporation, are as follows: Cornell University 97,494 (a) to promote coordination in the de­ University of California, velopment of library collections, and Berkeley 83,213 to develop cooperative programs in the Yale University 78,230 conservation and preservation of li­ Rutgers University 76,277 brary materials; (b) to develop im­ proved methods for identifying and lo­ Princeton University 74,353 cating recorded information in libraries Columbia University 68,751 and for creating and· using biblio­ Duke University 67,795 graphic systems; (c) to develop, op­ Indiana University 66,548 erate, support and coordinate coopera­ Ohio State University 66,060 tive programs to improve physical access to the collections of libraries; Since universities use LC cataloging (d) to improve the efficiency and to for from 35 percent to 89· percent of promote economics in the operations their material, the value of help via of libraries; (e) generally, in any and NUC, MARC, NPAC, and other Lc· all lawful ways to improve library ser­ Processing Department products is clear­ vices provided by the Members; and ly in the tens of millions of dollars. (f) to engage in any other lawful act Statistics of interlibrary lending and or activities (consistent with the fore­ borrowing are evidence of the value of going purposes). 29 one universal cooperative program. In its first report to a supporting Using a sample of academic libraries, foundation, the RLG restated that rap­ the picture for 1974-75 is shown in id development of a limited number of Table 1. cost-effective programs is vi~wed as the Of all recorded circulation, the inter­ basis for eventual solicitation of other library traffic constitutes an almost in­ members similar in nature to the found­ finitesimal proportion-an aggregate av­ ers and possibly selling services on a erage of 1.79 percent for colleges and cost-recovery basis to other libraries. 1.33 percent for universities! It is the most expensive form of resource shar­ ASSESSMENTS OF USEFULNESS ing. (It may cost 5 cents to circulate a How useful are existing cooperative reserve book, 10 cents from the general programs from the point of view of the stack collections, $1.00 from a locked college or university student or profes­ stack, $2.00 from a campus auxiliary sor? One finds little data that can help stack, but it costs from $4.00 to $9.00 by in the evaluation. It may be worth not­ interlibrary loan.) ing that there have been almost no pub­ Specific evidence is avail:;tble of an­ lished research studies comparing and other type of program directly benefit­ analyzing two or more cooperative pro­ ing patrons-commuting service for grams of a similar nature. 30 persons to another library. An instance A tabulation of cataloging copy con- is the intercampus bus service estab- 218 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976

TABLE I INTERLmRARY LENDING AND BoRROWING AND TOTAL REcoRDED CmCULATION, SELECTED CoLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 1974-75

Name of Items Items Total Recorded Institution Borrowed Lent Circulation Colleges Amherst 1,826 2,424 62,092 Bowdoin 287 1,504 84,212 Colby 863 387 80,993 Denison 143 94 46,816 Goucher 23 17 44,262 Ithaca 559 600 105,421 Middlebury 1,430 1,206 89,358 Mills 22 45 41,906 Oberlin 1,408 2,751 290,386 Occidental 36 21 85,040 Reed 199 316 38,906 Stephens 16 5 61,264 Vassar 2,823 3,218 104,832 Weber State 379 50 87,840 Westmount 159 103 37,247 Wooster 459 98 48,739 Universities Delaware 3,301 2,953 394,022 Humboldt State 1,008 412 437,819 Illinois 4,427 43,729 1,882,960 Kansas 6,126 7,346 1,033,353 Long Beach, Cal. State 3,311 1,402 944,577 Michigan 5,910 8,939 1,565,148 Northwestern 1,311 3,653 1,014,701 Pennsylvania 2,612 9,079 545,293 Stanford 3,529 16,737 1,481,675 Texas 2,648 8,615 1,626,449 UCLA 4,006 14,695 1,933,268 Utah 4,549 5,693 549,463 Virginia 1,962 6,848 521,742 U. of Washington 3,349 53,055 2,792,968 lished in late 1961 by the University of book, the return of which by a later bus California. Transporting scholars and constituted a third of the above annual books six days each week, it operates quantity of loans while the other two­ from Davis and Santa Cruz to Berkeley, thirds were interlibrary loans including and from Irvine, Riverside, San Diego, the 9 percent personally fetched and and Santa Barbara to UCLA. During charged out by the bus driver. Here is 1972-73 there were over 16,000 pas­ another quantifiable example of practi­ sengers plus 35,000 complete interlibrary cal interinstitutional sharing of library or returned personal loans. A study in resources. early 1974 revealed half of the com­ One looks in vain in published li­ muters used library services or collec­ brary literature to find major compre­ tions; the others used laboratories, at­ hensive cost-effectiveness studies of joint tended classes, or were otherwise on uni­ acquisitions programs or interlibrary versity business. Before making the trip, borrowing. To the patron they are rela­ 19 percent had conferred with a local tively marginal programs when viewed librarian about the resources to be visit- · against the totality of library services t ed, and 58 percent went with some pre­ in any one college or university. Insti­ knowledge of what they would find. A tutions have obviously recognized that third of the commuters checked out a the final 1 percent of service volume A Century of Cooperative Programs j 219

justifies costs that are disproportionate. significant as the change from block printing to printing with movable type. THE NATURE OF FuTURE PROSPECTS This conclusion is based on the pre­ It is difficult to· discern trends. Inter­ sumption that on-line computer-based institutional cooperation seems to be operational programs constitute a radi­ universaily recognized as essential, al­ cal and permanent change in coopera­ though the extraordinary efforts re­ tive style. When one is freed from most quired and the hazards in the course are of the constraints of the card catalog, now understood-and continue to exist. of the U.S. mail, and of locally pre­ In some sense a library is only effective pared cataloging data, this adoption of if it has acquisition, processing, and ser­ sophisticated on-line computer-based vice programs; physical facilities in programs may well be by far the most which to house the collections and read­ significant change ever achieved in li­ ers; and a specialized staff for these pro­ brary operations. It is a permanent grams. Many but not all aspects of this change in the mode of library opera­ library program are subject to interin­ tions which should be accomplished dur­ stitutional cooperation. For those that ing the period 1965 to 199().32 are subject to a cooperative approach, It is not a sudden change, for it has nearly all types have been explored and its origins in the early 1950s; and, in­ are still being pursued. Where staff pres­ deed, library programs using tabulating sures increase, and as economic circum­ machines date from the mid-1930s. Yet stances shift and technology develops, if one looks ahead ten years, the college buffeted by institutional and national student of 1986 may well find at least economic conditions, the movement for 10 percent of all bibliographic citations academic library cooperation advances of the library collections in machine­ on different fronts at different times. It readable form accessible through a seems, however, like an army moving computer terminal; in some instances ahead-the cavalry unit or armored it may reach 100 percent. It is certain to tank unit, followed by foot soldiers, include all of the more heavily used supply, communication, and manage­ materials. The student will also be able ment units, with no one getting far via the terminal to call upon collections ahead of the others and no unit of the in other libraries, locally and national­ force long ignored. ly, and have instantaneous loan trans­ r The economic motive may not always actions, only constrained by copyright be the eternal catalyst, yet it can be controls on photocopying and limited found in every one of the examples by telefacsimile or by the remaining leited. 31 The financial resources used by need to send the text by air parcel post. libraries in their acquisition of materi- Just as the development of national als and provision of service to users cre­ standards was important in 1876 and ate economic environments. Whether 1900, it again becomes of major impor­ they be in publicly or privately support­ tance in the nation's ability to develop ed institutions, they respond to national a national . computer-supported system changes in the economy and to local of libraries. conditions. Programs have. prospered This shift to on-line computer-based with good fiscal support or have re­ systems nationally linked will ·face the mained static due to · inadequate eco­ same type of problems as have been nomic studies or an insufficient financial seen in cooperative examples cited base. above. After reviewing current experi­ American academic libraries have ence with computerized library and aca­ reached a watershed that is almost as demic resource-sharing networks, Pro- 220 I College & Research Libraries • May 1976 fessor Lewis B. Mayhew concluded: The economically forced and tech­ nologically facilitated cooper~tion of It seems clear that the major problems the 1970s must surely be resulting in to be overcome with respect to educa­ just as significant a change in the li­ tional or research use of networks are braries of the future as the political not technical. Technical problems ei­ ther have been solved or the directions changes of 1776 created for the new established to solve them. The real American nation. The thirteen separate problems are political, organizational states operating independently then and economic. Governmental policy formed a federal government with care­ must be refined so as to produce ful orchestration of local authority, re­ health and balanced growth rather gional coordination, selected national than uneven and unplanned partial standards, and some over-reaching fed­ growth. Universities, by tradition in:­ eral programs. At the time the Ameri­ dependent, must find ways of reorga­ can Library Association was formed in nizing their uses of computers so as to 1876, the union of interests had recent­ optimize effectiveness and institutional autonomy. They need to mature to a ly been reasserted. There would seem to point where they will trust external be a close parallel with the state of li­ agencies. And as has been indicated brarianship in this decade as it applies earlier, stable, long-range systems of to cooperative programs among academ­ financing must be found. 33 ic libraries.

REFERENCES 1. An earlier move in this direction was the 8. Diana Delanoy and Carlos A. Cuadra, Di­ Librarians' Convention held in New York rectory of Academic Library Consortia in 1853. "Proceedings," Norton's Literary (Santa Monica, Calif.: System Develop­ Register, 1854, p.49--94. ment Corp., 1971). A second edition by 2. "Co-operative College Cataloguing," Amer­ Donald V. Black and Carlos A. Cuadra ican Library Journal 1:435-36 (August appeared in spring 1976. 1877). 9. Joe W. Kraus, "Prologue to Library Coop­ 3. Of historical use are the "Symposium on eration," Library Trends 24:171 (Oct. Printed Catalog Cards," Library Journal 1975). This issue is devoted to "Library 36:543-56 (Nov. 1911), and the volume Cooperation." by Robert B. Downs, Union Catalogs in the 10. Paul J. Fasana, "The Collaborative Library United States (Chicago: American Library Systems Development Project (CLSDP): Assn., 1942). A Mechanism for Inter-University Coopera­ 4. Walter Lichtenstein, "Report to the Presi­ tion," in Collaborative Library Systems De­ dent of Northwestern University on the velopment (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Pr., Results of a Trip to South America," 1971)' p.22&-36. Northwestern University Bulletin 16:8-9 11. Ritvars Bregzis, The Columbia-Harvard­ (Sept. 1915). ¥ ale Medical Libraries Computerized Prot­ 5. In this setting the Conference of Graduate ect-a Review (Toronto: 1966), p.4; see Deans and Librarians resulted in The De­ also specific comments on eleven major velopment of Library Resources and Grad­ problems areas on p.17-19. See also Fred­ uate Work in the Cooperative University erick G. Kilgour, "Basic Systems Assump­ Centers of the South;.. Proceedings ... Held tions of the Columbia-Harvard-Yale Medi­ at the ]oint University Libraries ... , ed. cal Libraries Computerization Project," In­ Philip G. Davidson and A. F. Kuhlman formation Retrieval with Special Reference (Nashville, Tenn.: Joint University Li­ to the Biomedical Sciences; Papers Present­ braries, 1944). ed at the Second Institute on Information 6. A useful work is by Mildred Hawksworth Retrieval, ed. Wesley Siminton and Char­ Lowell, College and University Library lene Mason (Minneapolis: Univ. of Min­ Consolidations (Eugene: Oregon State Sys­ nesota, 1966), p.145-54. tem of Higher Education, 1942). 12. Richard M. Dougherty and Joan M. Maier, 7. M. J. Savary, The Latin American Cooper­ Centralized Processing ·for Academic Li­ ative Acquisitions Program; An Imaginative braries: The Final Report, Phase Ill, ]an. Venture (New York: Hafner, 1968). 1-]une 30, 1969, of the Colorado Academic A Century of Cooperative Programs I 221

Libraries Book Processing Center-the Thornton, "Cooperation among Colleges," First Six Months of Operation (Metuchen, Library Trends 6:309-25 (Jan. 1958). N.J.: Scarecrow, 1971), p.119. See also 24. President's Report for 1900-01, p.30-31. Allen B. Veaner, "Colorado Academic Li­ See also Library ]ournal27:53-54 (1902). braries Book Processing Center-Consult­ 25. Quotations from Stephen A. McCarthy and ing Report," June 1972. Raynard C. Swank, "The Report of a Sur­ 13. A useful review is James E. Skipper, "Na­ vey with an Outline of Programs arid Poli­ tional Planning for Resource Develop­ cies" (Chicago: 1965), as reprinted in ment," Library Trends 14:321--34 (Oct. Michael M. Reynolds, ed., Reader in Li­ 1966); see also Robert Vosper, The Farm­ brary Cooperation (Washington, D.C.: ·ington Plan Survey: A Summary of the NCR Microcard Editions, 1972), p.199. Separate Studies of 1957-1961 ([Occa­ 26. Ibid., p.200. sional Papers, no.77] Urbana: University 27. "Articles of Incorporation of the Ohio Col­ of Illinois Graduate School of Library Sci­ lege Library Center," approved July 6, ence, 1965). 1967, third section. 14. Carlos A. Cuadra and Ruth J. Patrick, 28. Annual Report 1967/68, p.2-3. "Survey of Academic Library Consortia in 29. From internal draft document, November the U.S.," College & Research Libraries 1975. Personal communication from James 33:271-83 (July 1972). E. Skipper. 15. Basil Stuart Stubbs, "An Historical Look 30. An exception is the study by H. Joanne at Resource Sharing," Library Trends 23: Harrar of the NEDL, CRL, and HILC, 662 (April 1975). summarized as "Cooperative Storage Ware­ 16. Joseph Becker, "Information Network Pros­ houses," College & Research Libraries 25: pects in the United States," Library Trends 37-43 (Jan. 1964). 17:311-12 (Jan. 1969). 31. Note for example a product of the Associa­ 17. John P. McDonald, "Interlibrary Coopera­ tion of Research Libraries: Problems and tion in the United States," Issues in Library Prospects of the Research Library [papers Administration, ed. Warren M. Tsuneishi, and proceedings of the Monticello Confer­ Thomas R. Buckman, and Yukihisa Suzuki ence], ed. Edwin E. Williams (New Bruns­ (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1974), wick, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1955). p.131. 32. Four seminal works may be cited as omens: 18. An extensive list of problems is presented (1) Conference on Libraries and Automa­ by Merton W. Ertell, Interinstitutional Co­ tion, Airlie Foundation, 1963, Libraries and operation in Higher Education; A Study Automation: Proceedings, ed. Barbara of Experiences with Reference to New Evans Markuson (Washington, D.C.: Li­ York State (Albany: The University of the brary of Congress, 1964); (2) Summer State of New York, 1957), p.98-100. Study on Information Networks, University 19. Charles Coffin Jewett, "A Plan for Stereo­ of Colorado, 1966, Edunet: Report, authors typing Catalogues by Separate Titles, and and eds., George W. Brown, James G. Mil­ for Forming a General Stereotyped Cata­ ler, and Thomas A. Keenan (New York: logue of Public Libraries of the United Wiley, 1967); (3) Conference on Inter­ States," Proceedings of the American Asso­ library Communications and Information ciation for the Advancement of Science Networks, 1970, Proceedings, ed. Joseph 4:165-76 (Aug. 1850). . Becker (Chicago: American Library Assn., 20. A useful work is Ruth J. Patrick, Guidelines 1971); and (4) U.S. National Commission for the Development of Academic Library on Libraries and Information Science, To­ Consortia (Santa Monica, Calif.: System ward a National Program for Library and Development Corporation, 1971). Information Services: Goals for Action 21. Robert B. Downs, "American Library Co­ (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., operation in Review," College & Research 1975). Libraries 6:407-15 (Sept. 1945, part II). 33. Lewis B. Mayhew, Computerized Networks 22. Ernest C. Colwell, "Inter-University Co­ among Libraries and Universities: An Ad­ operation," Library Quarterly 22:2-3 (Jan. ministrators Overview (ED 115220) ( Stan­ 1952). ford, Calif.: ERIC Clearinghouse on In­ 23. In this connection, a useful work is Eileen formation Resources, 1975), p.61.

David C. Weber is director of University Libraries, Stanford University, Stanford, California.