LISR 17, 135-150 (1995)

Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System:

Librarian-Faculty Relations in Collection Development

Felix T. Chu
W&tern ~lli~~i~Univwdty Library

This case stud:r based on theories of loose coupling and loosely coupled
systems fccLses OPthe relatio~~p between librarians and faculty who share
in the resl;onsibihties for collection development, Data gathered through
focused int?rfie\ ISand examination of archival documents indicate that areas
of collabo! ation it a public comprehensive university library center more on
procedures of collection development than on substantive issues. There is an
~biguo~ ~ders~~g of the role of dep~en~ library represen~tives
and the function of collection development due to differing perceptions of the
role of the library during a period of shrinking resources, the nature of
cooperation, equity in the allocation of resonrces, and goals of collection
development.

This case study arose from a need to better understand the relationship between
subunits in a horizontal layer of a loosely coupled organization-the relationship
between the library and academic departments. Bounding this study are factors that
affect org~zational decision-mug. The fast is a zero-so env~o~~t in the
allocation of resources. With a finite ~sti~tion~ budget, if allocation is increased for
one area, such as the library materials budget, one or more other areas must receive
less. Thus, an expansion in the size and support of some academic programs cannot
occur concurrently with an increase of library support for those programs without a
decrease in supporting other academic programs. The second is a limitation on
availablechoices. This occurs, for example, when decisions are made based on external
factors such as accre~~tion req~ements rather than ~sti~tion~ program size.
Finally, it is important to understand variables that influence the success or failure of
lateral relations in a horizontal layer of the institutional hierarchy so that the
librarian-fatuity collaboration in collection development, guided by shared goals of the
institution, can proceed purposively. The framework for this study is based on loose
coupling as described by Weick (1976), and on its later reconceptualization (Orton &
Weick, 1990).

This article is based on my doctoral dissertation. I wish to thank Paul Baker Cosine Chair,
distinguished Professor; John McCarthy, Professor; George Padavil, Associate P. fessor (all of the
Depazimeut of Educational Administration and Foundations, Iilinois State University); d Fred Peterson,
University Librarian, Illinois State University.
Direct comqondence to Felix T. Chu, University Library, Western Illinois Univer&y, university
Circle, Macomb, Illinois 61451390 <chuf@ccmail.wiu.bgu.edu>.
136 Chu

LOOSELY COOLED SYS~~S

According to Weick (1976), elements in a loosely coupled system are somewhat

related, but they retain their own identity and preserve some evidence of separateness.
There are also portions of loosely coupled systems that are more sensitive to
environmental changes and will conform to external forces more readily than other
parts. This fact helps to define the next characteristic, local adaptation, Because of the
independence of elements, one element may change without affecting other elements.
Related to this is the fact that several elements may adapt and mutate in different ways
to the same set of stimuli and coexist in the same system. If one element breaks down,
other elements may not be affected. Each element has some degree of freedom to
due its own course. Finally, a loosely coupled system does not require expensive
overhead. In sensit~~g the observer, loose coupling leads one to see what is not being
done, and in its stead, what is being done using the same resources,

Management of Systems

Up to the 198Os,many people assumed that educational institutions could be managed

much like other complex organizations by monitoring performance, planning with
routines to accomplish established standards and policies, and so forth (Weick, 1982a).
The last decade has been marked by fundamental changes in some basic assumptions
that smaller may be better, loose coupling and redundancy may be necessary, and
conflict and ~~onsistency may be desirable for effectiveness (Cameron, Freeman, &
Nishra, 1993). These changes have led Limerick and axon (1993) to propose
a new bluep~t for m~agement based on concepts of loose coupling where units of
an organization are autonomous yet integrated into the whole.
Educational institutions do not have properties such as a rational system, highly
interdependent people, consensus on goals and means to achieve them, and formalized
coordination. They must be managed as loosely coupled systems. Those aspects that
are tightly coupled such as dealings with the business office or the requirements for
continued registration of students share four properties:

l The existence of rules,

l Augment on their existence,

l Inspection of compliance, and

l Feedback to improve compliance.

By contrast, one or more of these properties is missing in many instances. For example,
the appropriate level of support from the computer center for academic needs depends
on different values espoused by professionals in different disciplines; and the breadth
of coursework required for an educated person also differs by discipline and
specialization. In these instances, the institution becomes a loosely coupled system
where ~ornpon~~ will adapt to the ~nv~o~ent as necessary, ~dependently of each
other. Consequently, the total insti~tion becomes less able to adapt as a whole.
 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 137

Relationship Among Subunits

The relationship between two elements in a loosely coupled system can be

characterized by five adverbs (Weick, 1982b); A affects B

l suddenly,

l occasionally,

l negligibly,

l indirectly, and

l eventually.

Take, for example, the relationship between a mathematics department and a physics
department where calculus is a prerequisite for introductory courses in physics. The
effect of a change in the basic calculus courses on the physics department is felt
suddenly when former calculus students take physics. It is occasional because calculus
courses do not change constantly, negligible because only a small portion of students
are involved, indirect because the changes are felt through the students, and eventual
when current calculus students take physics the following year. The looseness is in the
process rather than the procedure. While loose coupling allows one unit to adapt to
changes in other units, it is not conducive to the adaptation of the total organization to
changes because each unit may see a different reality that will influence the feedback
to a higher hierarchical level.

Reconceptualization of Loose Coupling

Orton and Weick (1990) categorized current literature on loose coupling and loosely
coupled systems into five voices: causation, typology, direct effects, compensations,
and organizational outcomes. The first voice, causation, examines what causes loose
coupling. This occurs when people look at the same phenomenon from different
perspectives with different understandings and come up with differing interpretations.
For example, a computer problem may be attributed to the hardware by an engineer
and fixed by a hardware patch, or to a software problem and solved by modifications
to the program by a programmer. In this sense, the problem and the solution are loosely
coupled. The voice of typology looks at loose coupling as an analytic language to
clarity and describe relationships. An instance of this may be the working relationship
between sales and engineering departments of a corporation. The voice of direct effects
is concerned with the consequences of loose coupling. One application of this is
modularity in computer software design where groups of computer codes for specific
tasks are isolated from each other as much as possible, passing only essential
information for sharing. The fourth voice is that of compensations. The major concern
here is with the tightening of the coupling. For example, strong leadership in a school
system may articulate a single set of clearly defined goals using clear technology, thus
allowing a single focus. These four voices culminate in the fifth voice, organizational
138 Chu

outcomes, where loose coupling allows the abuts of persistence, bang,

~ap~bili~, satisf~tion, and effectiveness to exist.
Of primary interest in this study is the relationship among subunits of a loosely
coupled system. In this case, it is the formal lateral relationship between the library and
academic departments in a university. It is necessary to examine causation for elements
that contribute to loose coupling and typology where the emphasis is on “descriptive
clarity” (Orton & Weick, 1990, p. 207).

METHODOLOGY

This study was carried out at a public comprehensive university with an enrollment of
12,000 s~dents and a library collection of over 600,000 volumes, Since the intent of
this case study is to ~ders~d factors that influence coll~oration in a loosely coupled
system, focused interviews were conducted with 12 librarians and 36 faculty library
representativesfrom 30 academic departments during the period from November 1991
to May 1992. Tentative conclusions were then drawn and presented to the librarians.
Follow-up interviews were conducted during October 1992 with 11 of the 12 librarians
for their reactions to temporary conclusions drawn from the results of the initial
interviews. As suggested by Denzin (1989), interview data from faculty and librarians
were triangulated with data firon?archival documents housed at the University Library
in order to decrease bias and increase reliability. Constant comparative analysis was
carried out to generate grounded theories based on the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
The choice of focused interviews is based on the fact that the participants are
known to have been involved in a specified si~tion (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall, 1990).
In centering on a particular set of experiences, the focused interview has the follo~g
characteristics:

l The interviewee is known to have participated in a certain situation,

l The researcher reviews necessary information in order to arrive at a provisional

analysis,

l The production of the interview guide is based on this analysis, and

l The result of the ~te~iew is the ~te~iew~‘s def~tion of the si~ation.

Prior to conducting the interviews, the situation is provisionally analyzed in order to

set a body of hypotheses. Questions to guide interviews are then generated from this
analysis and other known facts (the Appendix contains the questions for this study).
The subsequent interviews are then focused to elicit subjective perceptions concerning
preanalyzed situations.

RESULTS

Archival Documents

In a memo dated June 23,1967, and addressed to Deans, the A~s~~ive Assistant
to the President, and others, the Director of the Library said that despite a greatly
 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 139

increased budget for the academic year 1967-1968, the library could only afford to
purchase a fraction of the then current annual production of published materials. At that
time, many departments purchased journals and books they needed from their own
funds, often duplicating what the library was acquiring. There was no central
accounting for those items for use by students and faculty from other departments, nor
could those items be counted for reporting purposes to regional, state, and national
offices and to accrediting agencies. The Director went on to say that collection
development should be a joint effort between faculty and librarians, with the faculty
primarily responsible for curricular support. It was necessary to have a document that
could guide a systematic and equitable development and provide accountability.
Appended to that memo was a document entitled “Guidelines for the Implementation
of the New Policy” that asked each department chair to appoint a department library
representative. During that year, a formula-based on course offerings, number of
majors and faculty members, and cost of books-was instituted for allocating monies
to academic departments. In 1972, an approval plan was started.
For several reasons including internal changes in budget lines and the rapidly
increasing cost of books and periodicals, an Ad Hoc Library Allocation Committee was
formed in October 1980 by the Director of the Library in cooperation with Faculty
Senate and Student Government Association to address possible changes. In a report
issued in 1981, the Committee recommended the retention of a formula to govern
allocation of funds with the expectation that the formula will encourage cooperation
between the faculty and librarians charged with collection development. Factors to be
considered in the allocation included student credit hours generated, the number of
faculty in each department, and cost of materials in the area. However, books acquired
through the approval plan were excluded. It was also stated that the faculty should be
the “cornerstone” in selecting materials for the library.
During recent years the amount allocated by the state legislature became unstable.
A memo dated August 2 1, 1990, sent by the Director of the Library to other deans,
department chairs, and library representatives announced a reduction of $200,000 in
the library budget. As a result, periodical titles needed to be cut and the approval plan
was suspended. The gravity of the situation was outlined in another memo dated
December 2, 199 1 from the Director of the Library indicating that periodical prices
had increased 400% in 20 years. During the previous 6 years, the number of book
purchases was reduced by over 50%, from 25,223 volumes in 1986 to 12,500 in 1991.
According to enrollment figures supplied by the Office of Institutional Research, the
effective decrease in purchasing power was accompanied by an average increase in
enrollment of 2.1% per year over the previous 5 years, from 12,698 in 1987 to 13,80 1
in 1991.

Interviews with Faculty

It is well understood that this university is primarily an undergraduate institution with

some graduate programs. Most of the faculty interviewed said that the primary role of
the library is to support the curriculum, including instruction and student research. For
that purpose, the library collection is quite adequate. Some faculty members are
surprised by the high level of support that they and their students are receiving. Many
of the 28 faculty members who mentioned research commented that since this is not
a research institution, they do not expect to find a high level of support for their
140 Chu

research. The adequacy of support is evidently related to whether the particular

discipline is applied rather than theoretical. Most of those in education,
communications, or business find the collection at least adequate.
Those librarians and faculty members who rate the collection spotty, minimal, or
inadequate are from the sciences, where undergraduate students do not usually use the
library, but the faculty expected full research support, Another area where support is
termed minimal is interdisciplinary topics. As the representative from Recreation,
Parks, and Tourism Administration said, what is central to them is on the fringes of
established areas such as geology and geography and therefore fall through the cracks
of present systems organized by disciplines. Also stated is the lack of support for
library users who are not specialists or training to be specialists in a field, Since the
library is for use by the entire ~versi~ co-ed, there should be ~~oducto~
material aimed at well-~ucat~ nonspeci~ists from other disciplines.
Many faculty members said that the system of library representatives is a method
of cooperation, but it must be a two-way street. Both sides must view this as an
efficacious process before it can function properly. Many representatives said that
library personnel are very responsive to their inquiries and willing to expend effort to
make the process work. One faculty member in particular said that her colleagues at
other universities contact her with library-related questions because she can get the
answers. With budget cuts, however, there are problems, although not always directed
at the library. One representative, according to the Collection Development Librarian,
has ceased communication in person or by telephone and now relies on written memos.
Despite the good intentions of the system of library representatives, one
representative noted that he really cannot afford to participate more because the more
he is consulted, the more time he needs-time which is in short supply. The overriding
problem stressed by 17 library representatives is the lack of co~~cation within
their own dep~ents. Even though they are representing the interests of their
depar~en~, there is meal feedback in most dep~ments, causing the
represen~tives to be involved in tie-cons~ing activities such as con~ct~g their
colleagues personally, going through journals and brochures, or making decisions in
areas in which they lack familiarity.
Because of professional contacts, personal subscriptions, and publishers’ mailings,
faculty do not usually rely on librarians concerning the identification of new
publications in their areas. However, one faculty member said that he can never be sure
that all relevant materials are announced and that he receives all publishers’ flyers.
Another person maintained that it is hard to judge from announcements in journals or
brochures whether a new journal will be essential for programs in her department.
Another aspect that influences faculty perception and use of the library concerns
the latency period between the time that research results are published and when those
results are put into a form that undergraduate students can consume. One science
professor said that topics discussed in research laboratories when he was a graduate
student appeared in ~der~~uate textbooks about 15 years later. On the other hand,
faculty in business and education say that the latency period may be less than a year
in their fields. Their advanced students can be direct cons~ers of recent research
fmdings published in journals available in the library.
Factors related to collection development policy were discussed. Although the
approval plan was not among the issues addressed by the interview questions, one third
of the library representatives commented on it. One representative said that it is one
 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 141

way to keep current on literature in his field. However, the shortcomings mentioned
include the unevenness of the plan to address materials’ reading level, from elementary
books to those involving advanced concepts or mathematics beyond the understanding
of students or even some faculty members. In times of shrinking and unstable budgets,
two representatives said people are buying everything at the beginning of the semester
instead of selecting before the money runs out. One representative said that with
sufficient budget, this process may be one way of assuring a balance; but with limited
budget, this is really a misallocation of funds when essential materials to satisfy
immediate needs cannot be acquired. Another said that the institution is not managing
the money in an adequate fashion.
One representative said the faculty does not realize a need until the resource is not
there. Many other representatives concurred with this sentiment. Also entering into the
making of institutional decisions is external accreditation of academic programs. This
was observed by several representatives as a necessary component of their
responsibilities. In one case, a representative said that the library has taken the initiative
of checking their holdings against accreditation requirements.
As several people said, institutional decisions or decisions forced by budget
limitations are not perceived as equitable. The representative in home economics said
that her whole budget is less than $5,000 for books, journals, and other materials. She
also has almost 300 majors; whereas, physics had only 19 undergraduate and 15
graduate majors in 1991. Yet, she was approached about making cuts so that a group
of core physics journals whose subscription price went from $9,157 to $11,700 per
year can be kept. As several of the representatives from the sciences said, however,
their materials have traditionally been more expensive. Several faculty members realize
the indirect effect of inadequate library budget. Others say that while there is no
problem now, they are not sure about the near future. As one faculty member pointed
out, library funding is not just a library problem but an institutional problem. Some said
that because of limitations on the budget, they cannot request subscriptions to new
journals appearing in their fields.
Some faculty members said they rely on their own resources because of budgetary
and time constraints. One also said that because of the unstable budget, he is afraid that
if he does not accept a book from the approval plan that marginally addresses a need,
he may lose the chance to get anything at all. Even though he had spent time to help
refine the profile for receiving new books under the approval plan, it did not help.
Interests within the discipline are changing, forcing faculty and librarians to chase after
a moving target of what is considered core for a discipline.
Another point that was brought up concerns journals that are funded by the
allocation to one department but used by faculty and students from other departments.
In one case, a representative said that it was intentional because of uneven allocation.
In many other cases, current representatives suspect that their predecessors were
responsible; and in others, such usage has been ascribed to shifting curricular and
research interests or the interdisciplinary nature of some topics. Another factor that
surfaced in one of the last interviews is that according to one representative, when
money was widely available during the 1960s there was minimal control on what was
being ordered and which journal subscriptions were being placed. As a result, his
department was “allowed to get bigger” than necessary. Cutting back is always more
difficult; but his department and other established departments could start from a
bigger base and therefore have more leeway in absorbing the cuts.
142 Chu

Interviews with Librarians

There is uniform agreement that the role of the university library is mainly to offer
curricular support. This includes student research. While some support should be
offered for graduate student and faculty research, one librarian said it is ambiguous,
especially if support is to be judged on whether the research is related to the
curriculum. Another said that, with time, faculty members actually “let us in” on their
real needs rather than stated needs-substantive questions rather than location of
certain tools that they think can answer their question. In the follow-up interviews, the
librarians termed the quality of the collection as relative. One librarian said what is
“recreational” for one dep~ent may reflect student ~si~en~ in another
dep~ent-a fact not apparent to the faculty. The balance and quality of the
collection also depend on what is being published and the perceived identity of this
university as an emerging research insti~tion or a regional undergraduate university.
The system of library representatives provides a point of contact, but it is a hit or
miss opportunity depending on the representative’s view of the relationship. Librarians
sense that many representatives focus on their own departments and disciplines rather
than on general university-wide needs. However, in agreement with the faculty, they
see a need for informal communication within the formal structure. While agreeing that
all library representatives were advised through memos during the fall of 1988
concerning the development of a formal collection development policy and that very
little response was elicited, librarians said that perhaps the department library
representativeswere asked to do the wrong things. One said that if librarians want their
cooperation, faculty should be asked what they know about their disciplines using their
jargon where needed. Librarians can then translate their needs into Library of Congress
call number classes and other library jargon. This is true of faculty input in writing a
formal collection developm~t policy as well as updating profiles for the approval plan.
How well the system of library represen~tives works, as one Libras said, depends
more on the personality of the faculty represen~tive than on longevity. However, too
many representatives see their role as buying for specialists in their department rather
than the total user community.
In matters of timeliness of acquisition, librarians say that by the time book reviews
come out, it is too late to place the orders because faculty and students will have
aheady started to request the items. Therefore, the library cannot rely on faculty input
as the sole source in collection development. The librarians also said that faculty
expertise is needed, but librarians should review all requests. While acknowledging
faculty expertise, librarians are uncomfortable with allowing faculty into basic
decisions concerning allocation of resources. Many librarians contend that external
funding for specified areas may also skew the collection, Equitable allocation demands
an overall view of the library. There should be some balance between the size of the
library collection in a given area and program needs. As one librarian said, while the
faculty has a retrospective view of the literature, librarians need to anticipate needs.
While agreeing that nothing can substi~te for expertise, one librarian viewed the
approval plan as an attempt to save labor that may lead librarians into complacency and
assnme there is a “quick fix.” Without approp~ate personnel in the library, the approval
plan becomes the default choice. Despite agreements on the approval plan’s
shortcomings, such as skewing book choices in favor of disciplines emphasized by the
Library of Congress and those disciplines relying on books, this librarian raised a
 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 143

point-what can be use in its stead? Concurrently, there is the problem of what portion
of the budget to allocate for the approval plan and what portion for discretionary funds
for individual book requests. The library is ultimately held accountable for all
expenditures. Another librarian said that this final responsibility for the budget has
caused ill-feelings among some faculty members who would like to reserve the fmal
approval for expenditures. Finally, the approval plan has been used to encumber
monies quickly when allocated by the university in order not to loose that amount as
a result of time constraints specified by the funding source or the university
administration.

DISCUSSION

Loosely Coupled System

According to Weick (1976), components in a loosely coupled system are responsive

to each other but retain their own identity. Although the library and academic
departments are within the same institution and are responsible for the education of the
same group of students, these units are functionally separate entities. Within a system
with limited resources, the library and the departments must compete in a zero-sum
game. The variable effects described by the five adverbs--suddenly, occasionalb,
negligibly, indivecdy, and eventually-are apparent in the interview results and help
to explain some of the causes and consequences of loose coupling. Within the conduit
formed by the system of library representatives, the looseness is more in the interactive
process than in the formal structure. Analysis of interview data clarifies many of the
ambiguities, allowing the voices of causation and typology to emerge and allowing
better examination of the dynamics of collaboration in collection development.

Effects of Loose Coupling in Collection Development

The effects of collection development on meeting the needs of library users are
indirect. Those effects are noticed primarily when needs are not being met. One
representative said that his interactions with the library are indirect through his
students, who look for help in locating appropriate sources. The indirect effect is also
shown by a visiting professor’s comment that this library has the materials in her field
because she has borrowed them from here. Another instance is when a representative
said that because of budget cuts in recent years, he is not sure that sufficient materials
have been purchased in his area in the last 2 or 3 years. In this sense, the effect is
eventual rather than immediate. The quality is noticed only in instances when it is
lacking. Since the instances are temporal in nature, they are sudden rather than
continuous. Another representative reported that one of his colleagues “suddenly”
realized that the subscription to a journal she needed for her class had been cancelled
long after she checked and approved the list of journals to be cancelled. Finally, the
effect is negligible because the lack of a particular item often affects only the person
looking for it. The event is significant for that individual but not for the institution.
These are all instances of specific needs, indicating the occasional nature of the effects.
Furthermore, the ability to meet needs depends on the discipline. This, again, indicates
that the inability to meet needs is occasional rather than constant.
144 Chu

Voice of Causation

In moving to the voice of causation, one sees ambiguities and contradictions that can
readily be described by causal indeterminacy, fragmentation of external environment,
and fragmentation of internal environment. Causal indeterminacy is brought on by
unclear means-ends relationship because of bounded rationality, selective perception,
uncertainty, ambiguity, and intangibility of production materials (Orton & Weick,
1990). These issues inspire questions about the distinction between curricuIar support
and about support for personal research needs. In cases where personal research results
by faculty filter down into improving teaching methodology or curricular content, is
that support curricular or personal? Similarly, how does the present system address
interdis~ipl~~ needs? Also evident is an ~ders~~ng of the i~~~~~e of
info~ation. As shown in several inte~iews, effective use of the existing collection
may compensate for the inability to purchase some materials. This indicates, at least
on the surface, a degree of bounded rationality, showing that with the expansion of the
bounds of rationality, the means-ends relationship may become more clear. As
discussed by one representative, absent the help of librarians, students cannot find and
manipulate the appropriate tools of access (the means) to find relevant information (the
ends). Similarly, newer faculty representatives are bounded by a narrow focus of
supporting specialists in their department rather than the total user community.
It is evident from interview results that some faculty representatives realize they
need to travel to a large research institution in order to find better research support
while others expect this library to offer full support for their research. This indicates
an ~bi~o~ role for the library and also for the nature of materials that are requested
by the various represen~tives. While there is general a~eement on satisfying student
curricular needs, the extent of support is ambiguous. As Eisenberg (1984) said, such
ambiguity can be used advantageously in decision-making. This is akin to saying that
the mission of this institution is primarily undergraduate education, While no one will
disagree with the statement, the exact meaning of “primarily undergraduate education”
cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. Similarly, “adequate support” for needs
is hard to define. Thus, ambiguous goals of library constituents causes indeterminacy
in the role of the library and collection development.
There is also another point of ambiguity concerning the collection. It is one raised
by librariansabout the “balanced’ collection. As Orton and Weick (1990) said of loose
coupling having face validity, the phrase “balanced collections’also has face validity
in that “bal~~ed” coyotes seem and stability. One faculty member said that the
approval plan brought balance to the collection, but he went on to say that the actual
needs of his department are in the 25% of new materials that is not brought in by the
approval plan, Thus, “balance” refers to adequate coverage of all aspects of a
discipline. With abundant resources, the approval plan is one tool that can be used to
ensure that all potential needs are coupled with library collection. However, with
limited resources, in order to maintain coupling of needs and resources, an
impoverished “balanced” collection cannot adequately support all program needs.
Librarians, in trying to anticipate needs, purchase books in anticipation of needs that
may never materialize. In essence, librarians, under the assumption of abundant
resources, are placing solutions to potential problems into a garbage can, to be retrieved
only when a~~ornp~ying problems arise (Cohen & March, 1974).
 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 145

Perhaps the greatest point of ambiguity pertains to collaboration between the

library and department library representatives. There is no question that both sides see
communication as vital to the lateral relationship. However, as with “research support”
(discussed previously), the meaning of “collaboration” is not clear. The faculty see
collaboration on the procedures of collection development whereas, librarians, through
the use of the approval plan and a formal collection development policy, want
collaboration to be also on the content of collection development. In effect, faculty see
procedural hurdles such as equitable allocation and limited budget that impinge on the
development of content. Librarians perceive that quality content will follow if one uses
rationally developed and appropriate procedures.
In regard to fragmentation of external environment, librarians respond to factors
such as institutional budget constraints that result from state legislative action or price
increases from publishers above the rate of inflation. At the same time, the other parties
in the relationship, the academic departments, try to respond to demands from
accrediting agencies and employers for their graduates. This is evident, for example,
from requirements for library support from the American Chemical Society, American
Dietetics Association, or American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business.
Comments from interviewees in the more applied fields such as business indicate that
as soon as a new technology or concept is adopted by industry, it comes under
consideration for course content. The latency period-the time elapsed before the
research findings are put into a form that can be consumed by undergraduate
students-may be no more than a year. In other fields such as the pure sciences, the
latency period may be as long as 15 years. The external pressures directed at the library
and academic departments are from dissimilar sources, presenting competing goals of
spending cuts and acquisition of additional resources. Both parties of the relationship
expect support from the institution, and these expectations are incompatible.
With regard to fragmentation of internal environment, few participants are
involved in any given scenario or care about every organizational issue. Perceived
inequities involving one department may not be viewed with alarm by other
stakeholders. Thus, the lack of research support perceived by one department is not
viewed with alarm by other departments when “their” materials cost substantially less
and they recognize that the institutional mission is primarily undergraduate teaching.
Other instances of inequities extend to commentaries in which representatives say that
established departments such as physics and physical education can absorb the cuts
better than newer departments such as gerontology because the former start from a
stronger position in having a bigger percentage of journal subscriptions that they
consider “nonessential.”
A fInal observation is the inequity of support for persons outside of the discipline.
While faculty who have been here for a number of years recognize this as a legitimate
need, newer representatives think in terms of only their departmental faculty and
student needs. This is similar to the comment made by Tobias (1990) that professors
in the sciences teach as if all students in their classes are majors. There is no attempt
to recruit from the outside or accommodate different needs.
The internal fragmentation can also be applied to a single department. This came
through in voluntary comments by a number of faculty representatives. While they do
not have difficulty communicating with library personnel, the representatives get
minimal response from their colleagues. On the library side, some librarians question
the appropriateness of the system of library representatives in meeting student needs
146 Chu

and whether those needs are effectively transmitted within the library to those
responsible for collection development.

Voice of Typology

Orton and Weick (1990) list eight identifiable types of loose coupling: among
individuals, among subunits, among organizations, between hierarchical levels,
between organizations and environments, among ideas, between activities, and between
intentions and actions. The loose coupling among organizations and between
hierarchical levels are not within the focus of this study and are not considered. Others
are examined here. It is within the voice of typology that ideas concerning
collaboration can be clarified.
The looseness among individuals is apparent in this study in the relationship
between department library representatives and librarians. It is also necessary to
consider the relationship among librarians and faculty within a department. In the first
case, as pointed out in several interviews, representatives in some departments are the
most junior member of the department faculty. The looseness is created when there is
no continuity in the position and the new occupant reinvents parameters of the role
according to his or her perceptions. In the latter case, as one representative said, one
faculty member suddenly realized that what she needs is no longer available. Thus, the
reaction that drives internal communication is from a negative stimulus which occurs
infrequently.
The coupling among subunits-the library and academic departments-is through
the librarians and the departmental representatives. It is indirect where the initial
information is filtered according to the understandings and biases of the respective
agents. In times of less money, while some representatives feel the need to strengthen
the coupling through increased communication in order to clarify needs, many also say
that less money creates fewer opportunities for interaction. Consequently, the
information that each side receives is buffered and interpreted according to each
individual’s understanding of the role of the library and the function of a representative.
The amount of buffering depends on how closely the agent works with the subunit and
whether the same importance is attached to a piece of information by librarians and
representatives.
There are several examples of loose coupling between components of the
institution and the environment. Orton and Weick (1990) refer to conventionalizing
calls to the police station by coding as one example. In this case study, what would
approximate such a situation is the use of Library of Congress (LC) call number ranges
as a method of communication with book vendors. Knowledge is frozen into
unidimensional LC classes in an attempt by the library and book vendors to maintain
integrity and control over newly created knowledge. Consequently, a book or journal
is placed within boundaries for a single discipline according to historical divisions.
Since knowledge is dynamic and can cross discipline boundaries when viewed from
different perspectives, it cannot be easily fitted into a unidimensional framework. This
accounts for the feeling of trying to fit square pegs into round holes expressed by one
faculty member. Also relevant are the interdisciplinary needs expressed by other
representatives that seem to fall through the cracks of the present collection
development structures that rely on disciplinary divisions because those needs are on
the “fringes” of established disciplines. Other instances of interaction with the
 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 147

environment include accommodation of accreditation requirements and use of available

monies allocated by the university administration out of the total amount budgeted by
the state legislature.
When one considers the purpose of collection development, one comes to a loose
coupling of ideas within the framework of the mission of this institution. While there
is a generally voiced agreement that the library should offer curricular support, the
specifics of that support are ambiguous. One finds a difference in time frame between
satisfying immediate needs expressed by faculty as opposed to anticipated needs
expressed by librarians. This difference is also in the level of support, from needing up
to a handful of journals for ~der~~u~e education in one discipline to a full range of
professional journals in the applied fields. Also entering into this is the level of
research support that should be offered. While many faculty members realize that this
is not a research ~ti~tion, at least one represen~tive expects full research support
because she said research support differentiates a university from a vocational
institution.
The articulation of problems or needs and available choices or relevant library
materials addresses another aspect of loose coupling. While faculty department
representatives want to collect materials to satisfy immediate needs, they are limiting
solutions that are being put into the garbage can. Consequently, the content of the can
may be insufficient to meet emerging needs. By anticipating needs, librarians want to
put more choices into the garbage can, resulting in a large body of potential solutions
that may never answer an appropriate problem. With abundant resources, as observed
by some representatives, putting more solutions into the can may be appropriate. With
stringent budget, those solutions seem wasted because they do not meet immediate
needs.
The most salient comment regarding the coupling between intentions and actions
came from a librarian.He said that in talking to faculty members, once they realize that
librarianshave some~g to offer and know the literature in the content area, they will
let the librariansin on their real needs. While ~tentions are to support curricular needs,
the actions do not always correspond. According to the faculty, the approval plan may
be construed as mismanagement of limited funds because it does not address
immediate needs; but for many librarians, it represents a method of acquiring relevant
materials in a timely manner. However, many librarians say that faculty orders are for
specialists and do not benefit students. On the other hand, librarians claim to approach
information more rationally and more comprehensively than in actual practice, and
expect that approach to be the norm.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In a successful collaborationamong people from different subunits in a loosely coupled

system, there must be a common understanding of the purpose of collaboration. As
shown in this study, such collaboration is problematic. Central to the conflict is the
substance of ~llaboration. In addition to the level and firequency of co~~cation,
the substance of the evocation is in regard to content and procedures of collection
developm~t. Also to be noted is an ~ders~~g of the ~~~c~e of notation
and the appropriate use of the tools of access. The questions that arose from this study
are:
148 Chu

l To what extent do the actors understand their roles in the collaborative effort?

l What are the factors that influence this understanding?

l What is the relationship among personal, curricular, and institutional needs?

l In view of needs and the balance of a collection, how should immediate needs and
anticipated needs influence collection development?

l How should external factors such as accrediting agencies and funding agencies be
acco~o~ted within the collection development process?

* Are changes necessary in current tools and practices in collection development?

l With the inadequacies of the approval plan in times of financial exigency, what
can be used in its stead?

The first three questions concern areas of research toward a general understanding
of collaborationin a loosely coupled system. The other questions deal more specifically
with collection development. If goals of collection development are changing from
ownership to access, the tools used in the process must also be constantly scrutinized
regarding their appropriateness within the environmental context.

CONCLUSION

While the boundaries for lateral co~~cation between units can be specified,
interview data have shown that what causes loose coupling and what is problematic is
the content of the co~~ication in regard to both the role and action of collection
developm~t. While there is general a~eement to the purpose of c~cul~ support, the
~ders~d~g of the appropriate level of support is ~biguous. This understanding is
influenced by factors such as changing discipline needs, available budget, assessment
of quality of the collection, and external demands on the library and the institution.
Looseness is introduced by the varying perceptions of the importance of these factors.
The looseness can further be categorized as:

l Between librarians and faculty;

l Between the library and academic departments;

l Between the library and the environment represented by funding sources, suppliers
of information, and accreditation agencies;

l Among ideas concerning the purpose of collection development;

l Among activities on how best to make choices to meet needs;

l Between intentions and actions on whether appropriate choices are made.

 Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System 149

While tighter coupling to reduce ambiguity may not be feasible due to varied and
competing priorities for limited resources, the effects of loose coupling may be
~~tior~ by ~ti~on~ discussion of values to be shared conce~g the role of the
library and the purpose of collection development.

REFERENCES

Cameron, Kim S., Freeman, Sarah J., & Mishra, Aneil K. (1993). Downsizing and
redesigning organizations. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational
change and redesign: Ideas and i~sjghtsfor improvingpe~~ance (pp. f 9-65).
New York: Oxford U~versi~ Press.
Cohen, Michael D., & March, James G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The
American collegepresident. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, Norman K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to
sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eisenberg, Eric M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.
Communization monographs, .51,227-242.
Limerick, David, & Clinton, Bert. (1993). managing the new organization. S~II
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, Robert K., Fiske, Marjorie, & Kendall, Patricia L. (1990). The focused
interview:A manual ofproblems andprocedures (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Orton, J. Douglas, & Weick, Karl E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A
reconceptualization. Academy @Management Review, 15,203-223.
Strauss, Anselm, & Corbin, Juliet. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theo~procedur~ and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tobias, Sheila. (1990). They’re not dumb, th~‘re deferent: Staling the second tier.
Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
Weick, Karl E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, l-l 9.
Weick, Karl E. (1982a).Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta
Kappan, 63,673~676.
Weick, Karl E. (1982b). Management of organizational change among loosely coupled
elements. In Paul S. Goody & Associates (Eds,), Change in organ~ations: New
perspectives on theory, research and practice (pp. 375-408). Safl Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

APPENDIX

Interview Questions

1. Given that this is prosily an ~dergraduate i~ti~tion with some masters level
programs, what kind of materials should be in the library?

2. Are there other kinds of materials that should be in the library, for example, to
support faculty research?
150 Chu

3. When you have a question or need information from the library (or department),
do you ask a colleague, call a librarian (faculty member), or go through the
appropriate channels?

4. The system of departmental library representatives provides a formal channel for

communication between librarians and faculty. How is it working for your
department?

5. What role do you think you should have in deciding what to purchase, or for
journals, what new subscriptions to establish and what existing subscriptions to
cut?

6. When there is a limited budget for acquiring library materials, how do you think
this situation should be handled? Who should seek additional funding and who
should establish priorities?