The Influence of External Factors on the Selection Process of Fiction in Public Libraries: A Brief Historical Overview and a Call

for the Reevaluation of Selection Theory

By Kimberlee C. DeWall Foundations of Librarianship ILS 503-S71 Eino Sierpe, Ph.D. Fall 2009 dewallk1@southernct.edu

Abstract The role of the selector in the public library is not only problematical due to the inherent dilemma of choice, but it is also compounded by the influence of external factors. Influences outside of the role of the librarian and the mission of the public library have a great impact upon collection development, placing selectors in the position of relying on extrinsic standards developed for reasons other than librarianship (such as business), keeping up with a pace that is set outside of the field (such as technology), and needing to adapt and reassess their tasks as a result of both. In examining a brief history of selection theoryor the aims, methods, and criteria used by librarians in developing library collections--and illustrating how such outside forces as academia, review journals, publishers and vendors, and the public, itself, influence it; there is evidence that contemporary librarians stand in a precarious position in regard to selection: whether it is due to time or budget constraints, or technology, the process is growing more and more elusive. In short, the practices and methods of selection not only need to be reexamined by contemporary librarians, but selection theory, as a concept, needs to be brought back into the realm of scholarly discourse, especially if professional librarians wish to regain their expertly contribution to the reading public.

Introduction Milton T. Wolf claims that if the aim of libraries is to provide a broad range of content, then libraries and librarians in charge of collection development are failing because the selection of materials receives very little attention today in professional dialogues (434). Wolfs chiding is not directed at the aims or the abilities of contemporary librarians. As he claims, For those institutions attempting to build better library collections the problem is not so much a lack of money as it is a lack of insight into the nature of the difficulty (429). The difficulty is, indeed, worth examining. In Wolfs opinion, the problem arises as a result of multinational corporations and conglomerations outside the field that effect collection development because they have captured libraries (429, 430, 434). Moreover, because Wolf believes that the essence of librarianship is the acquisition of the right materials, his essay is more cautionary in nature and should really be regarded as a call to professional librarians to reassess the process of selection and to further investigate contemporary selection theory (432). In this context there is a need to illustrate how such external influences as academia, review journals, booklists, publishers and vendors, and the public influence the selection process and how these factors, subsequently, pose a threat to professional librarianship. The Concept of Selection Theory The role of the librarian as the selector of library materials--the practice known ultimately as collection development and/or management--garners a great deal of controversy due to the very nature of selection, or choice, because choice is not only exclusive (in choosing x, one is excluding y), but it also cannot be separated from partiality. As Andrew Oldenquist states, If every choice is good or bad, it follows that every choice aims, with or without success, to suit a goal, principle, or habit; even Aristotle concludes that a choice is a voluntary act preceded by deliberation (99). How, then, do librarians select or determine the right materials, while also attempting to develop an ethical and unbiased approach to the selection process (Wolf 432)? More importantly, is such an approach to selection even possible given the nature of choice and the postmodern questioning of traditional assumptions, such as what is right or wrong?

Scholars and theorists have grappled with the concept of selection theory for centuries--which, for the sake of brevity, will hereby imply the aim and methodology of the selection of fiction in public libraries because fiction appears to generate the most public reaction, especially when one considers such challenged books lists as that of the American Library Association. While Mathilde V. Rovelstad locates the theorization of book selection as far back as Naudes seventeenth-century treatise in which the problematical nature of the selection process is described as difficult, it is Lionel McColvin who places book selection at the forefront of librarianship: Book selection is the first task of librarianship. It precedes all other processescataloging, classification, or administrationand it is the most important. No matter how thorough and efficient the rest of the work may be, the ultimate value of a library depends upon the way in which the stock has been selected (551, 9). The Synthesis of Selection Theory While there is surprisingly very little discussion today that seeks to explore the concept of selection theory as a concept unto itself; Kenneth D. Shearers attempt in 1983 to draw correlations to other disciplines that study the idea of selection theory--biology, statistics, and communications, is perhaps the only original offering. Discussions tend to focus mainly on the selectors role from a philosophical perspective and the attempt to define what is valuable in collection development. Most theorists of the selection process take moderate views. For instance, William F. Poole supports the selection of popular fiction and meeting the wants of readers, suggesting that such reading habits will lead them to more erudite works, and Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan reduces the issue down to its very essence in The Five Laws of Library Science: every book its reader; every reader his book (Johnson 14). Not so long ago, however, the notion of the librarian as an educator to the public, or arbiter of quality, as Peggy Johnson puts it, emerged (10). Johnson traces the lingering effect of the Puritan condemnation of fiction reading as it trickles down through the works of such thinkers as Arthur E. Bostwick, whose view of librarianship is that librarians as censors is a positive idea and that they have a responsibility to censor anything that is not Good, True, and Beautiful (13). The essence of Bostwicks viewwhich he expressed in his 1908lingers well into the late twentieth century. For example,

vehemently calling into question the American Library Associations Code of Ethics for Librarians, Samuel Rothstein proposes a Martin Luther-like declaration of principles, or ethos (157). Of the four values that Rothstein outlines in his discussion of the principles of librarianship, the following value elicits contention: a responsibility of the librarian is enlarging the horizons and elevating the taste of the community, using the discriminating selection of materials as a tool (21). While quick to point out that Rothsteins scholarly contribution to the field is worthy, professional librarians, such as Michael Gorman, have to admit that such value judgments not only stand in direct conflict with the public library, but that they also make some librarians wince (22). One such librarian might be Celeste West, who expresses a countercultural view of librarians in her introduction to Revolting Librarians: Their responsibility is not to any power structure at all, but to the patron and to the profession. True professionalism implies evolution, if not revolution; those who profess a calling have certain goals and standards for improving existence, which necessarily means moving, shaking, transforming it ([7]). In fact, West goes on to commentalbeit through irony--upon a radical selection theory: Our specific skill is making information accessible to the commonwealthof which we are members. Thus, objectivity is no more than a useful abstractionlike the line of the equator. Do balance your collection with pro-racist, sexist, violence material (on ultramicro-fiche?), but as the ombudsmen of the mediascape, push the other, the human-hearted. Do anti-war bibliographies, whole earth how-to lists, community survival information, stoned soul programs. The good new is advocacy! Participation! Librarians can generate information. Why watch it congeal on a 3x5 world? ([7]) Wests views surely indicate the shift in librarianship from elitist or paternalistic teacher to social activist. However, while many views of selection continue to uphold the position that the librarians purpose is the provision of only the highest-quality materialswith quality defined, of course, by the librarians; it is important to note the dialectical development of selection theory from Bostwick to West

as it accounts for the synthesis of both views that most selectors attempt to balance and adhere to today (Johnson 13). Academia and Selection Theory It follows, then, that the determination of high quality materials comes into question. Indeed, how does a selector--who may or may not be a professional librarian; who does not have the time to read every novel published or even reviewed; and who may not have the benefit or inclination of conducting their own research--determine the value of a work or define quality? Perhaps because selection is one of the many of responsibilities of contemporary librarianship, those with the task of selection resort to external resources in order to save time and to remain within the constraints of budgets. For example, quality literature is often assumed to be literature that has attained the status of being called a classic, which was traditionally determined by academia. In fact, scholars, such as, Charles W. Eliot, a former president of Harvard University, culled together what he believed to be quality works in The Harvard Classics; and philosophers, Mortimer Adler and Allan Bloom, conceived of the Great Books Program, which continues to be used by many public libraries for adult reading programs. However, what academia, or the university, is reading is a source of contention in itself because many contemporary literary scholars take issue with traditional definitions of the canon. In her attempt to stress the importance for librarians to become more aware of their part in the process of canon-formation, Julianne Buchsbaum points out that the topic, unfortunately, does not elicit much attention in library literature (Buchsbaum 3). For public librarians, the matter is not so much a case of determining what works should be added to the canon. It is, rather, their part to ensure that the kinds of literature, the genres, and even the controversial and experimental modes of literature, are represented in the public librarys collection. This view, in fact, is representative of contemporary academia, as well, for the significance of a literary work is not necessarily based upon its quality but, rather, on its relevance to historical, social, and artistic contexts. With this view in mind, it is much easier for selectors to focus upon the kinds of literature that colleges and universities are reading, instead of

attempting to keep up with the specific works that literary discourses deem significant to add to the canon, or any academic syllabi. Booklists and Selection Syllabi are, moreover, not the only lists that selectors rely upon for selection. In fact, one might say that booklists are a popular contemporary phenomenon. As Naper and Wiegand suggest, librarians have embarked on a love affair with booklists; yet booklists, even those for library selection purposes and compiled by professionalssuch as The American Library Association Booklist, Book Review Digest, Fiction Catalog--have one aim and that is to influence what is read (1). The difficulty in gleaning books from lists, then, is that they are not reliable sources of selection because they are so subjective, or, as Naper and Wiegand put it, one truth is found in all booklists: they proffer the opinion, sometimes expert and sometimes not, and inevitably the personal biases, prejudices, partialities, and eccentricities of their compilers (2). While compilations for libraries appear to be the most preferable, librarians cannot ignore the myriad of alternative lists that exert a great influence over readers. For example, book club lists (the most notable being that of Oprahs) are hugely popular; as are bestseller lists (such as The New York Times Bestseller List), whichit should be kept in mind--are meant to show what books people are buying and not necessarily what is deemed a quality work. Some critics even suggest that the latter has become a mere tool for book promotion (Naper 2). However, in the process, the tool for promotion, which leads to the sale, takes precedence over the book itself, and a transformation of the meaning and use of a book such as that is certainly not in the best interest of public libraries. Furthermore, a new trend in booklists has emerged: online booklists, which are not only more rampant than printed versions, but they are also expanded into new formats. Consider, for instance, Delicious, the social bookmarking service, where users may create and share their own lists of books, as well as rating them. Even Amazon includes the customer in recommending, reviewing and, sure enough, creating their own lists. Indeed, the notion that booklist authorities are professionals--librarians, academics, or book scholarscan no longer be assumed (Naper 3). On the other hand, while Naper and

Wiegand caution selectors to use their own discretion with booklists and that lists should never be the only factor in governing what libraries collect because they reflect a conflict in collection-building, booklists do serve librarians who work with the public well: they are a great tool for aiding readers in their own selection process (1 & 4). This result of societys penchant for booklists actually helps selectors and, to some degree, relieves the onus of choice and decision making for selectors. In fact, many consortium catalogs generate booklists of their most requested titles. Selection through Professional Journals and Reviews Among the other tools that selectors use in the reviewing process are journals designed specifically for the very purpose of selection. But like the booklist, as Naper suggests, they, too, proffer opinions and personal biases: those of the reviewers. Many factors may influence a reviewers reception of a work: are they a librarian, a scholar, a writer? What is their perspective in relation to a work? Can a Baby Boomer librarian from the suburbs truly appreciate the pertinence a young adult novel that takes place in a city, immersed in rap culture? Indeed, the concept of censorship is sometimes inadvertent, and, as a result, certain demographics may be overlooked. Jennifer Bromann states, Although reviewers try to be objective, personal biases and experiences often come through. If a librarian only receives one review journal and a collection development policy requires a positive view, it is quite possible for great books to slip through the cracks (1). Not only that, as Bromann points out, but some works receive preferential treatment: Books by award-winning authors often receive good reviews no matter what (2). Bromanns essay should remind librarians that not only materials need reviewing but that reviewers need reviewing themselves, as well as editors, who--with the publications aim in mind--oversee which reviews get published. In short, review journals, even the reputable ones, are a business with agendas and motives other than those of the public library. Reviewers and editors may also be motivated by monetary objectives, as well. The Influence of Publishing Indeed, unlike the public library, the aim of the publishing industry is to sell; not to educate or provide access to information to the public, nor does it have the publics best interest in mind. In fact, the

relationship between publishers and public librarians is not only in polar opposition, but it has become so precarious that there is a great deal of debate over it. As Wolf points out, Numerous authors have detailed the conglomeration, consolidation, and homogenization of the publishing industry worldwide, and that the new business model in Big Publishing is commodification and control over all data and information (430, 435). Supporting Wolfs view that too few publishing enterprises are in control of too much content (or what often masquerades as content), Johnson illustrates the monetary influence that publishing has gained over libraries : in 2007, Six groupscontrol[led] more than forty major publishers, with Reed Elsevier controlling 24.6 percent of the marketWith mergers have come price increases (19) While Johnson further substantiates her point with figures on the increase of journal prices, placing the increase around 30 percent, again, in 2007; Wolf projects that publishings financial influence over libraries is much more than that: Because we have allowed ourselves to be captured by big publishing, we expend over 90 percent of our budgets on only their point of view (and its a very narrow one, indeed) (19, 434-5). It is worthwhile, then, to consider some of the ways in which libraries may have fallen prey to the omnipotent figure of the publishing industry. The idea that libraries and publishers vie for the dissemination of knowledge, yet with different aims in mind, is aptly portrayed by Richard E. Rubin, who claims that the need for information today has put public librarieswhich are nonprofit organizations--in direct competition with outside forces. The problem is that these competitors also recognize that information is a valued commodity and that both profit and power can be acquired if its dissemination can be controlled (79). To be sure, there is no way, as of yet, that a library, or even a consortium, can compete with the likes of publishing. There may not be a reason why they would necessarily want to, yet public librarians have had to assent and hand over a good amount of their work to the industry, and this is unfortunate because publishers are not trained experts in the collection of information, nor are they experts in the validity, appropriateness, or the quality of their products. They are experts, rather, in what will sell.

Vendors versus Acquisition Departments Perhaps there is no other department in the public library today that has grappled with the stronghold of not only publishers, but vendors, than that of acquisitions. As Johnson states, The consolidation of publishers and vendors has profoundly changed the marketplace in which collection development librarians make their decisions (19). Or, as Wolf claims, librarians delegate a majority of their selecting to vendorsandhave been almost systematically disburdening themselves of the task of collection building for nearly three decades now (434) Consequently, the role that the vendor has come to play in collection development and acquisitions has become so omniscient that staffing levels have been greatly decreased. Consider, for example, Rubins account of the burgeoning of systems designed to help libraries acquire materials, in which acquisition systems can monitor budgets, or create reports (88). In fact, such systems can also create library profiles so that selectors do not even have to order books: the vendors can automatically match materials to the library. Because of the development of such systems, along with leasing programs of bestsellers, selectors do not even have to make choices. A library can automatically receive the books that are most popular. However, such programs cannot replace the intuitive understanding of a community of readers that librarians acquire. Surely, communities have their own unique reading practices, and what is popular in one community, may not be popular in another. The Power and Control of Marketing Yet what constitutes popularity is another matter all together. One might say that what is popular, or mainstream, is a direct result of the marketing strategies employed by the publishing industry. The notion that publishers can control what the public reads is overwhelmingly evident in young adults novels and, the most recently targeted demographic, the tweens--children between the ages of nine and twelve. The depth and detail into which advertising goes in its aim to sell is incredibly complex. In fact, publications are devoted solely to marketing tweens, and publishers are all too aware of this marketing bonanza, considering it their bread and butter business (Soltan 1). Sultan posits, The service we provide to tweens today is directly affected by the niche advertising researchers and marketers have created, and like it or not, libraries have been brought into this tween marketing frenzy (1).

While it should be considered a positive trend that young people are reading, the problem is that librarians often have little or no influence over what their patrons read. They are simply filling a demand created by publishers. As an illustration, Soltan claims, Publishers are continuing to take advantage of the Harry Potter factor by providing more fantasy and gothic themes, reaching boys and girls with the series approach(3). This suggests that publishers are not only influencing what young people read but also how much. One of the problems here for libraries is that they need to buy multiple copies of such works in order to meet the requests of their young readers, which is costly. Furthermore, because these trends appear and fade so rapidly, libraries are left with piles of books that no longer circulate and that eventually need to be weeded or discarded. Ultimately, though, the popularity of series reading is a positive trend because young people are reading, and they are actually eager for the subsequent books. The hope of the public library is, after all, that young readers will see the library as resource and continue to use it as such as for the rest of their lives. Publishings Influence Over What is Not Read What is more disconcerting than the publishing industrys control over what is read and what librarians must thereby select, is publishings control over what is not read. Lillian Gerhardt makes a strong point in regard to how publishers can control what selectors may purchase by refusing access to advance copies and, in doing so, forcing librarians to choose whether to buy a publication without information on its value to the collection or quality. Gerhardt calls such practice censorship, and, as a marketing strategy, regrettable (1). Indeed, such censorial practices are unfortunate for libraries because it keeps materials not only from librarians, but the public, as well. Marketing strategies, also, serve to raise the publics curiosity, thereby allowing for a higher price. In cases where books are hyped-up by advertising, libraries are often put in a difficult position: the public is eager to read such works, yet may not necessarily want to buy them, leaving libraries to decide whether to fulfill the requests of curious patrons or avoiding the scorn of offended patrons all together by not purchasing such materials. Thus, the exclusive nature of publishing directly affects the selection process.

Another way that the publishing industry controls what is available or unavailable to libraries and, subsequently, to patrons, is their lack of publishing foreign language books. This is especially evident today with the increase of ESL--or English as a second language--students, communities, and programs. The cost and time it takes to find publishers that carry foreign language books is prohibitive. For example, Shelley Quezada says, It is frustrating for librarians to read reviews of material which they would like to acquire but for which they are unable to find a source for purchase (140). Although private, state, and federal programs and/or grants that seek to meet the needs of patrons, who do not speak, much less read, English, are made available to public libraries, there are surprisingly very few resources available to libraries in the development of such collections. As a result, libraries are forced to either redirect or guide such patrons in other directions or spend a great deal of time and money in the acquisition of such material by seeking out and buying works directly from small publishers, many of which are overseas. The Publics Influence on the Selection Process That selectors of public libraries are constantly attempting to keep up with the fast and everchanging needs and demands of the public, raises the point that the public, itself, influences the selection of materials, especially in the case of fiction. What readers request may certainly be dictated by advertising or the media: anything from dolls to television shows, from movies to art or graffiti, can influence what the public likes to read. It is, therefore, necessary for public librarians to not only be tapped into social trends, but to be so versed in them that they are able to meet the needs of savvy readers or, just as importantly, attract new patrons who are not necessarily interested in traditional forms of literature. This is especially so in young adult materials, where Baby Boom librarians attempt to develop manga and anime collections. In fact, it seems that many public libraries are just now beginning to realize that graphic novels are not a fad and that these works are beginning to appear out of place in the nonfiction section, where catalogers seem to have resorted to placing them. Nevertheless, it appears that the upcoming generations of readers are coming from a completely different reading perspective than the selector who may be purchasing the materials. For instance, Sven Birkerts recounts his surprise in the

negative response of his undergraduates to Henry Jamess short story, Brooksmith. After discussing their negative views, Birkerts discovers that it was actually the act of reading that had undone the students (17). They just couldnt get into it (18). What Birkerts describes is not a generation that cannot read, but one that registers information in a way that is totally foreign to the generation of librarians that may be given the responsibility of selecting works for them. The gap between the generations that Birkerts describes is more akin to a rift where the entire system of beliefs, values, and cultural aspirations are completely dichotomous (19). Such a rift would make it difficult for many librarians to not only navigate their way through the selection of a wholly new form of such literature as the graphic novel, but to comprehend wholly new cultures known as anime and manga. Thus, selecting materials for new generations of readers can, indeed, be an overwhelming endeavor for selectors. Conclusion In short, Wolf best sums up the crux of the dilemma that those with the responsibility of selection and collection development face today, while attempting at the same time to maintain the mission of the public library: Building quality libraries that contain as much diverse content as possible so that intellectual inquiry can be pursued will never be an inexpensive procedure, but if investigative inquiry is left in the hands of commodification the outcome will not only be contaminated research, but also a dehumanized and less democratic social order (436). To be sure, librarians must reassess the tools and systems they use in the selection process and look for new ways to manage their collections. Perhaps selectors may gain back some of the options that they have lost due to such outside influences as vendors and the publishing industry by attempting to make technology work for them, or with them, and not in place of them. Perhaps with the increasing development of cooperative collections and public consortia, selectors will have an opportunity to become more specialized in specific areas, allowing them to spend more time researching materials, developing their own resources, and then reassessing policy and criteria. Perhaps, too, patrons, especially the younger ones, will play a more important role in the selection process because they are part of a new culture that, as West describes in Revolting Librarians, not only moves, shakes, and transforms, but blogs, tweets, and texts. Libraries are changing and so is the ethos, or

the set of characteristics that define us, as Rothstein maintains (157). It is, therefore, incumbent upon professional librarians and selectors to be a part of that evolution, constantly reworking and redefining the flux of selection theory.

Works Cited Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston, MA: Faber & Faber, 1994. Print. Bromann, Jennifer. Too Many Journals, Too little Time. School Library Journal. 47.9 (2001): 46. Web. 22 Sep 2009. Buchsbaum, Julianne. Academic Libraries and the Remaking of the Canon: Implications for Collection Development Librarians. Library Philosophy and Practice (2009): n. pag. Web 22 Sep 2009. Failkoff, Francine. Selection Not Censorship: Giving Librarians the Right Reasons to Label Christian Fiction. Library Journal. 129.9 (2004): 69. Web. 22 Sep 2009. Gerhardt, Lillian N. Pre-Censorship. School Library Journal 39.7 (1993): 1. Web. 22 Sep 2009. Gorman, Michael. Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2000. Print. Johnson, Peggy. Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management. 2nd. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, 2009. Print. McColvin, Lionel. The Theory of Book Selection for Public Libraries. London: Grafton, 1925. Print. Naper, Sarah, and Stephanie Wiegand. Books of the Hour and Books of All Time: Booklists in the Evolving Library. Library Philososphy and Practice (2008): n. pag. Web. 22 Sep 2009. Oldenquist, Andrew. Choosing, Deciding, and Doing. The Enyclopedia of Philosophy. 2. New York: NY: The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, 1967. Print. Quezada, S. Shelley. Bridging the Pacific Rim: Selecting & Reviewing Latin American Childrens Books. A Sea of Upturned Faces: Proceedings of the Third Rim Conference on Childrens Literature. Ed. Winifred Ragsdale. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1989. Print.

Rothstein, Samuel. In Search of Ourselves. Library Journal. (January 15, 1968): 156-157. Print. Rovelstad, Mathilde V. Two Seventeenth-Century Library Handbooks, Two Different Library Theories. Libraries & Culture 35.4 (2000): 540. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 12 Oct. 2009. Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science. 2nd. New York, NY: NealSchuman Publishers, 2004. Print. Soltan, Rita. The Tween Market: Keeping Our Collections Attractive, Practical and Effective. MLA Forum III.1 (2004): 5. Web. 18 Sep 2009. West, Celeste, and Elizabeth Katz, eds. Revolting Librarians. San Francisco, CA: Booklegger Press, 1972. Print Wolf, Milton T. Building Library Collection: The Horse is Riding Us! Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences. 40.4 (2003): 429-37. Print.