Collection Development Patterns of Fiction Titles in Public Libraries: The Place of Independent and Small Presses

Juris Dilevko
University of Toronto

Alison Hayman
Transport Canada
Recent scholarship has identified increased corporate control of the news and book publishing industries as a worrisome trend insofar as it has meant a decrease in the sites where diverse public expression is allowed to occur. Public libraries are major buyers of fiction titles, yet mainstream commercial publishers owned by large conglomerates now publish a large portion of all available fiction despite the proliferation of small, independent presses. This article looks at the fiction purchases of public libraries in the United States which are members of OCLC by type of publisher in the period 19941997, and then compares these purchases with those of Barnes & Noble bookstores. While Barnes & Noble seems to have significantly increased its purchases from small, independent presses during this four-year period, public libraries have not done so. Yet, in general, public library fiction purchases do reflect both the availability of independent titles and their rate of appearance in popular collection development review tools. The outsourcing of collection development by libraries to private sector vendors has become, in the past five years, a thorny issue that has occasioned much anguish among library professionals. While the debate may have initially turned on the technical competencies of vendors to provide a broad array of titles, it quickly became a focal point of controversy about the extent of privatization and corporate control of the public sphere that libraries are said to represent. As summarized by Oder (1997), the practice of outsourcing was forcefully brought to the attention of the library community by the decision of the Hawaii State Public Library System to entrust its book and serial buying functions to a private company. Negative reaction, Oder reports, was not long in coming, as local librarians decried the new

Direct all correspondence to: Juris Dilevko, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Information Studies, 140 St. George St., University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G6 dilevko@fis.utoronto.ca. Library & Information Science Research, Volume 22, Number 1, pages 3559. Copyright 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-8188 35

36

Dilevko & Hayman

Wal-Mart Approach to library services and argued that one of the core competencies of libraries was not only to access information, but also culture (p. 28). Schneider (1998), while suggesting that outsourcing represented the culmination of Malthusian efficiency measures, also argued that a recourse to outsourcing implied that librarianship was not being treated like a grown-up profession insofar as library services were now reduced to generic commodities (pp. 6667). Willett (1998) specifically linked outsourcing to corporate control of public sites of expression. In this regard, he follows in the footsteps of Schiller (1989), who identified libraries, schools, and museums as sites where corporations had colonized public consciousness (pp. 66110). Referring particularly to academic libraries, Willett (1998) contended that outsourcing approval plans to vendors creates a prejudice against the alternative press [because] [b]usiness is guided by the interests of corporate America rather than providing exposure to all points of view (p. 91). For him, outsourcing is not merely a means of cutting costs, but, instead, explicitly points to the issue of increased corporate control of public institutions and discourse identified by Schiller (1989). To bolster his point, Willett (1998) provides a list of ten hidden consequences of outsourcing library selection. These consequences run the gamut from loss of collegiality and range of knowledge among deskilled and commodified staff members, to the evisceration of the Library Bill of Rights so as to facilitate access to corporate products by middle-class consumers, and to the creation of a global network of misinformation depots with numerous political and social implications for democracy, peace, and social justice (p. 95). Schuman (1998) similarly views outsourcing in a broader context of privatization. The outsourcing of collection development functions, she believes, was only an inevitable precursor to the decisions of public libraries in Riverside and Calabasas (both in California), and Jersey City (New Jersey) to turn over complete operation of their libraries to a for-profit company called Library Systems and Services. Accordingly, she fears that traditional library goals of access, equity, diversity, and multiplicity of viewpoints will be compromised by private control of libraries. In conclusion, Schuman suggests that the privatization of public services such as libraries is the culmination of a long campaign to dismantle government and has the potential to violate the public trust insofar as libraries are held hostage to the whimsy of the marketplace (p. 52). Since outsourcing is, in many respects, a response to financial constraints imposed upon library systems by various levels of government, libraries have begun to turn to private sources of funds. Thus, the consternation about collection development outsourcing has intensified the debate about the philanthropic partnerships libraries forge with private sector companies. For instance, Berman, in a moderated discussion with Mielke (Mielke & Berman, 1998), observes that libraries run the risk of becoming shills for enterprises that frequently are more concerned about marketing their wares than in really promoting literacy, democracy, or selfempowerment (p. 43). Berman is especially caustic about the circumstance that, because these partnerships and collaborations rarely involve labor, consumer, and anti-poverty groups, they uniquely favor one political and economic interest over a

Collection Development Patterns

37

lot of others (p. 44). Much like the arguments put forward by Willett (1998) and Schuman (1998), Bermans concerns reflect a skepticism that corporations will be able to put aside their quest for increased profits and market share in the service of other values more important to the library and the society which it serves. To say the least, the introduction of outsourcing in libraries has occasioned a lively exchange of viewpoints, and, as is to be expected, not all reaction to outsourcing has been uniformly negative (see, e.g., Dubberly, 1998). One question that has not been raised in this controversy, however, is the extent to which libraries, even before the question of collection development outsourcing was highlighted, had already become what Schiller (1989), quoting the German social and political philosopher Hans Magnus Enzensberger, described as sites for the industrialization of the mind an industrialization brought about by an often unrecognized corporate presence (pp. 8990).1 To be sure, the commercialization and privatization of information sources, reflected in the institutionalization of fees and levies for such information sources in libraries, is one aspect of a growing corporate presence in libraries (see, e.g., Coffman & Freedman, 1997). However, there are other, perhaps less obvious though no less real, manifestations of a gradual movement away from public to corporate expression (Schiller, 1989, p. 88). The purpose of this article is to explore one aspect of this hidden industrialization of the mind in public libraries in the United States. While there has been a concerted body of work in the broad field of communications theory about corporate concentration in media and how such concentration allows for the establishment of what Gitlin (1980) has famously referred to as the systematic (but not necessarily or even usually deliberate) engineering of mass consent to the established order (p. 253), relatively little research has been done about the subtle ways in which libraries are implicated in giving a platform for the corporate voice. LITERATURE REVIEW The ever-increasing corporate control of news media outlets, whether print, television, radio, or Web-based services, has been thoroughly documented by Auletta (1997b), Bagdikian (1997), Herman and McChesney (1997), Schiller (1997), and Schiller (1998). And, as Bates (1998) observes, even American alternative newsweeklies are experiencing an erosion of the diversity of independent ownership that once set [them] apart from the mainstream press (p. 12). Some implications of such corporate control for academic libraries were discussed by Dilevko and Grewal (1997) who show, through an analysis of the holdings of socio-political journals in Canadian academic libraries, that the number of corporate-published titles of such journals far surpassed the number of such journals

1 A selection of Enzensbergers work may be accessed, in English translation, in The consciousness industry: On literature, politics, and the media, selected and with a postscript by Michael Roloff (New York: Seabury Press, 1974).

38

Dilevko & Hayman

published by independent small presses. Moreover, they show that online electronic vendors were also supplying many more corporate-published socio-political titles than independent titles, thus raising troubling questions about the actual diversity of views available in academic libraries subscribing to those electronic services. Marinko and Gerhard (1998), while not specifically commenting on the dominant place corporate-published journals have in American university research libraries, present evidence that periodicals indexed by the Alternative Press Index (and, thus, published by small, independent presses) are underrepresented in academic library holdings. Particularly low holding rates were found for titles in the categories of leftist/Marxist politics, gay/lesbian issues, and labor. While Enzensberger and Schillers notion of the industrialization of the mind is most readily apparent through holdings analyses, Dilevko and Grewal (1998) also show how reliance on corporate-published news sources could have an impact on reference work. Dilevko (1998a, 1998b), comparing the treatment of news stories dealing with the same topic in corporate-published newspapers and independent publications, offers suggestions for conducting bibliographic instruction classes in academic libraries so that students are made aware of news media biases stemming from corporate control of news sources. Little attention, however, has been paid to how corporate control may present itself in public libraries. Corporate control of information sources is not confined to news dissemination media. As outlined by Miller (1997), eight conglomerates with vast and diversified holdings in, for example, television, radio, cable, and the entertainment industry, dominated the trade book market in the United States in 1996. Their books are marketed under more than 100 different imprints. These eight companies were: Hearst; News Corporation; Pearson PLC; Viacom; Advance Publications; Bertelsmann AG; Time Warner; and Holtzbrinck. In early 1998, Advance Publications sold its main imprint, Random House, to Bertlesmann AGa circumstance which reduced the number of publishing giants to seven (Miller, 1998). The extent of the control that these conglomerates have in American book publishing may be gauged by statistics about market share provided by Book Publishing Report, an industry newsletter. In 1996, the ten leading U.S. trade book publishers possessed 68.3% of total market share. This list of ten publishers cited by Book Publishing Report is, except for the religious publisher Thomas Nelson, the same as Millers list. Thus, when Thomas Nelson is disregarded in calculating market share, the corporations which appear on Millers list possess 66.2% of total U.S. market share in trade books.2 Based on

2 Millers (1997) list of eight corporations took into account the fact that, in early 1997, Pearson PLC bought Putnam Berkley. The list provided by Book Publishing Report, on the other hand, counts Putnam Berkley as a separate publisher, although it adds a notation about the takeover. Accordingly, the nine top publishers (disregarding the tenth ranked religious publisher Thomas Nelson) mentioned by Book Publishing Report are exactly coextensive with Millers listing of the eight top publishers. In addition, the imprints controlled by the seven pub-

Collection Development Patterns

39

figures contained in Book Publishing Report, total revenue of all U.S. trade book publishers in 1996 was $7.158 billion; the net revenues of the seven dominant corporations were $4.7383 billion.3 The concentration of market power in the book publishing industry has led commentators such as Schiffrin (1997) to worry about the possibility of market censorship or the application of market theory to the dissemination of culture (p. 80). He points out that, while book publishers have traditionally been satisfied with profit margins of between 2% and 4% after taxes, the conglomerates currently dominating the industry have insisted that the profitability of the book publishing arm should be similar to the high returns they demand from [their] other subsidiaries (p. 81). Accordingly, new profit targets of between 12% and 15% have been established. The result of the application of market theory for book publishing is that the nature of what gets published has changed. An overarching question has now become whether each book will sell a certain number of copies and thus make a sufficient profit. The practice whereby a few bestsellers subsidize all other money-losing titles is becoming obsolete. In this regard, Schiffrin (1997) remarks upon the rise of publishing committees, in which . . . financial and marketing people play a pivotal role (p. 80). Auletta (1997a) notes that [m]any houses now have procedures to insure that before editors buy a new title they review a profit-and-loss statement of the authors previous work (p. 59). Looming over everything else, both Schiffrin and Auletta make clear, is the increased emphasis on the payment of huge advances for bestsellers and the concomitant gradual elimination of mid-list books that accountants have determined will never make back their costs. As Schiffrin observes, there is a very real danger of an increase in the homogeneity of books, especially fiction titles, as commercially incorrect books gradually disappear under the impress of market-testing (p. 84). Miller (1998) quotes one literary agent as saying that, as publishers become conglomerates, there will be a much smaller market for the smaller books and first novels (p. A27). At the same time, a steady growth in the number of small, independent publishers has been documented. Carvajal (1997) reports that Publishers Group West, the largest U.S. distributor of books from independent publishing comlishers still remaining in 1998 after the sale of Random House by Advance Publications to Bertelsmann AG are exactly the same as the number of imprints controlled by the eight top publishers in 1997. 3 Book Publishing Report does not specifically provide the total net revenue figures quoted here. Instead, it provides the net revenues of each of the top ten publishers, and then states that the market share of these ten publishers in 1996 was 68.3%, a slight increase from a market share of 67.9% in 1995. Based on these data, a simple mathematical calculation was made to find the total revenues of all U.S. trade publishers ($7.1579 billion). And, to calculate the market share of 66.2% for the top nine publishers quoted in the text above (which are the same as Millers [1997] eight top publishers), the net revenue for the tenth ranked religious publisher Thomas Nelson ($150.6 million) was subtracted from the total net revenues ($4.8889 billion) of the top ten publishers.

40

Dilevko & Hayman

panies, has seen its sales, over the past few years, increase from $14 million to almost $100 million. Pochoda (1997) notes how university presses are concentrating more on titles for a general audience, publishing both fiction and nonfiction titles that would have formerly found a home with large commercial publishers. Barbato (1998) and Hoffert and Kinsella (1996) present a wideranging account of the burgeoning small, independent press movement in journals aimed at library professionals.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH The purpose of this research was to determine the extent to which library collections, specifically fiction holdings, in public libraries in the United States are dominated by the imprints published by the seven corporate conglomerates mentioned in the previous section. The measure used to gauge fiction holdings of public libraries was the number of purchases (additions to holdings) of fiction titles from either corporate or independent publishers during the period 19941997. At the close of 1997, these seven companies were: Hearst; News Corporation; Pearson PLC; Viacom; Bertelsmann AG; Time Warner; and Holtzbrinck. A subsidiary question examined the extent to which two major fiction selection tools reviewed books published by corporate presses and independent presses. Fiction books were selected as the unit of analysis because independent presses tend to be more active in the fiction realm than in non-fiction, as evidenced by Schiffrins (1997) comment that particularly in fiction and poetry there exists a new generation of publishers who, because they are willing to tackle subject matter that may not be commercially viable, have come close to replacing their older and larger competitors (p. 84). Public libraries were selected as the focus of the study because statistics have consistently shown that fiction is by far the most common item checked out by adults in public libraries (Senkevitch & Sweetland, 1998; Vavrek, 1990). As a basis of comparison, this research used data presented in Carvajal (1997) and Rosenwein (1998) about the purchasing patterns of the Barnes & Noble bookstore chain. Carvajal writes that in its report on its third quarter, which ended in late October, the company noted that purchases from the top 10 publishers had declined to 46% from 74% three years ago (p. D8). Rosenwein substantiates these figures. While the articles do not further define what they mean by the top 10 publishers, it is more likely than not that the definition being used is the same as that employed by Book Publishing Report insofar as this newsletter is accepted as an industry standard. Moreover, although the Barnes & Noble data do not differentiate between fiction and non-fiction purchases, they do provide a general indication of the direction in which the companys overall purchasing is tending. If these figures are to be believed, a downward trend may be discerned in the reliance of Barnes & Noble on corporate-published titles. It is possible to say that this chain has taken note of the rise of small, independent presses. The research presented here, therefore, at-

Collection Development Patterns

41

tempts to determine whether public libraries, along with two major fiction review tools, have also recognized this trend through their fiction purchases in the four-year period between 1994 and 1997 mentioned in the Barnes & Noble data.

METHODOLOGY To ascertain the percentage of reviews accorded corporate and independent publishers in reviewing tools consulted by public librarians, we used the section Book Review Media Statistics in the Bowker Annual (1998a). From the table entitled Number of Books Reviewed by Major Book-Reviewing Publication, 19961997, we chose the professional and popular titles with the greatest number of total book reviews. These titles were: Library Journal (5,955 titles) and the New York Times Sunday Book Review (1,900 titles). A random selection of 16 issues of each title for each of the years 1994 to 1997 was examined, and every reviewed fiction title was categorized as being published either by a corporate or independent publisher. To randomly select the issues in question, each issue was assigned a number, and then a random selection of these numbers was made. Following Miller (1997) and Book Publishing Report (1997), a corporate publisher was defined as being one of the following seven companies: Hearst; News Corporation; Pearson PLC; Viacom; Bertelsmann AG; Time Warner; and Holtzbrinck. The list of imprints used by these seven companies was derived from Publishers, Distributors & Wholesalers of the United States 19971998, Volume 1. Each imprint listed under one of these seven companies was judged to be corporate-published. Some major imprints of these corporations are: William Morrow; HarperCollins; Viking Penguin; Dutton; Simon & Schuster; Random House; Doubleday; Little Brown; Henry Holt; and Farrar Straus & Giroux. Independent publishers were defined as all other publishers except the aforementioned seven corporations. The names of some independent publishers are: Houghton Mifflin; W.W. Norton; Dalkey Archive; Milkweed; Grove Atlantic; Black Sparrow; Algonquin; Coffee House; and Zoland. For the purposes of this study, the few independent publishers who have distribution arrangements with major corporate publishers were disregarded. An independent publisher that was subsequently taken over by a corporate publisher was categorized according to its status at the time of the publication of the title in question. In the second, more extensive component of this study, we took a random sample of 100 fiction titles for each of the years 1994 to 1997 from a random sample of 16 issues of Library Journal (LJ) for each of the years in question. The focus was limited to LJ because researchers have consistently identified this publication as the most used review journal for selecting fiction (Serebnick, 1992; Sweetland, 1994). For each of these years, 50 of the selected titles were published by corporations and 50 selected titles were published by independent publishers. Three corporate and three independent titles were chosen from the Fiction Review section of each of the 16 issues of LJ in each year, and then

42

Dilevko & Hayman

two additional titles of each type were randomly selected from the Fiction Review sections of all issues for that year. Only titles that were either highly recommended or recommended were included in the random selection. This was done so as to preclude an unfair comparison between, for example, independent-published titles that were not recommended with titles of corporate-published titles that were recommended. The general procedure was as follows. We alternated starting either from the front or the back of the Fiction Review section of each issue. Using a random number between one and ten, we counted, either frontwards or backwards, until we reached the nth corporate-published or independent-published title reviewed in that issue. If that title was either recommended or highly recommended, we chose it for our sample. If not, we moved ahead, one-byone, in the relevant direction, until we reached an applicable title, either corporate or independent, that was recommended or highly recommended. The ISBNs of all the 400 randomly selected titles were entered into the OCLC database and a holdings list, arranged by individual state, was generated for each title in May, 1998. The holdings list for each ISBN contained a number of three-character codes (consisting of some combination of numbers and letters), with each three-character code denoting a specific library. To differentiate between public libraries and all other libraries, we asked OCLC to provide us with a list of codes for all public libraries participating in the OCLC consortium. A proprietary list of 5,503 public library codes (dated November, 1997) was made available to the researchers. We then wrote a computer program to match OCLC public library codes against the holding codes for each unique ISBN identifieran identifier categorized as either corporate or independent. In this way, then, we were able to tabulate precisely how many public libraries in each state held a particular fiction title. For each ISBN identifier, the presence of a library holding code means that the library in question holds at least one copy of the applicable title. The discussion that follows does not take into account the possible presence of multiple copies of titles in some libraries. The total number of downloaded records for the 400 unique ISBN identifiers was 200,824. Of this number, 123,803 were held by public libraries and 77,021 were held by all other OCLC libraries. The total number of different libraries (identified by a three-character code) holding any of the 400 titles was 3,237. RESULTS The Nature of Book Reviews In the sampled issues of LJ, a total of 1,914 fiction reviews was counted, while in the sampled issues of the New York Times Sunday Book Review (NYTBR), a total of 653 fiction reviews was counted. On a global basis in the years 1994 to 1997, reviews of independent published fiction in LJ constituted 35.3% of the total. In NYTBR, reviews of independent-published fiction comprised 37.2% of all reviewed books. Table 1 shows the distribution of fiction reviews by year and by type of publisher in

Collection Development Patterns

43

TABLE 1 Fiction Reviews by Type of Publisher in Library Journal and New York Times Library Journal New York Times

Year
1994 1995 1996 1997

Corporate
355 (60.4%) 299 (66.2%) 332 (68.6%) 253 (64.9%)

Independent
233 (39.6%) 153 (33.8%) 152 (31.4%) 137 (35.1%)

Corporate
92 (61.7%) 99 (68.3%) 118 (63.1%) 101 (59.8%)

Independent
57 (38.3%) 46 (31.7%) 69 (36.9%) 71 (41.2%)

these two publications. For both LJ and NYTBR, the data establish that independent-published fiction titles are consistently reviewed at a rate of between 30% and 40% of all fiction titles. In 1994, LJ reviews of independent-published fiction were nearly 40% of all fiction titles. This figure subsequently dropped in 1995 and 1996, and then increased again to slightly more than 35% in 1997. A similar pattern may be discerned in the rate of reviews accorded independent-published fiction titles in NYTBR. In 1994, this rate was approximately 38%, falling to some 32% in 1995, and then rising both in 1996 and 1997 to some 41% of all reviewed fiction. Nevertheless, there is no significant difference between the rate of reviews of independent-published fiction titles, or of corporate-published titles, in LJ and NYTBR. The slight differences that do appear showing NYTBR to review more independent-published fiction titles than LJ on a percentage basis may be due to a number of factors. First, while 16 issues each of LJ and NYTBR were sampled, this represents 80% of yearly LJ issues, but only 30% of yearly NYTBR issues. Second, because NYTBR reviews fewer total books than LJ per year, it may focus on only the more notable books published in any given year by a variety of publishers. Conversely, LJ includes many more total book reviews, which may mean that, since corporate-owned publishers publish numerically more books than do independent publishers, the universe of books from which LJ selects its reviewed titles necessarily contains a greater number of corporate-published books. Taking the reviews of fiction titles in LJ and NYTBR as a whole, one conclusion that can be made is that the rate at which corporate-published titles are reviewed in the period 1994 to 1997 quite closely parallels the market share of the seven corporate publishers, according to the figures supplied by Book Publishing Report. As seen above, total market share of these seven publishers was 66.2% for 1997, while the rate at which corporate-published books were reviewed by LJ and NYTBR was 64.7% and 62.8%, respectively. If the market share percentage of these seven corporate publishers (taken as a whole) reflects, in approximate terms, their share of the percentage of total titles published, then it may be natural to expect that book review publications will necessarily review titles at a rate similar to the overall presence of corporate-published and independent-published titles in the marketplace. More simply, these book review publications do not indicate a bias toward one type of publisher.

44

Dilevko & Hayman

TABLE 2 Public Library Fiction Purchases by Type of Publisher

Year
1994 1995 1996 1997

Corporate
21,062 (65.48%) 21,168 (62.59%) 20,026 (65.51%) 17,062 (62.62%)

Independent
11,103 (34.52%) 12,651 (37.41%) 10,545 (34.49%) 10,185 (37.38%)

The Fiction Purchases of Public Libraries On a global basis from 1994 to 1997, the fiction purchases of public libraries in the United States consisted of 64.1% corporate-published books and 35.9% independent-published titles. Table 2 provides a more detailed look at public library fiction purchases by year and by type of publisher. Although there was a drop of 918 (8.2%) in the raw number of independentfiction titles purchased from 1994 to 1997, fiction purchases from independent presses (as a percentage of total fiction purchases) remained consistent over this four-year period, increasing slightly one year, decreasing the following year, but always hovering between 35% to 37% of total fiction purchases. As a result, fiction purchases from corporate publishers also held steady, at around 63% to 65%. The Bowker Annuals for these years reveal that public library book acquisition expenditures in the United States declined from $396.4 million (fiscal 19931994) to $336.1 million (fiscal 19961997).4 Thus, public library collection development specialists experienced a $60.3 million loss (15.2%) in book purchasing power. Table 2 presents concrete evidence of this loss of funds. When total fiction purchases in 1994 (32,165) are compared with total fiction purchases in 1997 (27,247), the decline of 4,918 titles is 15.3%mirroring almost exactly the 15.2% decline in book purchasing power. However, purchases of independent-fiction titles declined only 8.2% from 1994 to 1997, while purchases of corporate-published fiction titles declined by about 19%. While avoiding too much focus on the specific numbers here, it is still possible to observe that public libraries, faced with budget cutbacks, seem to be reducing their purchases of independent-published fiction at a lesser rate than reductions in corporate-published fiction. This may be due to the fact that independentpublished fiction is generally less expensive than corporate-published fiction, or it may be because librarians are taking more notice of the offerings of independent-publishers. Another reason may be that a greater number of independent

4 Figures are taken from the Bowker Annual (1995, pp. 448449; 1996, pp. 454455; 1997, pp. 436437; 1998b, pp. 432433).

Collection Development Patterns

45

publishers have forged distribution arrangements with the intermediaries who supply libraries, thus making their books more easily available. Table 3 presents data about whether public libraries in some states purchased more independent press titles than public libraries in other states, as a percentage of their total purchases. The data were obtained by dividing the number of independent press fiction purchases by the total number of fiction purchases. By the far the majority of states had independent-published fiction purchases of between 30% and 40% of total fiction purchases. Public libraries in eight states purchased independent-published fiction at a rate above 40% of their total purchases. Particularly noteworthy were Washington, Colorado, and New Yorkall of which exceeded 45%. Conversely, in eight states the purchases of independent-published fiction were less than 30% of total fiction purchases. The five lowest states in this group of eight were Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada, Mississippi, and Wyoming. One reason for these differences may be that libraries in some states may have specific policies to increase the presence of independentpublished titles in their collections. Another factor which may account for differences among states with regard to purchasing levels of independent-fiction is the pattern of local publishing. For instance, the presence of a strong independent publisher in one state may mean that its books are purchased frequently by in-

TABLE 3 Independent Fiction Titles (as a Percentage of Total Fiction Titles) Purchased by Public Libraries by State in 1997 (Top 20 States)

State
Washington Colorado New York Connecticut Alabama Tennessee Texas Illinois Minnesota Wisconsin Indiana Louisiana New Jersey Oregon Massachusetts Ohio North Carolina Maryland South Carolina California

Independent Titles
46.84 46.09 45.64 41.82 41.56 41.34 41.11 40.15 39.84 39.80 39.63 39.49 39.07 39.06 38.27 38.23 38.09 37.72 37.56 37.16

46

Dilevko & Hayman

state and neighboring-state libraries. In other words, an independent publisher may exert a regional influence on book purchasing patterns by libraries. Were there important changes as to which states purchased the most independent-published fiction between 1994 and 1997? Seventeen of the 20 states (85%) whose public libraries purchased the most independent-published fiction in 1997 also purchased the most in 1994. The three states that were in the top 20 listing for 1994 that did not also make the top 20 listing in 1997 were Missouri (36.36%), Utah (34.57%), and New Mexico (35.94%). In the case of Missouri and Utah, the drop for each was less than 4% from their 1994 figures. With respect to New Mexico, its 1997 rate of 35.94% was slightly more than its 1994 rate, but since the 20th place rate was 37.16% in 1997 (3% higher than in 1994), it did not qualify for inclusion. The three states that were not in the top 20 listing in 1994, but did appear in 1997 were Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Connecticut. The top three states in 1997 (Washington, Colorado, and New York) were also the top three states in 1994, although New York and Colorado switched their respective positions. States that ranked consistently at the bottom in purchasing rates of independent-published fiction as a percentage of total fiction purchases both in 1994 and 1997 were Arkansas, Nebraska, and Nevada (all between 25% and 30%). Figure 1 shows the relationship between public library book expenditures by state and the number of independent-published fiction titles held by public libraries in that state.5 Pearson regression analysis showed the relationship to be statistically significant (df 42, r .745, f 51.3, p .001), with the independent variable of book expenditures explaining 55.6% of the variance observed in the dependent variablein this case, the number of independent-published titles held by all public libraries in a particular state. In other words, the more a state spends on books, the more independent-published fiction titles its public libraries will hold. Figure 1 also shows a regression trend line for prediction purposes. The public libraries in the named states above the trend line purchased more independent-published fiction titles than expected, based on their book expenditures. On the other hand, the public libraries in the named states below the trend line added fewer independent-published fiction titles than expected, based on their book expenditures. The further a point is away from the trend line, the greater is its divergence (either in a positive or negative direction) from a statistically expected value. Unnamed diamond shapes near the trend line represent those states whose public libraries purchased approximately

5 Seven states were not included in this regression calculation because of insufficient data. OCLC data showed that public libraries in these states had fewer than three corporate-published and independent-published fiction titles. These states were Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. Book expenditure figures derived from the Bowker Annual (1998b, pp. 432433).

FIGURE 1 Relationship of Independent Titles and Book Expenditures in Public Libraries in 1997

Collection Development Patterns 47

48

Dilevko & Hayman

the number of independent-published fiction titles that their book expenditures would warrant. Public libraries in California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Oregon purchased (substantially) more independent-published fiction than would be predicted based on their total book expenditures, while public libraries in New York, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and Nevada purchased (substantially) fewer independent-published fiction than would be predicted by their total book expenditures. Table 4 presents data about the number of independent-published titles per capita (1,000 inhabitants) in public libraries in 1995.6 The three states with the highest per capita rates are Connecticut, Nebraska, and Indiana; the three lowest states are Nevada, Washington, and Mississippi. Connecticut had the highest per capita rate of independent titles, and a relatively high per capita (per person) expenditure rate for collection development ($4.21: sixth highest). Likewise, Indiana spent $5.36 per person on collection development (second highest) and has the third highest per capita independent-published fiction purchasing rate. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the state with the lowest per capita purchases of independent titlesMississippialso had the lowest per capita expenditure rate for collection development ($1.37).7 Nonetheless, Pearson regression analysis showed that there was not a statistically significant relationship between per capita spending by states on collection development and the number of independent-published fiction titles per capita purchased by public libraries in that state (df 41, r .279, f 3.4, p .07).8 One reason for this is that some states with low per capita collections expenditures were able to provide their citizens with relatively good access to independent-published fiction. In this regard, North Dakota, while spending only $2 per capita on collections, had the fifth highest independent title fiction rate per capita (.0983 titles per thousand inhabitants). Arkansas, while spending only $1.72 per capita on collections, had the thirteenth highest independent title fiction rate per capita (.0725 titles per thousand). On the other hand, some states, despite high per capita collection development expenditures, had low per capita access to independent-published fiction. Both Massachusetts and Washington, while spending about $4 per person on collection development, had very

6 Population figures for states were taken from 1995 projections, contained in Table 1: Total Population and Net Change for States: 1995 to 2005, U.S. Bureau of the Census (1995), Population Division, PPL-47 [P25-1131]. 7 Taken from U.S. Department of Education (1998), Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES 98-301], Public Libraries in the United States: FY 1995 [April 1998], Table 13. 8 Eight states were not included in this regression calculation because of insufficient data. OCLC data showed that public libraries in these states had fewer than three corporate-published and independent-published fiction titles. These states were Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Idaho, and West Virginia.

Collection Development Patterns

49

low independent-published per capita fiction rates of .0110 and .0086, respectively. New York spent almost $5 per person on collections, but nevertheless ranked low on this measure. Thus, when Fig. 1, Table 4, and Table 5 are examined together, it is apparent that states such as California which have large total expenditures on books (and therefore have large numbers of independent-published fiction titles in their public libraries) do not necessarily provide the best per capita access to independent-published fiction.9

9 Although the fiction holdings of academic libraries may not be as large as that of public libraries (expressed as a percentage of their total collections), nevertheless many academic libraries have significant fiction holdings to support course offerings in English literature courses. Using the assumption that most, if not all, of the libraries holding fiction from our downloaded list that were not public libraries would, in fact, be academic libraries, we also examined, as a comparative exercise, the fiction holding rates of these academic libraries by type of publisher. On a global basis from 1994 to 1997, the fiction holdings of academic libraries in the United States consisted of 60.6% of corporate-published books and 39.4% of titles published by independent presses. Compared with the global rates in 19941997 found in public libraries, academic libraries in the United States held approximately 3% more independent-published fiction titles and 3% fewer corporate-published titles. And, unlike public libraries, which displayed a slight up-and-down pattern in their independent-published fiction holding rate during the period 1994 to 1997, academic libraries showed show a rise from 1994 (37.4%) to 1995 (40.1%), followed by a leveling off, at around 40%, in the years 1996 and 1997. Despite the fact that book buying budgets of academic libraries decreased during 1994 to 1997 from $316.17 million to $242.74 million, academic libraries managed to increase, from 1994 to 1997, the share of independent-published fiction titles purchased, when expressed as a percentage of total fiction purchases. (Figures taken from the Bowker Annual [1995, pp. 450451; 1998b, pp. 434435]). The independent fiction holdings of academic libraries in 20 states in 1997 constituted more than 40% of total fiction holdings. These states were: Arizona; Washington; District of Columbia; Idaho; Rhode Island; California; Delaware; Massachusetts; Georgia; New Mexico; New York; Oregon; West Virginia; Minnesota; Illinois; Utah; Connecticut; Colorado; Texas; and New Jersey. Two states, Arizona and Washington, had independent-published fiction holdings of more than 50% of their total fiction collection. States which had independent-published fiction holdings of less than 25% of their total fiction holdings were: North Dakota; Montana; Hawaii; Kentucky; and South Dakota. Were there major changes between 1994 and 1997 in the independent-published fiction holdings of academic libraries? In 1994, the two top ranked states had holdings in this category of just under 46%, while in 1997 the two top ranked states had holdings of over 50%. In addition, 14 of the states (70%) that had the largest independent-published fiction collections in 1994 also had the largest collections of this type in 1997. As with public libraries, academic libraries in a homogeneous group of states consistently offer good access to independent-published fiction. Also, the more that academic libraries in a state spend on books, the more independent-published fiction titles its academic libraries will hold. Academic libraries in some states (California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Kansas) had more independent-published fiction than expected based on their total book expenditures; the opposite was true for New York, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, and New Jersey. Data for per capita holdings of independent-published titles in academic libraries by state in 1995 also proved interesting. The highest per capita holdings were in: District of Columbia; Wyoming; Vermont; Rhode Island;

50

Dilevko & Hayman

TABLE 4 Independent Fiction Titles Per Capita in Public Libraries, 1995 (Top 20 States)

State
Connecticut Nebraska Indiana New Mexico North Dakota South Dakota Iowa Arizona New Jersey Illinois Oregon Utah Arkansas Kansas Ohio Virginia Florida Delaware Wisconsin California

Per Capita Spending (Collections)

4.21 3.66 5.36 3.09 2.00 3.01 2.93 2.67 4.20 4.62 3.07 3.30 1.72 4.24 6.58 3.56 2.92 2.46 3.36 2.20

Per Capita (000s) Independent Titles

.1631 .1307 .1258 .1098 .0983 .0934 .0911 .0841 .0837 .0784 .0770 .0728 .0725 .0698 .0697 .0688 .0628 .0627 .0603 .0545

DISCUSSION Notwithstanding important variations from state to state, this research has found a consistent level of independent-published fiction purchases in public libraries across the United States in the period 1994 to 1997. This level hovers between 35% and 37% of total fiction purchases. In addition, the level at which two major fiction reviewing tools review independent-published fiction titles is around the 35% to 40% mark (see Table 1). Collection development specialists in public libraries appear to be closely following the lead of fiction review publications with respect to the choices they make for the fiction collections of their

Massachusetts; Connecticut; New Hampshire; Wisconsin; Kansas; Colorado; Michigan; Minnesota; North Dakota; Maine; Iowa; Indiana; North Carolina; Virginia; Ohio; and West Virginia. Academic libraries in states from what the U.S. Census Bureau characterizes as either the Northeast or Northern Central tiers of the United States seem more receptive to the purchase of independent-published fiction titles than universities and colleges in other parts of the country. The lowest per capita fiction holdings of independent-published fiction titles were in academic libraries in Missouri, Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Montana, and Alabama.

Collection Development Patterns

51

TABLE 5 Independent Fiction Titles Per Capita in Public Libraries, 1995 (Bottom 10 States)

State
Mississippi Washington Nevada Massachusetts New York Alabama Tennessee Michigan Texas Maryland

Per Capita Spending (Collections)

1.37 3.93 4.15 4.32 4.93 2.06 1.42 2.55 1.86 3.93

Per Capita (000s) Independent Titles

.0033 .0087 .0105 .0114 .0160 .0162 .0209 .0214 .0219 .0242

respective libraries. Also, data presented in the literature review section above makes clear that corporate publishers control approximately 66% of market share for trade books, leaving about 34% for independent publishers. Accordingly, review publications and librarians who have responsibilities for selecting fiction titles are, when it comes to apportioning space and funds to the purchase of independent-published fiction titles, adhering closely to the available supply of independent-published fiction titles. And, based on the data presented in Table 2 for 1997, it could be said that public libraries are buying about 3% more of independent-published fiction titles than the total market share of independent publishers, despite a decrease of some 15% in total fiction purchases from 1994 to 1997. Still, public libraries in some states with relatively low purchase rates of independent-published fiction titles may want to revisit their collection development policies or to alert specialists responsible for fiction collection development to be more alert to independent-fiction titles. Another way of looking at the data is by comparing library purchases of independent-published fiction and the purchasing patterns of Barnes & Noble bookstores. Figure 2 presents this comparison. Certainly, the comparison is imperfect, since available data from Barnes & Noble encompass the totality of its purchases from independent publishers and are therefore not further subdivided into the categories of fiction and non-fiction. Moreover, there is no indication whether the provided figures are based on total value, number of titles, or copies. Yet, in very broad general terms, this comparison is useful as an indication of the direction that Barnes & Noble is going in its book purchasing. Figure 2 suggests that public libraries purchase fiction books from corporate mainstream publishers at a far greater rate than Barnes & Noble buys both fiction and non-fiction books from independent publishers. Between 1994 and 1997, the rate at which public libraries bought fiction from corporate publishers did not undergo much change, consistently re-

52

Dilevko & Hayman

FIGURE 2 Comparison of Purchasing Patterns of Corporate-Published Book Titles

maining in a range between 62% and 65%. On the other hand, Barnes & Noble reduced its purchases of books from corporate mainstream publishers from 74% of total purchases in 1994 to 46% of purchases in 1997. Based on these figures, Barnes & Noble seems to be offering a more diverse array of titles than public libraries. Public libraries have always wanted to attract the greatest number of patrons possible. To do so, they rightly feel that they should provide popular titles, both fiction and non-fiction, for their patrons and community needs. While popular titles are not always published by mainstream corporate presses, a large portion of the most popular books are, in fact, published by large commercial houses. Simply put, public libraries can ill afford to stock their shelves with titles that do not circulate, because demand for best-selling titles is very great. For example, Senkevitch and Sweetland (1998) list the top 30 most-held fiction titles in OCLC public libraries for 1995, and even a cursory examination of this list reveals that almost all of these books were, in their time, national bestsellers published by corporate mainstream publishers. At the same time, public libraries may be overestimating the publics demand for the most popular titles. One hint that this may be so is provided by Auletta (1997a), who reports that an internal Barnes & Noble document shows that, in August, 1997, the New York Times bestsellers represented only 2.9% of all books the chain sold (p. 59). Public libraries may thus be overlooking their responsibility to provide a diverse collection of fiction for their patrons. Nevertheless, there are some indications that researchers, such as Senkevitch and Sweetland (1996), are beginning to develop a consensus core list for fic-

Collection Development Patterns

53

tion titles with a view toward evaluating public library fiction collections based on the most popular titles held by public libraries nationwide (p. 108). Should such evaluations become standard, uniformity of library fiction collections may increase and ready access to independent-published titles may decrease as public libraries try to achieve quantifiably high evaluation scores on their fiction collections in order to show that they are meeting national benchmarks. Accordingly, the work of Senkevitch and Sweetland (1996) is undergirded by a vision of the role and function of the public library as a provider of the most popular fiction titles. To be sure, as Radway (1984) and Ross (1995) have demonstrated, popular books, in the form of genre and series fiction, do serve an important purpose in the psychological and intellectual development of readers. Yet, not mentioned in this research is the fact that an emphasis on the most popular fiction titles translates into a fiction collection dominated by corporate mainstream imprints and a possible loss of independent-published voices representing alternative viewpoints. The purpose of the present research is not to say, however, that corporate publishers do not publish provocative or challenging fiction titles, nor that all fiction titles published by corporate publishers have no literary or other redeeming value. It is merely to suggest that collection development librarians in public libraries should be aware of the implications for their libraries of the greater concentration of book publishing in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations. Such corporate concentration may have detrimental impacts on the diversity and range of fiction collections, and may be evidence of another example in which sites of public expression are being eroded. On a theoretical level, Cyzyk (1993) has reminded academic librarians that they would be wise to pay attention to the extensive literary research in canon formation. This body of research argues that literary canons are the contingent creation of privileged social groups who have a vested interest in seeing certain ideologies perpetuated and reinforced. Cyzyk therefore urges academic librarians to become more cosmopolitan in their duties and to try to transcend the satisfaction of the needs of the present members of . . . society (p. 62). In the past two decades, literary canons have, to a certain extent, become more inclusive and reflective of cultural, political, and sexual diversity, and the very idea of a literary canon is, in many academic circles and on many university reading lists, anathema. Yet, there is a continued danger, especially in public libraries, that the marketplace will impose a de facto literary canon. The canon of the marketplace is formed in no small part by the power of advertising and product placementtools that are more readily available to corporate publishers than to independent publishers. No less than academic libraries, public libraries should attempt to get beyond what Cyzyk calls the parochial duty of fulfilling immediate patron demand based on the current interests of the current society upon which the library relies for its economic sustenance and survival (p. 62). Serebnick and Quinn (1995) have suggested that libraries, in order to ensure that they have representative and unbiased collections, may wish to develop and institute an objective diversity index for their holdings about

54

Dilevko & Hayman

such controversial issues as abortion, capital punishment, disarmament, and euthanasia. They proposed a formula based on Simpsons index of diversity. Given the extent of corporate control of sites of public expression, there might be merit in exploring whether a diversity index could be created for public library fiction collections. If developed, such an index should take into account, as one of its components, the corporatization of the book publishing industry, and, as a result, look advantageously upon large holdings of independent-published fiction. A very practical step that may be of interest to librarians concerned about this issue is provided by Hurley (1999). She describes the efforts of a Canadian magazine retailer who, during the last week of every month, completely rearranges his stock to place small, relatively unknown Canadian magazines in prime display areas. As Walsh (1999) notes, this means putting Canadian publications in 200 acrylic pockets ringing the store, as well as [in] all eye-level shelf positions (p. 6). This monthly transformation displaces famous titles such as Cosmopolitan, GQ, The New Yorker, and Newsweek, relegating some 1,800 foreign titles to the back rows or temporary storage (Hurley, 1999, p. J3). Not only have overall sales of Canadian magazines increased tenfold over a normal weeks tally, but there has also been some positive residual effect insofar as Canadian magazines dealing with the same subject matter as larger American magazines have begun outselling [their] shelf partners during the weeks when the promotion is not in effect (Walsh, 1999, p. 6). The target of the initiative is the 40% of customers who come into the store not specifically knowing what they want. They tend to gravitate towards displays that are eyelevel and prominently-placed, because [w]hats up-front is what people sense is important . . . or what the store thinks is important (Hurley, 1999, p. J3). Compared with magazines published by large transnational corporations, the Canadian titles emphasized by the above magazine shop are typically produced by independent publishers and contain very little advertising. As such, they may be viewed as the symbolic equivalent of the independent-published fiction books discussed in the present article. Public libraries have known for some time that books in prime display locations circulate more than regularly shelved books (Baker, 1986; Goldhor, 1972, 1981). Based on the results of the magazine rearrangement experiment, public libraries, by prominently and frequently displaying independent-published fiction titles, have the potential to become institutions where the marketplace, as represented by corporate publishers, does not impose a de facto literary canon.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH A number of limitations of this research have already become evident in the foregoing pages. First, the distinction between corporate and independent publishers may be artificial, given the fact that many high-quality fiction titles are published

Collection Development Patterns

55

by corporate mainstream publishers. Second, the figures from Barnes & Noble dealing with their total purchases from corporate and independent publishers are not entirely analogous with figures from libraries dealing only with their fiction purchases from these publishers. Furthermore, Barnes & Noble figures are not specified as based on total value, number of titles, or copies. While it would have been beneficial to have more precise data about Barnes & Noble purchasing patterns, it should be recognized that this is proprietary financial and strategic information that is not available to the general public. Data about the percentage of independent-published fiction titles in individual states may also be affected by whether the libraries in that state report as small or large library units. For example, if a large metropolitan library in one state reports as a single unit, then there is no way of knowing how many additional copies (if any) of a specific title, beyond one, it holds in its various branches. It could have ten copies of a particular independent-published fiction title in its branches, but it would be reported as only one copy. On the other hand, if a large metropolitan library in another state reports as a number of smaller branch units, then each iteration of the title in question would be reported. In effect, multiple copies of fiction titles may be counted in some states, but not in others. As well, public libraries, ultimately responsible to their funding communities, walk a fine line between providing high-demand titles (usually bestsellers published by corporate mainstream publishers) and titles which may have a more specialized and limited audience. It may therefore be unfair to criticize public libraries, in times of shrinking budgets, for opting to supply patrons with high-demand and high-use titles. A good direction for future research would be to examine the non-fiction purchases of public and academic libraries from the perspective of corporate and independent publishers. For example, it might be interesting to select a few specific topic areas conforming to Library of Congress subject headings and examine whether the preponderance of titles held under these subject heading are published by corporate or independent publishers. In addition, given the growth of independent publishers in the late 1990s, it might be interesting to replicate the present study at regular intervals of five or ten years in order to track any changes in the purchasing rates of corporate- and independent-published fiction titles in public libraries.

CONCLUSION Tisdale (1997) has controversially argued that the local Barnes & Noble store of the late 1990s resembles more of what a public library should be than does the local public library itself. The evidence put forward in the present article suggests that, from the perspective of supplying a broad and diverse array of titles published by numerous small and independent presses, Barnes & Noble is, in fact, doing a better job than the public library. As reported by Angel (1997),

56

Dilevko & Hayman

Barnes & Noble has a special department whose sole purpose is to review small press publications and determine whether they are suitable for purchase by the chains outlet. It receives over 3,000 applications from small-press publishers each year. McCormack (1998) reports that one chain superstore in his neighborhood stocks books from over 7,000 publishers, including over 125 different poetry publishers. Barbato (1998) quotes a small independent publisher as saying that [e]very time there is more consolidation, we are offered more books we havent had a chance to get before. With their large overheads, major publishers now have to do a minimum first run of 20,000 30,000 copies. For a smaller publisher, a title selling 500010,000 copies is very profitable. So the mergers keep opening doors; they have allowed us to form a more well-rounded list. (p. 35) It is safe to say that these independent publishers are an important and growing part of the literary landscape, and that their books are frequently stocked on the shelves of major bookstores. Certainly, as Angel (1997) notes, one reason that Barnes & Noble is keen to stock a large number of independent-published titles is that it does not have to offer steep discounts on such titles (as it does on commercial bestsellers). Regardless of the reasons, independent-published titles are very popular at superstores. As public libraries try to find ways in which to increase the number of patrons they serve, and as Barnes & Noble continues to attract large crowds, it may be a good idea for public libraries to take serious note of the changes in the publishing landscape that Barnes & Noble has identified and upon which it has capitalized.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Marti Grof-Iannelli, head librarian at the Graduate Resource Center, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario, for her invaluable assistance in making arrangements with OCLC for the secure transfer of proprietary OCLC library codes. Geoff Sinclair, a graduate of the MLIS program at the University of Western Ontario and now a systems analyst for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, helped in developing the necessary software code for this project. Finally, comments from the referees were central in making this a better paper.

REFERENCES Angel, Karen. (1997). Getting in the door: The small presses. Publishers Weekly, 244(47), 32.

Collection Development Patterns

57

Auletta, Ken. (1997a). The impossible business. The New Yorker, 73(30), 5063. Auletta, Ken. (1997b). The next corporate order: American keiretsu. The New Yorker, 73(32), 225227. Bagdikian, Ben H. (1997). The media monopoly (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baker, Sharon L. (1986). The display phenomenon: An exploration into factors causing the increased circulation of displayed books. Library Quarterly, 56, 237257. Barbato, Joseph. (1998). Small publishing in the land of the giants. Publishers Weekly, 245(24), 35. Bates, Eric. (1998). Chaining the alternatives: What started as a movement has become an industry. The Nation, 266(24), 1118. Book Publishing Report. (1997). Random House stays on top: Leading trade publishers boost market share in 1996, BPR ranking shows. BP Report, 26(22), 13. Bowker Annual. (1995). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19931994: U.S. public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac, 40th ed. (pp. 447451). New York: R. R. Bowker. Bowker Annual. (1996). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19941995: U.S. public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac, 41st ed. (pp. 453457). New York: R. R. Bowker. Bowker Annual. (1997). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19951996: U.S. public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac, 42nd ed. (pp. 435439). New York: R. R. Bowker. Bowker Annual. (1998a). Book review media statistics. The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac, 43rd ed. (p. 539). New York: R. R. Bowker. Bowker Annual. (1998b). Library acquisitions expenditures, 19961997: U.S. public, academic, special, and government libraries. The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac, 43rd ed. (pp. 431435). New York: R. R. Bowker. Carvajal, Doreen. (1997). Independents day: For smaller publishers, sales are rising as returns dwindle. New York Times, December 1, D1, D8. Coffman, Steve, & Freedman, Maurice. (1997). Fees fight. American Libraries, 28(7), 4951. Cyzyk, Mark. (1993). Canon formation, library collections, and the dilemma of collection development. College & Research Libraries, 54, 5865. Dilevko, Juris. (1998a). Bibliographic instruction and mass media news literacy: A theoretical background. Library Quarterly, 68, 431474. Dilevko, Juris. (1998b). Teaching news media practices in bibliographic instruction classes: A strategy involving framing and sourcing theory. Research Strategies, 16, 5369. Dilevko, Juris, & Grewal, Kalina. (1997). A new approach to collection bias in

58

Dilevko & Hayman

academic libraries: The extent of corporate control in journal holdings. Library & Information Science Research, 19, 359385. Dilevko, Juris, & Grewal, Kalina. (1998). Neutrality and media literacy at the reference desk: A case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24, 2132. Dubberly, Ronald A. (1998). Why outsourcing is our friend. American Libraries, 29(1), 7274. Gitlin, Todd. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media and the making and unmaking of the left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goldhor, Herbert. (1972). The effect of prime display location on public library circulation of selected adult titles. Library Quarterly, 42, 371389. Goldhor, Herbert. (1981). Experimental effects on the choice of books borrowed by public library adult patrons. Library Quarterly, 51, 253268. Herman, Edward, & McChesney, Robert. (1997). The global media: The new missionaries of corporate capitalism. London, England: Cassell. Hoffert, Barbara, & Kinsella, Bridget. (1996). Bridging the small press gap. Library Journal, 121(3), 114117. Hurley, Janet. (1999). Newsstand waves flag for Canadian mags. The Toronto Star, May 22, J3. Marinko, Rita A., & Gerhard, Kristin H. (1998). Representations of the alternative press in academic library collections. College & Research Libraries, 59, 363377. McCormack, Thomas. (1998). Despite lack of popularity, chain booksellers offer readers unparalleled variety. Publishers Weekly, 245(23), 27. Mielke, Linda, & Berman, Sanford. (1998). What price partnerships? American Libraries, 29(2), 4345. Miller, Mark Crispin. (1997). The crushing power of big publishing. The Nation, 264(10), 1118. Miller, Mark Crispin. (1998). And then there were seven. New York Times, March 26, A27. Oder, Norman. (1997). Outsourcing modelor mistake?: The collection development controversy in Hawaii. Library Journal, 122(5), 2831. Pochoda, Phil. (1997). Universities press on: The perseverance of small, university presses. The Nation, 265(22), 1117. Radway, Janice. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy and popular literature. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Rosenwein, Rifka. (1998). The power behind the stacks. Brills Content, 1(1), 116121. Ross, Catherine Sheldrick. (1995). If they read Nancy Drew, so what?: Series book readers talk back. Library & Information Science Research, 17, 201236. Schiffrin, Andr. (1997). The corporatization of publishing. In Don Hazen & Julie Winokur (Eds.), We the media: A citizens guide to fighting for media democracy (pp. 8084). New York: The Free Press. Schiller, Dan. (1997). Les marchands lassaut dInternet. Le Monde Diplomatique, 516(1), 2425.

Collection Development Patterns

59

Schiller, Herbert. (1989). Culture, Inc.: The corporate takeover of public expression. New York: Oxford University Press. Schiller, Herbert. (1998). Vers un nouveau sicle dimprialisme amricain. Le Monde Diplomatique, 533(1), 1819. Schneider, Karen G. (1998). The McLibrary syndrome. American Libraries, 29(1), 6670. Schuman, Patricia Glass. (1998). The selling of the public library. Library Journal, 123(13), 5052. Senkevitch, Judith J., & Sweetland, James H. (1996). Evaluating adult fiction: Can we define a core collection? RQ, 36, 103117. Senkevitch, Judith J., & Sweetland, James H. (1998). Public libraries and adult fiction: Another look at a core list of classics. Library Resources & Technical Services, 42, 102112. Serebnick, Judith. (1992). Selection and holdings of small publishers books in OCLC libraries: A study of the influence of reviews, publishers, and vendors. Library Quarterly, 62, 259294. Serebnick, Judith, & Quinn, Frank. (1995). Measuring diversity of opinion in public library collections. Library Quarterly, 65, 138. Sweetland, James H. (1994). Adult fiction in medium-sized U.S. public libraries: A survey. Library Resources & Technical Services, 38, 149160. Tisdale, Sallie. (1997). Silence, please. Harpers, 294(March), 6674. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). Total population and net changes for states: 1995 to 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Public libraries in the United States: FY 1995. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Vavrek, Bernard. (1990). Assessing the information needs of rural Americans. Clarion, PA: Clarion University of Pennsylvania. Walsh, Patrick. (1999). Preferential treatment. Masthead, June, 6. Willett, Charles. (1998). Consider the source: A case against outsourcing materials selection in academic libraries. Collection Building, 17, 9195.