- Email: [email protected]
Library abuse in academic institutions: A comparative study
t&m. B Libr. Rev. (1992) 24,
291-305
f>’ jf, @ .:.
ry Abuse in Academic Lions: A Comparative MARCEL
Study
C. OBIAGWU*
ABSTRACT The abuse of library materials defined in terms of theft, mutilation, unauthorized borrowing and vandalism was investigated in University of Port Harcourt (Uniport) in Nigeria and King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Saudi Arabia. The study sought to find out the ways the collections of the two institutions were abused by various classes of readers and for various reasons. By interviewing librarians, and analysis of collection use records, it was revealed that students, as well as faculty, staff and external readers indulged in abuse of library materials, motivated by situational, conceptual, attitudinal and other factors. It was observed, however, that Uniport had more problems with the misuse of library materials than KFUPM. Recommendations relating to library building design, tightening of security, generous and flexible loans policies, etc., were made for improved collection protection. Besides, public relations campaign and multilateral co-operation on book theft detection would help to discourage in particular the uninitiated or new converts from any acts of library abuse.
INTRODUCTION Four major types of library abuse which have often been discussed in the literature are: theft, mutilation, unauthorized borrowing and vandalism of materials. Theft ranges from petty stealing or pilfering to large-scale stealing and burglary. Borrowing through fraudulent means such as using stolen admission/identity cards is also a form of theft. Mutilation is the excision of articles and illustrations from journals, books, encyclopedias, etc. Unauthorized borrowing is synonymous with illegal or convenience borrowing. Removal of material from the shelf for home use without checking it out, with the intention of returning it *Reference 31261, Saudi
Librarian, Arabia.
1057-2317/92/040291
King
Fahd
+ 15 $06.00/O
University
of Petroleum
& Minerals
0
Library,
1992 Academic
Dhahran
Press Limited
292
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
after use is an unauthorized borrowing. The same goes for the practice of taking unprocessed materials home from the technical services departments. In addition, concealment of a circulating book within the library for exclusive use and retaining overdue or recalled materials are all forms of unauthorized borrowing. Vandalism has to do with the destruction of a library material by tearing, burning, wetting, etc. To introduce knowingly a virus into a computer programme, or squeeze a database disk, is to vandalize too. In academic libraries students are the suspects. But at the same time accusing fingers point at scholars, staff and paradoxically library personnel.
LITERATURE
SURVEY
The fact that students more than any other class of user have been caught stealing or mutilating materials makes them the focus of investigation by most researchers on library abuse. In a questionnaire survey of 168 undergraduate students at Kent State University library in 1973, Hendrick and Murfin ( 1974)’ found that 8.3 percent of the respondents admitted to mutilating journals. Weiss ( 1981)2 investigated student attitudes towards mutilation and stealing in a sample of 201 undergraduates and concluded that psychological and sociological factors were responsible for the most part of the library norm violation. Pedersen ( 1990)3 on his part used a questionnaire to survey 235 students at Emporia State University. His report was that antisocial factors, such as pressure for good grades, were responsible for students’ thefts and mutilations. But a large number of books and journals missing from academic libraries were believed to have been stolen by faculty and staff. Trinkaus-Randal ( 1989)4 a g ree d with 25 percent, while librarian Towner ( 1983)5 had earlier asked: “how could a lover of scholarship be a book thief”. Following the discovery6 of a loss of over a thousand rare maps, manuscripts and folio plates, stolen over several years from University of Georgia, USA, a house search of a former employee of the Special Collections department “turned up several dozen of the missing items”. One remarkable incident of the faculty involvement in library abuse was, according to Otness ( 1988),7 that a Tulane University professor, a highly respected scholar, “specialized in rare maps theft”. Career or professional thieves are rarely caught for they have perfected their act of stealing for money. However, the Wilson Librar_y Bulletin ( 1985) carried a report of one Joseph Putna who stole over 400 rare books and manuscripts from a library, which he later sold to a rare-book dealer. A court action was reported in Library Journal (199 1)’
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS
293
of one Stephen Blumberg who, in January 1991, was found guilty of being in possession of 21000 rare books, worth approximately $20 million, stolen from libraries and museums throughout the United States and Canada. Another incident of career theft was that of Lawrence Pawlaczyk, who had worked his way up and down the west coast of the United States for 10 years “stealing from libraries because he has found it the easiest way to support his life-style”. Unknown thefts are usually uncovered during inventories. Revil (1975)‘O reported a record of an annual loss rate of 5% of Liverpool Polytechnic Humanities library materials, following a sample stock count of its collection. Again, the University of Nebraska witnessed in 1981 a rise in mutilation and theft of library materials, with a replacement record of 1000 pages of magazines and 672 complete issues. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) library reported in its newsletter (1990)” that the partial inventories it conducted of its collection indicated “an overall accumulated loss of about 7 percent”, adding that “numerous cases of mutilation, ripof& tearing out, etc., have been detected, indicating loss of material, which may not be possible to replace”. The ripoff rate in some academic institutions is so high that it hurts research. Collver (1990)” reported that 9 percent of the current journal titles of the library at the State University of New York at Stony Brook appeared in the Library’s ripoff file.
PURPOSE
OF THE
STUDY
Most previous investigators sampled students for analysis, without taking care of shortfalls. In criminal issues such as theft, students might be unwilling to risk objective responses for fear of probable repercussions. Besides, some student samples might be so unrepresentative of the entire population that conclusions drawn from a given study might not be free of bias. Some surveys, moreover, cover current student enrolments, the more hardened deviants having graduated or dropped out ofschool. And barring the prick of conscience, only mindless thieves admit their thievery in interviews and questionnaire, the majority does not most of the time. The current study intends to contribute to the awareness of library abuse in so far as it concerns two institutions: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and University of Port Harcourt (Uniport) in Nigeria. Both institutions separated by continental frontiers and distanced from each other by about 3200 kilometers, are located in oil-rich cities and cmphasize courses in science and engineering, including petroleum. Uniport, in addition, offers courses in the health sciences, humanities and social
294
M. C. OBIAGWU
sciences. Its library operations and services KFUPM’s are extensively computerized. An attempt will thus be made to validate hypothesis: that the collections of Uniport and abused in various aspects for various reasons devising various methods.
are still manual
while
the following research KFUPM libraries were by all classes of users
METHODOLOGY
Two instruments were used for the survey, namely, inter-personal interview and record analysis. An interview of 10 librarians was carried out in Uniport library in mid-June 1992 with regard to the abuse of its collections. In addition, records of proven abuse were also examined in order to verify the data gathered from interviews. The records covered a period of four academic sessions: 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/g 1 and 199 l/92 with each session spanning arbitrarily from June to May. Later in the month, the same methods were employed at the KFUPM library: 10 librarians were interviewed and records covering the same foursession period examined. It is pertinent to note that the interview instrument used is both face-to-face and schedule-structured. Every effort was made to ensure that the questions, their wording and their sequence were not only structured, but also identical for every librarian respondent. The selected librarians were in a position to monitor library abuse, past and present, in their respective libraries. This librariancentered interview approach is similar to that of Souter ( 1976)13 who sought, through the interview oflibrary staff, to understand delinquent behaviour in university libraries.
RESULTS
AND
ANALYSIS
Degree of Involvement
The data that emerged from the interview responses of the librarians and from collection use records were analysed, using percentage and proportion techniques. The results as they relate to the four major types of abuse, already defined, are presented in Tables and discussed. Most of the interviewees, from both institutions, blamed about 75 percent of abuse in their libraries on students. Uniport respondents disapproved of their library’s policy of denying borrowing right to summer students on certificate, diploma, first-degree and second-degree programmes, which they held responsible for most acts of theft, mutilation, book-hiding and even vandalism. This policy differed sharply from that of KFUPM where loan authorization was more liberal. On
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
295
INSTITUTIONS
I
rL’A~~~
Frequency of library materials abuse, by status of offender in Uniport library
Status
of offender
Preparatory Undergraduates Postgraduates Summer students Part-time Faculty Library staff University staff External users
Theft n = 250
Mutilation n= 180
Unauthorized borrowing n = 6500
(%I
(%)
(%I
4.40 36.00 3.20 41.20 8.00
0.80 2.80 2.00 1.60 100~00
7.78 27.78 2.78 40.00 16.67 0.00 2.22 1.67 1.11 100.01
3.85 16.85 4.92 3.05 3.46 50.15 9.85 5.91 1.97 100.01
Vandalism n=4 (%I 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 100~00
the question of confidence or trust, most Uniport respondents regarded every library user, other than the faculty, as a potential violator of library norms, hence the constant checking of admission cards at the entrance and similar scrutiny of briefcases and bags at the control exit. KFUPM interviewees viewed their users, including students, with less suspicion. However, most respondents from both institutions agreed with the suggestion of some kind of indulgence in library abuse by all classes of user: faculty, library staff, other university employees, external users and students of all grades. Book theft record was available in Uniport for analysis, but not in KFUPM. Instead, lost loans records as well as unauthorized borrowing records relating to overdue materials were analysed in the KFUPM library, although without any mention of the classes of violators. Relative Involvement: Uniport. The level of book theft and mutilation by the Uniport summer students is the highest, 41=2O/, of 250 observations and 40% of 180 observations, respectively, as shown in Table I, which explained the reaction of this class to their non-borrowing right. Regular undergraduates came second in the first three types of abuse and first in vandalism. The undergraduate act of vandalism was a protest action against such social problems as power cut, water shortage in the student hostels and the federal government policy of fee increases. Library staff had a share of 2.8% of the 250 cases of theft and 2.22% in mutilation. Their 25% involvement in vandalism was, however,
296
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
II
TABLE
KFUPM
Lost-loans and overdues
Period covered Uune-May)
No. of Loans reported lost
No.
of overdue notices
1988189 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92
62 80 40 96
37541 34517 33869 54762
278
160689
___Total
traced to a few junior staff who over-reacted to a disciplinary measure taken against them. But senior library staff used to remove books for home use, hence the 9.85% involvement rate. External users no doubt had a share in all aspects of library abuse. The faculty had a low, but disturbing, 0.8% share in theft cases and a high 50.15% share in unauthorized borrowing relating to overdue loans. KFUPM Lost and Ouerdue Loans. Table II shows the number of books duly checked out to users who later reported them lost. They paid a replacement charge no doubt. Many librarian respondents viewed this lose-and-pay practice as a smart theft. The table also reveals that the number of overdue and recall notices sent to borrowers in the 4year period under survey was 160 689. Some users, it was gathered, preferred paying lines to returning loans that had no chance of renewal or that were on hold for another user, when they themselves had not finished using them. Factors Favoring Library Abuse Questions on reasons believed to have motivated library abuse were put before Uniport and KFUPM respondents for their opinions. Their observations, drawn from past experience with deviant users and from the oral and written statements made by these deviants at the time they were apprehended for a given library abuse, were grouped into 10 major, but not mutually exclusive factors, as shown in Table III. The tabular figures represent each the number of positive responses to a given reason (on the row) against a given type of materials abuse (on the column). The zero figure indicates disagreement with the suggestion, while the X mark shows non-applicability. To make for easy analysis, a line is drawn between the serious and minor factors that could have motivated library materials abuse in the two institutions. Five to ten responses (representing 5-10 interviewees) to a suggested
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
297
INSTITUTIONS
?‘ABLE III ‘p: ” %lotimtions for Library abuse, from hbrary stuj members’ assessment
Uniport ~~ -~__ Factors
KFUPM -
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
9 8
6 7
9 6
0 0
9 6
9 5
7 3
0 0
3
7
5
0
2
8
2
0
5
7
6
0
0
I
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
7 7
8 8
4 9
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
9
9
8
0
3
4
0
0
8
5
4
0
5
5
2
0
7 9
6 7
5 7
0 0
3 2
5 1
4 2
0 0
6
2
0
0
5
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
9 7 8 5
8 2 6 4
8 1 6 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4
2
1
I
0
0
0
0
0 7
0 8
0 4
1 1
0 3
0 4
0 I
2 1
7
5
2
1
6
2
2
0
~__~~ I Situational a. Pressed for high grades b. Pressed for time Voluminous books cannot C. open flat on copiers d. Long waiting for photocopying e. Charts, maps, plates difficult to copy f. No coins or change for photocopying Frequent breakdown of g. copiers h. No borrowing privilege i. Restricted/closed access to some collections Further borrowing disallowed i limit exhausted/loan overdue k. Lost library ticke;/ID: not allowed to use the library again 1. Long walk to the library I1
Resources and Facilities a. Bookstores around do not stock the required texts found in the library b. Library would not help order personal books c. Insufficient reading tables/carrels d. Toilet frequently out ofuse c. Library too hot for reading 1: Library poorly lit
111 Attitude toward the libray, etc. Library’s poor service a. Nonavailability of relevant b. materials C. Overbearing library sanctions d. Diff‘erential loans policy unfavourable to undergraduates
298
M.
C.
TABLE
OBIAGWU
III-Continued. Uniport
Factors
E’ g. h. 1. .i k. IV
V
VI
No borrowing privileges Frequent checking of admission/ID cards Shelves in disorder Library hours short Library staff cold and impersonal Unacceptable conditions in the university Government vexing policy
Perception of library abuse a. Does not see library abuse as an offence b. Abused items can be replaced easily C. ‘1‘0 steal, mutilate or hide is easy To have a souvenir to keep d. e. Light penalty for offenders encourages others f. Other or future users will care for themselves g. Hecause I am privileged part of the system Infrastructural problems a. Library too small to accommodate users No hostel reading rooms b. provided Lack of drinking water in C. the library d. No telephone facilities in the library J’ecurity gaps a. Shortage of exit control guar-ds Unsupervised staff exits b. c. No surveillance within stacks d. Broken and open windows facilitate book/journal tosses C. Night patrol round the library is haphazard/non-existent f. Rush hours make exit control ineffective
KFUPM
I.h
Mu
Ub
Vd
7’h
Mu
Ub
Vd
4
2
3
0
1
1
0
0
6 0 5
5 0 6
1 9 2
0 0 0
; 1
0x 2
0x I
x0 0
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7
6
8
0
6
7
6
0
4
3
0
0
7
8
0
0
8 4
6 3
6 x
x x
5 1
7 1
6 x
x x
6
7
8
1
7
4
6
0
4
2
3
1
5
4
4
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
2
0
9
9
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
5
1
x
x
x
x
5
3
2
0
x
x
x
x
3 3 0
0 0 6
0 4 5
0 0 0
5 x 0
0 x 7
0 x 2
0 x 0
9
9
9
9
x
x
x
x
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
TABLE
ACADEMIC
299
INSTITUTIONS
III-Continued. Uniport
Factors ___-
-__ VII
Psychological a. To protect moral/religious belief b. Can’t stand the noise in the library c. Impatient with darkness during power cut
IX
Personality a. Acquisitive instinct b. Behaves alike in similar situations c. Cheats in examinations too d. Monopolizes library seats equally e. In love with colour photographs and plates
X
l’h
Complacency of guards/library personnel a. Trust on faculty and senior staff b. Unwillingness to offend users C. Risk of alienating colleagues
= theft,
Mu = mutilation,
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
4 6 7
0 5 6
0 7 7
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
9
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
1
0
0
3 4
3 2
2 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
2
0
8
0
3
0
3 4
0 0
0 7
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 2
0 0
___--
Financialfactor a. Steals to support life b. No money to copy or buy c. Cost of copying high
VIII
KFUPM
Ub
= unauthorized
borrowing,
Vd = vandalism
reason were considered serious and consequently worrisome, while zero to 4 observations were taken as minor. Thus, with respect to situational factors, the pressure on students to score high marks accounted for a worrisome level of materials abuse in theft, mutilation and book-hiding both in Uniport and KFUPM. However, frequent breakdown of copy machines was not an issue in KFUPM, but a serious contributor to theft and mutilation in Uniport. Again, the denial of borrowing privileges to summer students and junior staff in Uniport made the victims face the situation with theft, mutilation and hiding of books. KFUPM had no such problem.
300
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
Factors relating to resources and facilities were also not an issue in KFUPM for all types ofmaterials abuse, except for the non-availability of personal needs in local bookstores. Uniport had problems in all the variables, some of which were responsible for theft, mutilation or unauthorized borrowing. On attitude towards the library, the only significant observation recorded in KFUPM was for differential loans policy which, as in Uniport, could have caused some thefts. Uniport’s overbearing library sanctions, frequent checking of library admission tickets and short library hours were fertile grounds for theft and mutilation. Likewise, shelf disorder contributed largely to unauthorized borrowing-related abuse, particularly book hiding. Perception factors were serious and worrisome in both Uniport and KFUPM. Deviants in both libraries, according to respondents, felt that abuse relating to theft, mutilation and book-hiding was not an offence. KFUPM deviants further conceived stolen and mutilated materials as easy to replace. Uniport offenders knew that replacement was very difficult. In both institutions, stealing, mutilation and hiding were considered easy by deviants; and light penalty for the offences encouraged others to indulge in these acts. Significant infrastructural problems did not exist in KFUPM and thus could not cause any library abuse. But the problem of reading space was regarded by 90% of Uniport respondents as a factor in thefts and mutilations. On security gaps, shortage of exit guards was considered a theft facilitator in KFUPM; Uniport had no such shortage, but its unprotected windows and haphazard night patrol were an attraction to would-be-thieves. Lack of money to buy books or copy them and an apparent high cost of copying were financial factors favourable to stealing, mutilating and hiding books in Uniport, not in KFUPM. Psychological factors bordering on the protection of one’s moral or religious belief could have caused some vandalism in KFUPM, not in Uniport. Poor illumination and power cuts encouraged book theft in Uniport: KFUPM had no such problem. Personality factors were not an issue in either institution, but complacency of guards did create problems. Too much trust on faculty and staff was considered detrimental to the security of materials against theft in the two institutions as shown in the Table. In addition, guards would not take the risk of alienating their colleagues and librarians, hence a high degree of illegal removal of books for home use in Uniport. Thej&E$cting Devices Thieves of library materials block detection through various devices. In a multiple choice section of whether a given method was considered a
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
TABLE
301
INSTITUTIONS
IV
Frequency of theft-e$ecting methods Uniport Methods 1. Beat the scrutiny of exit guards 2. Sneak out under cover of darkness during power cuts 3. Toss through the windows 4. Use exits other than the main one 5. Borrow and subsequently report loss 6. Conceal on his/her person on bag 7. Buy from library staff 8. Use fraudulent means like fake ID 9. Borrow with stolen admission ID/card 10. Check out materials with forged stamps 11. Paste false book pockets/slips on books intended to be stolen 12. Collude with circulation staff 13. Use escape angle of electronic sensor 14. Use force: burglary, armed robbery A = Agree,
U = Undecided,
D = Disagree,
KFUPM
A
U
D
2
6
2
8 9 6 5 7 2 8 6 5
2 0 3 3 1 3 1 2 1
5 7 ii
A ~____
U
D
9
1
0
0 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 4
0 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 4 2 0 5 2 1
10 10 10 1 2 10 2 8 9
3 2
2 1
0 0
2 3
8 7
;
1;
x0
X0
1;
x = not applicable.
possibility in Uniport and KFUPM libraries, the respondents were requested to answer agree (A), undecided (U) and disagree (D), as summarized in Table IV. The data here represent the proportion of librarians, with a maximum of 10, responding to a given variable. As before, 5-10 is considered a valid and worrisome device, while O-4 is regarded as a non-crisis method. Consequently, in Uniport 10 critical methods, of 14 possibilities, were used by deviant users to steal and gain possession of library materials. These included: sneaking out under cover of darkness (8), tossing out of the window (9), using exit doors other than the main one (9), borrowing materials and subsequently reporting them lost (5), concealing about the person or in a bag (7), using fraudulent means (8), borrowing with stolen admission card/ID (6), checking out materials with forged stamps (5), pasting false book pockets/slips (5)) and colluding with circulation staff (7). Three serious devices observed in KFUPM were: beating the scrutiny of exit guards (9), borrowing and reporting lost (6), and concealing about the person or in bags (6). Security Consciousness Questions on the measures the library had taken for the security of the collection were put to an experienced librarian in the public services
M.
302
C.
OBlAGWU
TABLE
V
Resflonsesto the questions of theft prevention measures
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Question _ __--~___.--PLibrary building designed with sw~~ritv in rn;nA Vvindows can be reached and opened by any user ‘I’oilct windows are book-toss proof All library users and staff pass through a single controlled exit before reaching the exterior door Your library has a guard system of theft prevention Your library has one or more guarded turnstiles per building Your library has two or more exit control guards per shift Your library has planned to install electronic security system Closed circuit television is used for surveillance Patrol within stacks is provided Sign warning against materials abuse displayed within the library All materials marked for property identification Access to serials and rare books is restricted A special collection has a closed access Rush materials are put on reserve ID or library ticket system controls admission Amnesty on lines is declared at least once a year Loans replacement charge equals fixed amount plus current book price Library collection protected by a special state law Co-operation with other libraries for the return of stolen items
LJniport
KFUPM X,
Y Y
N N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N N N
Y N N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y = Yes, N = No.
area of the two libraries for a Yes or No answer. The observations are presented in Table V. Numbers l-4 relate to building design. Uniport, unlike KFUPM, did not use any security-related library building standard when it designed its structure. Its windows in the reading rooms and toilets were as book-toss tempting as its multiple exits offered opportunities for sneaks. Numbers 5-8 probed exit control measures. Both libraries had a guard system of theft prevention. But while KFUPM invested in a mechanical turnstile and had completed arrangement to commission its newly acquired electronic security system, Uniport remained with
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
303
INSTITUTIONS
ards. Neither closed circuit television nor stack patrol were n the two libraries (Nos 9 and 10). Limited public relations such as sign warning, was used, in Uniport to deter thW.3. Both &r a
_ _
or\w;ql ;-
c.r\llr.c+:,,
.,r_n
1-n-e
. . ..A..
I--I.
.,-.A
I.,..
. . ..e\-.
,. ^^^^"
available only on request. No special state law protected the collections of the two libraries, although Uniport had some understanding with other libraries for the return of stolen materials.
CONCLUSION
Surveys and reports on library abuse taken together demonstrate that (a) the danger which libraries and academia face is enormous, locally and universally; (b) abuse, i.e. theft, mutiliation, etc., impedes the advancement and dissemination of knowledge; and (c) students are not the only library users involved in abuse, as previous research has inferred. In this study, the data support the research hypothesis of evidence of library materials abuse in Uniport and KFUPM, perpetuated by all classes of user for various reasons, using various devices. In Uniport, evidence of the involvement in library abuse by ail classes of user was proved by figures from office records, reinforced by librarians’ views. KFUPM’s was partly circumstantial. It is worth noting that external user involvement in library abuse was low in both libraries, and burglary was ruled out. Among the users, students abused the materials more than any other group with respect to theft, mutilation and hiding of materials; but the faculty indulged more in the retention of overdues. It was observed that several factors combined to create both opportunities and motivations for materials abuse in the two libraries. However, results of the study indicated that Uniport had more situational headaches than KFUPM. Summer students and junior staff, for example, were not allowed to borrow books in Uniport. Consequently they resorted to theft and mutilation, as well as to book hiding. Infrastructural factors also contributed to library abuse in Uniport. KFUPM was not faced with that problem, but it should worry about vandalistic censorship dictated by religious or moral belief.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The security of collections in Uniport and KFUPM if the following measures are adopted:
could be enhanced
304
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
(i) Standard Library Building. Uniport could hasten the completion of its new library building which was designed with security consciousness. KFUPM has to embark on an expansion programme, since its present library building, though properly designed, does not now meet the accommodation demands of its growing user population. (ii) Electronic Security System. Both libraries could improve their exit control mechanism with electronic security systems. In this regard, Uniport has to invest in one, while KFUPM would do well to commission its newly installed system. Electronic sensors are not, however, an insurance against theft, since some unscrupulous users would still want to beat the system or foil its effectiveness. But they help to remind users to ensure that the book they have on them is properly checked out. All in all, detection sensors are a good technology to deal with theft problem, but as Gandert (1982) warned: “the aim is not to catch the thiefi it is to deter thievery”.14 (iii) Patrol. A guard patrol of stacks and reading areas would help to monitor undesirable moves. (iv) Conducive Environment. The library should be conducive to reading and study so as to encourage conformity to the rules. Air conditioning, sufficient lighting, good drinking water, working toilet system, adequate reading space fitted with carrels and open seats, and a lot more cannot hurt. (v) Copy Machines. These have so become part of library system that one per 500 users is considered reasonable. Some of them should have reduction and magnifying mechanisms, as well as coin operated devices for self service. (vi) Rush Items. Books that are on high demand should be purchased in multiple copies, while frequently used journal articles duplicated and put on reserve. (vii) Inventory of Stock. This should be conducted about once a year, fully or partially, in order to know when to tighten security or be more alert. (viii) Rewards. Exposure of book theft and mutilation should be rewarded in cash or kind in order to encourage conformity and vigilance. (ix) Realistic Penalty. Th e penalty for abuse should not be so harsh as to harden first offenders and not so light as to win new converts. It should be realistic. ix) Amnesty on Fines. An amnesty week should be declared at least once a session in order to encourage return of overdues. (xi) Public Relations Campaign. Public relations should be promoted
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS
305
in order to appeal to the conscience of users regarding the harmful effects that library abuse has on current reading and research. ‘The use of signs, notices, circulars and newsletters helps. (xii) Co-operation on Theft Detection. An agreement should be reached with other libraries at national or regional level on the detection and return of stolen books found on users, but belonging to other libraries. REFERENCES
1 2
9 10 11 12 13 14
Hendrick, C. and Mm-fin, M. E. (1974) Project library ripoff: a study of periodical mutilation in a University Library. College & Research Libraries 35(6), pp. 402411. Weiss, D. (1981) Book theft and book mutilation in a large urban university library. College & Research Libraries 42(4), pp. 341-347. Pedersen, 1’. L. (1990) Theft and mutilation of library materials. College & Research Libraries 51(2), pp. 122-128. Trinkaus-Randal, G. (1989) Preserving special collection through internal security. College & Research Libraries 50(4), pp. 448-454. Towner, L. W. (1988) An end to innocence: [wide-spread book theft by staff and scholars]. American Libraries 19(3), pp. 2 10-2 13. Ex-staffer suspected of theft of major library treasures. American Libraries 16(3), 1985; p. 145. Otness, H. (1988) ‘Going plating’ stealing maps from libraries. In J. E. Hannigan (Ed.) Library Lit. 19: The Best of 1988, p. 118. Stolen books returned to Crerar Library. Wilson Library Bulletin 59 (June 1985), p. 650. Library thief found guilty. Library Journal, March 1991, p. 19. Revil, D. (1975) The theft problem in libraries. New Library World 76(900), pp. 123-124. Book theft and mutilation at KFUPM Library. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals Library Newsletter, Fall Semester 1990, p. 6. Collver, M. (1990) Subsequent demand for ripped-off journal articles. Reference Librarian 27128, pp. 347-366. Souter, G. H. (1976) Delinquent readers: a study of the problem in university libraries. Journal of Librarianship 8(2), pp. 96-l 10. Gandert, S. R. (1982) Protecting your collection: a handbook, survey, and guide. Library & Archival Security 4( l/2) Special Issue, p. 23.
291-305
f>’ jf, @ .:.
ry Abuse in Academic Lions: A Comparative MARCEL
Study
C. OBIAGWU*
ABSTRACT The abuse of library materials defined in terms of theft, mutilation, unauthorized borrowing and vandalism was investigated in University of Port Harcourt (Uniport) in Nigeria and King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Saudi Arabia. The study sought to find out the ways the collections of the two institutions were abused by various classes of readers and for various reasons. By interviewing librarians, and analysis of collection use records, it was revealed that students, as well as faculty, staff and external readers indulged in abuse of library materials, motivated by situational, conceptual, attitudinal and other factors. It was observed, however, that Uniport had more problems with the misuse of library materials than KFUPM. Recommendations relating to library building design, tightening of security, generous and flexible loans policies, etc., were made for improved collection protection. Besides, public relations campaign and multilateral co-operation on book theft detection would help to discourage in particular the uninitiated or new converts from any acts of library abuse.
INTRODUCTION Four major types of library abuse which have often been discussed in the literature are: theft, mutilation, unauthorized borrowing and vandalism of materials. Theft ranges from petty stealing or pilfering to large-scale stealing and burglary. Borrowing through fraudulent means such as using stolen admission/identity cards is also a form of theft. Mutilation is the excision of articles and illustrations from journals, books, encyclopedias, etc. Unauthorized borrowing is synonymous with illegal or convenience borrowing. Removal of material from the shelf for home use without checking it out, with the intention of returning it *Reference 31261, Saudi
Librarian, Arabia.
1057-2317/92/040291
King
Fahd
+ 15 $06.00/O
University
of Petroleum
& Minerals
0
Library,
1992 Academic
Dhahran
Press Limited
292
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
after use is an unauthorized borrowing. The same goes for the practice of taking unprocessed materials home from the technical services departments. In addition, concealment of a circulating book within the library for exclusive use and retaining overdue or recalled materials are all forms of unauthorized borrowing. Vandalism has to do with the destruction of a library material by tearing, burning, wetting, etc. To introduce knowingly a virus into a computer programme, or squeeze a database disk, is to vandalize too. In academic libraries students are the suspects. But at the same time accusing fingers point at scholars, staff and paradoxically library personnel.
LITERATURE
SURVEY
The fact that students more than any other class of user have been caught stealing or mutilating materials makes them the focus of investigation by most researchers on library abuse. In a questionnaire survey of 168 undergraduate students at Kent State University library in 1973, Hendrick and Murfin ( 1974)’ found that 8.3 percent of the respondents admitted to mutilating journals. Weiss ( 1981)2 investigated student attitudes towards mutilation and stealing in a sample of 201 undergraduates and concluded that psychological and sociological factors were responsible for the most part of the library norm violation. Pedersen ( 1990)3 on his part used a questionnaire to survey 235 students at Emporia State University. His report was that antisocial factors, such as pressure for good grades, were responsible for students’ thefts and mutilations. But a large number of books and journals missing from academic libraries were believed to have been stolen by faculty and staff. Trinkaus-Randal ( 1989)4 a g ree d with 25 percent, while librarian Towner ( 1983)5 had earlier asked: “how could a lover of scholarship be a book thief”. Following the discovery6 of a loss of over a thousand rare maps, manuscripts and folio plates, stolen over several years from University of Georgia, USA, a house search of a former employee of the Special Collections department “turned up several dozen of the missing items”. One remarkable incident of the faculty involvement in library abuse was, according to Otness ( 1988),7 that a Tulane University professor, a highly respected scholar, “specialized in rare maps theft”. Career or professional thieves are rarely caught for they have perfected their act of stealing for money. However, the Wilson Librar_y Bulletin ( 1985) carried a report of one Joseph Putna who stole over 400 rare books and manuscripts from a library, which he later sold to a rare-book dealer. A court action was reported in Library Journal (199 1)’
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS
293
of one Stephen Blumberg who, in January 1991, was found guilty of being in possession of 21000 rare books, worth approximately $20 million, stolen from libraries and museums throughout the United States and Canada. Another incident of career theft was that of Lawrence Pawlaczyk, who had worked his way up and down the west coast of the United States for 10 years “stealing from libraries because he has found it the easiest way to support his life-style”. Unknown thefts are usually uncovered during inventories. Revil (1975)‘O reported a record of an annual loss rate of 5% of Liverpool Polytechnic Humanities library materials, following a sample stock count of its collection. Again, the University of Nebraska witnessed in 1981 a rise in mutilation and theft of library materials, with a replacement record of 1000 pages of magazines and 672 complete issues. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) library reported in its newsletter (1990)” that the partial inventories it conducted of its collection indicated “an overall accumulated loss of about 7 percent”, adding that “numerous cases of mutilation, ripof& tearing out, etc., have been detected, indicating loss of material, which may not be possible to replace”. The ripoff rate in some academic institutions is so high that it hurts research. Collver (1990)” reported that 9 percent of the current journal titles of the library at the State University of New York at Stony Brook appeared in the Library’s ripoff file.
PURPOSE
OF THE
STUDY
Most previous investigators sampled students for analysis, without taking care of shortfalls. In criminal issues such as theft, students might be unwilling to risk objective responses for fear of probable repercussions. Besides, some student samples might be so unrepresentative of the entire population that conclusions drawn from a given study might not be free of bias. Some surveys, moreover, cover current student enrolments, the more hardened deviants having graduated or dropped out ofschool. And barring the prick of conscience, only mindless thieves admit their thievery in interviews and questionnaire, the majority does not most of the time. The current study intends to contribute to the awareness of library abuse in so far as it concerns two institutions: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia and University of Port Harcourt (Uniport) in Nigeria. Both institutions separated by continental frontiers and distanced from each other by about 3200 kilometers, are located in oil-rich cities and cmphasize courses in science and engineering, including petroleum. Uniport, in addition, offers courses in the health sciences, humanities and social
294
M. C. OBIAGWU
sciences. Its library operations and services KFUPM’s are extensively computerized. An attempt will thus be made to validate hypothesis: that the collections of Uniport and abused in various aspects for various reasons devising various methods.
are still manual
while
the following research KFUPM libraries were by all classes of users
METHODOLOGY
Two instruments were used for the survey, namely, inter-personal interview and record analysis. An interview of 10 librarians was carried out in Uniport library in mid-June 1992 with regard to the abuse of its collections. In addition, records of proven abuse were also examined in order to verify the data gathered from interviews. The records covered a period of four academic sessions: 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/g 1 and 199 l/92 with each session spanning arbitrarily from June to May. Later in the month, the same methods were employed at the KFUPM library: 10 librarians were interviewed and records covering the same foursession period examined. It is pertinent to note that the interview instrument used is both face-to-face and schedule-structured. Every effort was made to ensure that the questions, their wording and their sequence were not only structured, but also identical for every librarian respondent. The selected librarians were in a position to monitor library abuse, past and present, in their respective libraries. This librariancentered interview approach is similar to that of Souter ( 1976)13 who sought, through the interview oflibrary staff, to understand delinquent behaviour in university libraries.
RESULTS
AND
ANALYSIS
Degree of Involvement
The data that emerged from the interview responses of the librarians and from collection use records were analysed, using percentage and proportion techniques. The results as they relate to the four major types of abuse, already defined, are presented in Tables and discussed. Most of the interviewees, from both institutions, blamed about 75 percent of abuse in their libraries on students. Uniport respondents disapproved of their library’s policy of denying borrowing right to summer students on certificate, diploma, first-degree and second-degree programmes, which they held responsible for most acts of theft, mutilation, book-hiding and even vandalism. This policy differed sharply from that of KFUPM where loan authorization was more liberal. On
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
295
INSTITUTIONS
I
rL’A~~~
Frequency of library materials abuse, by status of offender in Uniport library
Status
of offender
Preparatory Undergraduates Postgraduates Summer students Part-time Faculty Library staff University staff External users
Theft n = 250
Mutilation n= 180
Unauthorized borrowing n = 6500
(%I
(%)
(%I
4.40 36.00 3.20 41.20 8.00
0.80 2.80 2.00 1.60 100~00
7.78 27.78 2.78 40.00 16.67 0.00 2.22 1.67 1.11 100.01
3.85 16.85 4.92 3.05 3.46 50.15 9.85 5.91 1.97 100.01
Vandalism n=4 (%I 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 100~00
the question of confidence or trust, most Uniport respondents regarded every library user, other than the faculty, as a potential violator of library norms, hence the constant checking of admission cards at the entrance and similar scrutiny of briefcases and bags at the control exit. KFUPM interviewees viewed their users, including students, with less suspicion. However, most respondents from both institutions agreed with the suggestion of some kind of indulgence in library abuse by all classes of user: faculty, library staff, other university employees, external users and students of all grades. Book theft record was available in Uniport for analysis, but not in KFUPM. Instead, lost loans records as well as unauthorized borrowing records relating to overdue materials were analysed in the KFUPM library, although without any mention of the classes of violators. Relative Involvement: Uniport. The level of book theft and mutilation by the Uniport summer students is the highest, 41=2O/, of 250 observations and 40% of 180 observations, respectively, as shown in Table I, which explained the reaction of this class to their non-borrowing right. Regular undergraduates came second in the first three types of abuse and first in vandalism. The undergraduate act of vandalism was a protest action against such social problems as power cut, water shortage in the student hostels and the federal government policy of fee increases. Library staff had a share of 2.8% of the 250 cases of theft and 2.22% in mutilation. Their 25% involvement in vandalism was, however,
296
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
II
TABLE
KFUPM
Lost-loans and overdues
Period covered Uune-May)
No. of Loans reported lost
No.
of overdue notices
1988189 1989/90 1990/91 1991/92
62 80 40 96
37541 34517 33869 54762
278
160689
___Total
traced to a few junior staff who over-reacted to a disciplinary measure taken against them. But senior library staff used to remove books for home use, hence the 9.85% involvement rate. External users no doubt had a share in all aspects of library abuse. The faculty had a low, but disturbing, 0.8% share in theft cases and a high 50.15% share in unauthorized borrowing relating to overdue loans. KFUPM Lost and Ouerdue Loans. Table II shows the number of books duly checked out to users who later reported them lost. They paid a replacement charge no doubt. Many librarian respondents viewed this lose-and-pay practice as a smart theft. The table also reveals that the number of overdue and recall notices sent to borrowers in the 4year period under survey was 160 689. Some users, it was gathered, preferred paying lines to returning loans that had no chance of renewal or that were on hold for another user, when they themselves had not finished using them. Factors Favoring Library Abuse Questions on reasons believed to have motivated library abuse were put before Uniport and KFUPM respondents for their opinions. Their observations, drawn from past experience with deviant users and from the oral and written statements made by these deviants at the time they were apprehended for a given library abuse, were grouped into 10 major, but not mutually exclusive factors, as shown in Table III. The tabular figures represent each the number of positive responses to a given reason (on the row) against a given type of materials abuse (on the column). The zero figure indicates disagreement with the suggestion, while the X mark shows non-applicability. To make for easy analysis, a line is drawn between the serious and minor factors that could have motivated library materials abuse in the two institutions. Five to ten responses (representing 5-10 interviewees) to a suggested
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
297
INSTITUTIONS
?‘ABLE III ‘p: ” %lotimtions for Library abuse, from hbrary stuj members’ assessment
Uniport ~~ -~__ Factors
KFUPM -
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
9 8
6 7
9 6
0 0
9 6
9 5
7 3
0 0
3
7
5
0
2
8
2
0
5
7
6
0
0
I
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
7 7
8 8
4 9
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
9
9
8
0
3
4
0
0
8
5
4
0
5
5
2
0
7 9
6 7
5 7
0 0
3 2
5 1
4 2
0 0
6
2
0
0
5
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
9 7 8 5
8 2 6 4
8 1 6 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4
2
1
I
0
0
0
0
0 7
0 8
0 4
1 1
0 3
0 4
0 I
2 1
7
5
2
1
6
2
2
0
~__~~ I Situational a. Pressed for high grades b. Pressed for time Voluminous books cannot C. open flat on copiers d. Long waiting for photocopying e. Charts, maps, plates difficult to copy f. No coins or change for photocopying Frequent breakdown of g. copiers h. No borrowing privilege i. Restricted/closed access to some collections Further borrowing disallowed i limit exhausted/loan overdue k. Lost library ticke;/ID: not allowed to use the library again 1. Long walk to the library I1
Resources and Facilities a. Bookstores around do not stock the required texts found in the library b. Library would not help order personal books c. Insufficient reading tables/carrels d. Toilet frequently out ofuse c. Library too hot for reading 1: Library poorly lit
111 Attitude toward the libray, etc. Library’s poor service a. Nonavailability of relevant b. materials C. Overbearing library sanctions d. Diff‘erential loans policy unfavourable to undergraduates
298
M.
C.
TABLE
OBIAGWU
III-Continued. Uniport
Factors
E’ g. h. 1. .i k. IV
V
VI
No borrowing privileges Frequent checking of admission/ID cards Shelves in disorder Library hours short Library staff cold and impersonal Unacceptable conditions in the university Government vexing policy
Perception of library abuse a. Does not see library abuse as an offence b. Abused items can be replaced easily C. ‘1‘0 steal, mutilate or hide is easy To have a souvenir to keep d. e. Light penalty for offenders encourages others f. Other or future users will care for themselves g. Hecause I am privileged part of the system Infrastructural problems a. Library too small to accommodate users No hostel reading rooms b. provided Lack of drinking water in C. the library d. No telephone facilities in the library J’ecurity gaps a. Shortage of exit control guar-ds Unsupervised staff exits b. c. No surveillance within stacks d. Broken and open windows facilitate book/journal tosses C. Night patrol round the library is haphazard/non-existent f. Rush hours make exit control ineffective
KFUPM
I.h
Mu
Ub
Vd
7’h
Mu
Ub
Vd
4
2
3
0
1
1
0
0
6 0 5
5 0 6
1 9 2
0 0 0
; 1
0x 2
0x I
x0 0
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7
6
8
0
6
7
6
0
4
3
0
0
7
8
0
0
8 4
6 3
6 x
x x
5 1
7 1
6 x
x x
6
7
8
1
7
4
6
0
4
2
3
1
5
4
4
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
2
0
9
9
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
6
5
1
x
x
x
x
5
3
2
0
x
x
x
x
3 3 0
0 0 6
0 4 5
0 0 0
5 x 0
0 x 7
0 x 2
0 x 0
9
9
9
9
x
x
x
x
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
TABLE
ACADEMIC
299
INSTITUTIONS
III-Continued. Uniport
Factors ___-
-__ VII
Psychological a. To protect moral/religious belief b. Can’t stand the noise in the library c. Impatient with darkness during power cut
IX
Personality a. Acquisitive instinct b. Behaves alike in similar situations c. Cheats in examinations too d. Monopolizes library seats equally e. In love with colour photographs and plates
X
l’h
Complacency of guards/library personnel a. Trust on faculty and senior staff b. Unwillingness to offend users C. Risk of alienating colleagues
= theft,
Mu = mutilation,
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
Th
Mu
Ub
Vd
4 6 7
0 5 6
0 7 7
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
9
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
1
0
0
3 4
3 2
2 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
2
0
8
0
3
0
3 4
0 0
0 7
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 2
0 0
___--
Financialfactor a. Steals to support life b. No money to copy or buy c. Cost of copying high
VIII
KFUPM
Ub
= unauthorized
borrowing,
Vd = vandalism
reason were considered serious and consequently worrisome, while zero to 4 observations were taken as minor. Thus, with respect to situational factors, the pressure on students to score high marks accounted for a worrisome level of materials abuse in theft, mutilation and book-hiding both in Uniport and KFUPM. However, frequent breakdown of copy machines was not an issue in KFUPM, but a serious contributor to theft and mutilation in Uniport. Again, the denial of borrowing privileges to summer students and junior staff in Uniport made the victims face the situation with theft, mutilation and hiding of books. KFUPM had no such problem.
300
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
Factors relating to resources and facilities were also not an issue in KFUPM for all types ofmaterials abuse, except for the non-availability of personal needs in local bookstores. Uniport had problems in all the variables, some of which were responsible for theft, mutilation or unauthorized borrowing. On attitude towards the library, the only significant observation recorded in KFUPM was for differential loans policy which, as in Uniport, could have caused some thefts. Uniport’s overbearing library sanctions, frequent checking of library admission tickets and short library hours were fertile grounds for theft and mutilation. Likewise, shelf disorder contributed largely to unauthorized borrowing-related abuse, particularly book hiding. Perception factors were serious and worrisome in both Uniport and KFUPM. Deviants in both libraries, according to respondents, felt that abuse relating to theft, mutilation and book-hiding was not an offence. KFUPM deviants further conceived stolen and mutilated materials as easy to replace. Uniport offenders knew that replacement was very difficult. In both institutions, stealing, mutilation and hiding were considered easy by deviants; and light penalty for the offences encouraged others to indulge in these acts. Significant infrastructural problems did not exist in KFUPM and thus could not cause any library abuse. But the problem of reading space was regarded by 90% of Uniport respondents as a factor in thefts and mutilations. On security gaps, shortage of exit guards was considered a theft facilitator in KFUPM; Uniport had no such shortage, but its unprotected windows and haphazard night patrol were an attraction to would-be-thieves. Lack of money to buy books or copy them and an apparent high cost of copying were financial factors favourable to stealing, mutilating and hiding books in Uniport, not in KFUPM. Psychological factors bordering on the protection of one’s moral or religious belief could have caused some vandalism in KFUPM, not in Uniport. Poor illumination and power cuts encouraged book theft in Uniport: KFUPM had no such problem. Personality factors were not an issue in either institution, but complacency of guards did create problems. Too much trust on faculty and staff was considered detrimental to the security of materials against theft in the two institutions as shown in the Table. In addition, guards would not take the risk of alienating their colleagues and librarians, hence a high degree of illegal removal of books for home use in Uniport. Thej&E$cting Devices Thieves of library materials block detection through various devices. In a multiple choice section of whether a given method was considered a
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
TABLE
301
INSTITUTIONS
IV
Frequency of theft-e$ecting methods Uniport Methods 1. Beat the scrutiny of exit guards 2. Sneak out under cover of darkness during power cuts 3. Toss through the windows 4. Use exits other than the main one 5. Borrow and subsequently report loss 6. Conceal on his/her person on bag 7. Buy from library staff 8. Use fraudulent means like fake ID 9. Borrow with stolen admission ID/card 10. Check out materials with forged stamps 11. Paste false book pockets/slips on books intended to be stolen 12. Collude with circulation staff 13. Use escape angle of electronic sensor 14. Use force: burglary, armed robbery A = Agree,
U = Undecided,
D = Disagree,
KFUPM
A
U
D
2
6
2
8 9 6 5 7 2 8 6 5
2 0 3 3 1 3 1 2 1
5 7 ii
A ~____
U
D
9
1
0
0 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 4
0 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 4 2 0 5 2 1
10 10 10 1 2 10 2 8 9
3 2
2 1
0 0
2 3
8 7
;
1;
x0
X0
1;
x = not applicable.
possibility in Uniport and KFUPM libraries, the respondents were requested to answer agree (A), undecided (U) and disagree (D), as summarized in Table IV. The data here represent the proportion of librarians, with a maximum of 10, responding to a given variable. As before, 5-10 is considered a valid and worrisome device, while O-4 is regarded as a non-crisis method. Consequently, in Uniport 10 critical methods, of 14 possibilities, were used by deviant users to steal and gain possession of library materials. These included: sneaking out under cover of darkness (8), tossing out of the window (9), using exit doors other than the main one (9), borrowing materials and subsequently reporting them lost (5), concealing about the person or in a bag (7), using fraudulent means (8), borrowing with stolen admission card/ID (6), checking out materials with forged stamps (5), pasting false book pockets/slips (5)) and colluding with circulation staff (7). Three serious devices observed in KFUPM were: beating the scrutiny of exit guards (9), borrowing and reporting lost (6), and concealing about the person or in bags (6). Security Consciousness Questions on the measures the library had taken for the security of the collection were put to an experienced librarian in the public services
M.
302
C.
OBlAGWU
TABLE
V
Resflonsesto the questions of theft prevention measures
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Question _ __--~___.--PLibrary building designed with sw~~ritv in rn;nA Vvindows can be reached and opened by any user ‘I’oilct windows are book-toss proof All library users and staff pass through a single controlled exit before reaching the exterior door Your library has a guard system of theft prevention Your library has one or more guarded turnstiles per building Your library has two or more exit control guards per shift Your library has planned to install electronic security system Closed circuit television is used for surveillance Patrol within stacks is provided Sign warning against materials abuse displayed within the library All materials marked for property identification Access to serials and rare books is restricted A special collection has a closed access Rush materials are put on reserve ID or library ticket system controls admission Amnesty on lines is declared at least once a year Loans replacement charge equals fixed amount plus current book price Library collection protected by a special state law Co-operation with other libraries for the return of stolen items
LJniport
KFUPM X,
Y Y
N N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N N N
Y N N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y = Yes, N = No.
area of the two libraries for a Yes or No answer. The observations are presented in Table V. Numbers l-4 relate to building design. Uniport, unlike KFUPM, did not use any security-related library building standard when it designed its structure. Its windows in the reading rooms and toilets were as book-toss tempting as its multiple exits offered opportunities for sneaks. Numbers 5-8 probed exit control measures. Both libraries had a guard system of theft prevention. But while KFUPM invested in a mechanical turnstile and had completed arrangement to commission its newly acquired electronic security system, Uniport remained with
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
303
INSTITUTIONS
ards. Neither closed circuit television nor stack patrol were n the two libraries (Nos 9 and 10). Limited public relations such as sign warning, was used, in Uniport to deter thW.3. Both &r a
_ _
or\w;ql ;-
c.r\llr.c+:,,
.,r_n
1-n-e
. . ..A..
I--I.
.,-.A
I.,..
. . ..e\-.
,. ^^^^"
available only on request. No special state law protected the collections of the two libraries, although Uniport had some understanding with other libraries for the return of stolen materials.
CONCLUSION
Surveys and reports on library abuse taken together demonstrate that (a) the danger which libraries and academia face is enormous, locally and universally; (b) abuse, i.e. theft, mutiliation, etc., impedes the advancement and dissemination of knowledge; and (c) students are not the only library users involved in abuse, as previous research has inferred. In this study, the data support the research hypothesis of evidence of library materials abuse in Uniport and KFUPM, perpetuated by all classes of user for various reasons, using various devices. In Uniport, evidence of the involvement in library abuse by ail classes of user was proved by figures from office records, reinforced by librarians’ views. KFUPM’s was partly circumstantial. It is worth noting that external user involvement in library abuse was low in both libraries, and burglary was ruled out. Among the users, students abused the materials more than any other group with respect to theft, mutilation and hiding of materials; but the faculty indulged more in the retention of overdues. It was observed that several factors combined to create both opportunities and motivations for materials abuse in the two libraries. However, results of the study indicated that Uniport had more situational headaches than KFUPM. Summer students and junior staff, for example, were not allowed to borrow books in Uniport. Consequently they resorted to theft and mutilation, as well as to book hiding. Infrastructural factors also contributed to library abuse in Uniport. KFUPM was not faced with that problem, but it should worry about vandalistic censorship dictated by religious or moral belief.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The security of collections in Uniport and KFUPM if the following measures are adopted:
could be enhanced
304
M.
C.
OBIAGWU
(i) Standard Library Building. Uniport could hasten the completion of its new library building which was designed with security consciousness. KFUPM has to embark on an expansion programme, since its present library building, though properly designed, does not now meet the accommodation demands of its growing user population. (ii) Electronic Security System. Both libraries could improve their exit control mechanism with electronic security systems. In this regard, Uniport has to invest in one, while KFUPM would do well to commission its newly installed system. Electronic sensors are not, however, an insurance against theft, since some unscrupulous users would still want to beat the system or foil its effectiveness. But they help to remind users to ensure that the book they have on them is properly checked out. All in all, detection sensors are a good technology to deal with theft problem, but as Gandert (1982) warned: “the aim is not to catch the thiefi it is to deter thievery”.14 (iii) Patrol. A guard patrol of stacks and reading areas would help to monitor undesirable moves. (iv) Conducive Environment. The library should be conducive to reading and study so as to encourage conformity to the rules. Air conditioning, sufficient lighting, good drinking water, working toilet system, adequate reading space fitted with carrels and open seats, and a lot more cannot hurt. (v) Copy Machines. These have so become part of library system that one per 500 users is considered reasonable. Some of them should have reduction and magnifying mechanisms, as well as coin operated devices for self service. (vi) Rush Items. Books that are on high demand should be purchased in multiple copies, while frequently used journal articles duplicated and put on reserve. (vii) Inventory of Stock. This should be conducted about once a year, fully or partially, in order to know when to tighten security or be more alert. (viii) Rewards. Exposure of book theft and mutilation should be rewarded in cash or kind in order to encourage conformity and vigilance. (ix) Realistic Penalty. Th e penalty for abuse should not be so harsh as to harden first offenders and not so light as to win new converts. It should be realistic. ix) Amnesty on Fines. An amnesty week should be declared at least once a session in order to encourage return of overdues. (xi) Public Relations Campaign. Public relations should be promoted
LIBRARY
ABUSE
IN
ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS
305
in order to appeal to the conscience of users regarding the harmful effects that library abuse has on current reading and research. ‘The use of signs, notices, circulars and newsletters helps. (xii) Co-operation on Theft Detection. An agreement should be reached with other libraries at national or regional level on the detection and return of stolen books found on users, but belonging to other libraries. REFERENCES
1 2
9 10 11 12 13 14
Hendrick, C. and Mm-fin, M. E. (1974) Project library ripoff: a study of periodical mutilation in a University Library. College & Research Libraries 35(6), pp. 402411. Weiss, D. (1981) Book theft and book mutilation in a large urban university library. College & Research Libraries 42(4), pp. 341-347. Pedersen, 1’. L. (1990) Theft and mutilation of library materials. College & Research Libraries 51(2), pp. 122-128. Trinkaus-Randal, G. (1989) Preserving special collection through internal security. College & Research Libraries 50(4), pp. 448-454. Towner, L. W. (1988) An end to innocence: [wide-spread book theft by staff and scholars]. American Libraries 19(3), pp. 2 10-2 13. Ex-staffer suspected of theft of major library treasures. American Libraries 16(3), 1985; p. 145. Otness, H. (1988) ‘Going plating’ stealing maps from libraries. In J. E. Hannigan (Ed.) Library Lit. 19: The Best of 1988, p. 118. Stolen books returned to Crerar Library. Wilson Library Bulletin 59 (June 1985), p. 650. Library thief found guilty. Library Journal, March 1991, p. 19. Revil, D. (1975) The theft problem in libraries. New Library World 76(900), pp. 123-124. Book theft and mutilation at KFUPM Library. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals Library Newsletter, Fall Semester 1990, p. 6. Collver, M. (1990) Subsequent demand for ripped-off journal articles. Reference Librarian 27128, pp. 347-366. Souter, G. H. (1976) Delinquent readers: a study of the problem in university libraries. Journal of Librarianship 8(2), pp. 96-l 10. Gandert, S. R. (1982) Protecting your collection: a handbook, survey, and guide. Library & Archival Security 4( l/2) Special Issue, p. 23.