Search

Recently, a great deal of literature on patron-driven acquisition (PDA) has been published that addresses the implementation and results of PDA programs at academic libraries. However, despite widespread worries that PDA will lead to unbalanced collections, little attention has been paid to whether patrons' and librarians' purchasing differ significantly. This study analyzes librarians' and PDA patrons' acquisitions at an academic library by relative collecting level and by subject (that is, Library of Congress class and subclass) to determine whether concern over patrons' collecting are warranted.

The library literature on collection development has recently seen a spate of publications and presentations on patron-driven acquisitions (PDA). The bulk of this literature has addressed the implementation and touted the successes of PDA at academic libraries, yet a counter literature has been developing, much of it addressing the potential failings of library patrons as selectors. There has been little focus, however, on patrons' potentially problematic behaviors as post-purchase users of PDA materials. This study aimed to discover whether library patrons might in effect be monopolizing print books purchased via PDA via circulation renewals. The study found that there was a statistically significant difference in the proportions of circulated and circulated-and-renewed books acquired via PDA, librarians' orders, and approval plan selection. The study also found that ratios of renewals to circulations for circulated-and-renewed approval plan books were significantly greater than were the ratios for librarians' and PDA books, generally, and for books available for more than one year but less than six years. There were no significant differences for books available for one year or less. PDA books' renewal-to-circulation ratios were significantly greater than those of approval plan books only for books that had circulated a single time. KEYWORDS: patron-driven acquisition, collection use, print books, academic libraries, patron behaviors, INTRODUCTION It has been variously referred to in the library literature devoted to collection development as books on demand, buy not borrow, collaborative collection development, demand-driven acquisitions, direct purchase, just-in-time [...]

Recently, a great deal of literature on patron-driven acquisition (PDA) has been published that addresses the implementation and results of PDA programs at academic libraries. However, despite widespread worries that PDA will lead to unbalanced collections, little attention has been paid to whether patrons' and librarians' purchasing differ significantly. This study analyzes librarians' and PDA patrons' acquisitions at an academic library by relative collecting level and by subject (that is, Library of Congress class and subclass) to determine whether concern over patrons' collecting are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous publications on patron-driven acquisition (PDA) for print books and similar materials have reported that patron-requested materials circulate more. Tying circulation to selector may be failing to address the complex of factors that contributes to items' circulation. In the present study, the authors revisit a PDA program's data and to determine whether PDA print books' circulation advantage persists when the potential interactions of several additional variables are taken into account. As with prior studies, library patrons were significantly better predictors of circulation than were librarians or approval plans. However, librarians proved to be significantly better predictors than were approval plans. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There has been a flurry of interest in programs for collection development through patron-initiated requests. However, some librarians have been concerned that such methods run the risk of producing idiosyncratic collections with poor usage and poor use value. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries have operated such a program through the Interlibrary Loan Department over a five-year period. The following study assesses the relative performance of the program's interlibrary loan-acquired monographs in terms of prices paid per rates of annual circulation, relative use at the topical level, and annual rates of circulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]