DEFINICIONES CONCEPTUALES

Of the 30 library gift policy statements sampled for this research, 22 indicated that physical materials were largely accepted by their libraries, while 5 others indicated that physical materials might be accepted under certain conditions. This code largely focuses on the 22 libraries whose statements allow for physical gifts. The code consists of 8 terms: Conditions/Procedures; Evaluation; Legal Ownership Information; Rejected Gifts; Nontraditional Materials; Appropriate Materials; Inappropriate Materials; and Alternative Institutions. See Table 3.

Table 3. Physical Gifts Code

Code Term Code Definition Number of Hits Percentage

Conditions/Procedures

The policy outlines conditions or procedures for physical gift acceptance (including things the patron has to accomplish before acceptance, such as including a list

of titles; delivery instructions; etc.) 16/22 72.72% Evaluation

The policy outlines the process by which physical gifts

are evaluated for acceptance 8/22 36.36% Legal Ownership Info The policy includes information about the transfer of legal ownership once physical gifts are accepted 11/22 50% Rejected Gifts The policy includes information about the disposal of rejected, unwanted, and/or unsolicited gifts 10/22 45.45% Nontraditional

Materials

The policy includes information about physical gifts of nontraditional materials (i.e., not books, maps, papers,

etc.) 6/22 27.27%

Appropriate Materials

The policy includes description and/or specific examples

of appropriate physical materials *** *** Inappropriate

Materials

The policy includes description and/or specific examples of inappropriate physical materials, and/or provides

reason for potential rejection of a gift 8/22 36.36% Alternative Institutions The policy provides the names of institutions that might accept rejected gifts *** ***

The “Conditions/Procedures” code term was used for policy statements outlining any sort of condition or procedure needing to be undertaken by a donor before a physical gift could be accepted. Examples of the “Conditions/Procedures” code term include the

University of California-Santa Barbara’s (2016) directive that potential donors first contact subject librarians or the Head of Collection Development before gifting materials; and the University of Hawaii at Manoa’s (n.d.) condition that potential donors may be asked to “provide a list of publications that includes author, title, edition, and publication date.” Of the 22 university libraries whose policies allow physical gifts, 16 were coded for the “Conditions/Procedures” term (72.73%). This represents 53.33% of the total number of gift policy statements sampled.

The “Evaluation” code term was applied to policy statements outlining the processes by which physical materials would be evaluated for inclusion in the library’s collection. Examples of “Evaluation” statements include the University of Cincinnati- Main Campus (n.d.), which states that donations of physical materials will be accepted only under the condition that they are evaluated by “Subject Liaisons or [the] Gifts Librarian”; and Tufts University’s Tisch Library (n.d.), which, as “the main library for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering programs… we look for books that meet the research and teaching needs of students and faculty.” Of the 22 policies allowing for physical gifts, 8 used the “Evaluation” code (36.36%). This represents 26.67% of the total number of gift policies sampled.

The “Legal Ownership Information” code term was applied to statements

including information about the transfer of legal ownership of gifted materials. Examples of policy statements to which the “Legal Ownership Information” code was applied include Mississippi State University’s (n.d.) assertion that, “Once accepted by MSU Libraries, materials become the property of Mississippi State University”; and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst’s (2018) statement, “Gifts that are accepted

become the property of UMass Amherst Libraries, which reserve the right to

determine retention, location, cataloging treatment, and use of donated materials.” Of the 22 policies allowing for gifts of physical materials, 11 included statements regarding ownership rights (50%). This comprises 36.67% of the total gift policy statements sampled.

The “Rejected Gifts” code term pertains to policy statements pertaining to the disposal of rejected or unwanted gifts. Examples of policy statements coded for the “Rejected Gifts” term include the University of Notre Dame’s (2015) statement,

“Hesburgh Libraries retains the right to dispose of unwanted or unsolicited gift materials in the manner of its choosing”; and the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s (n.d.)

statement, “The GLS reserves the right to exchange, sell, or discard any materials not added to the Libraries’ collection.” Of the 22 gift policy statements with information regarding gifts of physical materials, 10 included information about disposal of unwanted gifts (45.45%). Of the 30 gift policies sampled, 33.33% were coded for this term.

The “Nontraditional Materials” code term was used for gift policy statements concerning gifts of physical materials not “traditionally” collected by university libraries. (Examples of “traditional” materials include books, maps, sound recordings, etc.”

Examples of “Nontraditional Materials” statements include the University of Louisville’s solicitation for “paintings” and “sculptures” (n.d.); and the University of Massachusetts- Amherst request for “other unique materials” besides “rare books, photographs,

manuscripts, [and] organizational records” (2018). 6 of the 22 library gift policy

statements that allow for gifts of physical materials were coded with this term (27.27%). 20% of all gift policies sampled were coded with this term.

The “Appropriate Materials” term was used for gift policies that listed or described physical materials that are appropriate for giving. This term was used to code statements such as Georgetown University’s (n.d.) list of materials accepted for its library art collection; and Boston College’s (2019) list of “[s]cholarly monographs, hardbound or good quality paperback[s], [m]usic CD’s and scores, DVD’s.” Of the 22 libraries accepting of physical gifts, 9 included descriptions of appropriate material (40.9%). This represents 30% of the gift policy statements sampled. However, it should be noted here one of the 9 universities coded for this term (the University of

Massachusetts-Amherst) only went into such detail for its art library. Appropriate materials for other campus libraries were not listed.

Similarly, the “Inappropriate Materials” term was used for gift policies that listed or described physical materials that were inappropriate for giving to the library. These included Drexel University’s (n.d.) instructions for student organizations not to send “[d]uplicate and blank forms; [d]etailed financial records, canceled checks, bank statements and receipts; [p]laques and trophies”; and Oklahoma State University-Main Campus’s (n.d.) list of “[i]tems not needed by the OSU Library.” Of the 22 gift policy statements allowing for physical gifts, 8 were coded for “Inappropriate Materials” (36.36%). This figure represents 26.67% of the total number of gift policies sampled.

Finally, the “Alternative Institutions” code term was used for policy statements listing other institutions or organizations that might be accepting of rejected physical materials. An example of a statement tagged with this code includes the University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus’s assertion that potential donors consider “other options for sharing your materials, including public libraries, used bookstores, or charitable

organizations such as better world books” (n.d.) Of the 22 gift policy

statements that allowed for physical gift donations, 6 provided suggestions for alternative institutions for whom potential donors could give rejected materials (27.27%), a figure representing 20% of the total number of gift policy statements sampled. However, this number is raised when considering the 5 policies that only accept gifts under certain conditions. When these policies are added to the mix, 8 of the 27 policies suggest

alternative institutions (29.62%), a figure representing 26.67% of the total number of gift policy statements sampled. Of the 3 statements that do not address physical materials at all, no library suggests an alternative institution for giving. These 3 statements make up 10% of the total sample.