Collection development in academic libraries has always depended on the librarian’s knowledge of the assigned subject area, of the research and curricular needs of the campus, and of the breadth and depth of the collection with an eye toward persistence of value. Demand-driven (or possibly more accurately, patron-driven) acquisition as a method of collection development has seen widespread implementation in recent years, exacerbated by inflating costs, shrinking budgets, and the desire to ensure collections are actually used by patrons.

Several years on, has DDA made good on its promise of delivering content at the point of need while reducing collections budget outlays? What is the correct balance of DDA and bibliographer-based selection? Of e-book versus print DDA? Is this a boon for collections democracy or a blow against the librarian as subject specialist? Do faculty and students want this responsibility or would they prefer to leave it to librarians? Does providing just-in-time content have implications for the research process, and for the long-term cohesiveness and significance of library collections?

Join ALIGN as we explore and assess the benefits and drawbacks of demand-driven acquisition as it has been employed across academic libraries in California.