A new approach to collection bias in academic libraries: The extent of corporate control in journal holdings

The concept of neutrality: a new approach

“…This is reflected by stock selection relying on journals that “favourably review the output of big publishers” (Cullars, 1984 cited in McDonald, 2008, p. 13), ensuring alternative publications are “marginalized owing to their inability to compete” (Atton, 1994, p. 59). Dilevko and Grewal (1997, p. 372) tested political bias across Canadian research libraries, noting that the more marginalised a viewpoint, “the less it will be subscribed to”. Marinko and Gerhard (1998, p. 367) investigated holdings of titles listed in the Alternative Press Index in academic libraries finding that “only twelve libraries had holdings rates above 50 percent”, and Coley (2002) also found a similar “self-censorship” in school libraries.…”

The patron as producer: libraries, web 2.0, and participatory culture

“…Implicit in this commitment is the recognition that "libraries should collect materials not just representative of dominant societal viewpoints, but also the views of historically underrepresented groups within society" (LaFond et al, 2000, p. 137). However, a number of studies (Dilevko and Grewal, 1997;Marinko and Gerhard, 1998;LaFond et al, 2000) have suggested that library collections do not always adequately represent alternative, or non-mainstream, points of view. This is partly due to the implicit or explicit biases of individual library selectors and partly to acquisition practices that tend to favor larger, corporate publishers and distributors over smaller, alternative presses.…”

Stop Speaking For Us: Women-of-Color Bloggers, White Appropriation, and What Librarians Can Do About It

“…For decades librarians have acknowledged the importance of collecting and preserving alternative materials, 2 although actual collections persist in collecting unacceptably low numbers of alternatives (Dilevko & Grewal, 1997;Marinko & Gerhard, 1998;LaFond, Van Ullen, & Irvine 2000). In 1982, Patricia Glass Schuman observed that, because "much of [alternative publishers'] publishing output arises from the need for activists to communicate with each other -rapidly," mainstream publishers tend to lag behind their alternative counterparts in producing material on pertinent social issues.…”