In 2025, a member posted a message on the AALA listserv about a policy change at her institution which negatively impacted architectural scholarship. She reported that new acquisitions were limited to electronic formats only, which ran counter to realities in architectural publishing and the needs of architectural scholars. Furthermore, the expertise and advocacy of the subject selector was dismissed in favor of institutional goals of minimizing costs. This message prompted a storm of interactivity on the listserv, as other members described short-sighted policies that minimized the value of architectural research collections and librarians. 

After one member suggested AALA produce a white paper, then-President Sara Schumacher appointed a task force to do so. Catherine Essinger, University of Houston, was appointed chair. Andi Back, University of Kansas, Lane Goldszer, University of California– Los Angeles, and Sara Mautino, Oklahoma State University, were asked to assist with the research and writing. Stephanie Beene, University of New Mexico, and Jennifer Parker, University of Notre Dame, were to assist with the editing. 

The authors conducted a literature review, gathered information from AALA members, and reviewed survey data about architecture professors’ views regarding libraries, librarians, and information resources. The resulting white paper, titled “The Everlasting Importance of the Academic Architecture Collection and its Librarian,” demonstrates that major trends adopted by academic libraries in North America reduce the effectiveness of libraries in supporting research, reducing the importance of libraries and librarians at their home institutions. It also demonstrates that these effects are amplified in architectural studies because of the unique ways print collections are used in teaching and learning and because architectural research relies on proprietary images that are rarely found anywhere but in print collections. 

Library science literature consistently illustrates the difficulty of providing high-quality research support to architectural scholars without print collections due to the manner in which information resources are used and the lack of available electronic resources. As stated by the authors, “Current scholarship confirms that digital collections complement, rather than replace, print in academic libraries -- a trend particularly pronounced in art and architecture, where high-quality print monographs remain essential.” The literature also confirmed that subject expertise is required to “ensure academic library collections remain responsive to their users’ needs.” 

Statements architecture librarians made in literature, on the AALA listserv, and directly to the authors indicate that the trending policy changes most disadvantageous in architectural studies are e-only and e-preferred purchasing rules, exclusively on-demand purchasing, and “just-in-time" access models that rely on interlibrary loan and/or offsite storage. The paper describes the many ways those policies create unnecessary hurdles to student success. It also disputes the notion that these are cost-saving measures, as many of these policies simply punt expenses to a later time, and all of them can result in a devaluation of the library’s role in scholarship. 

Building and maintaining fine architectural collections requires the expertise of a librarian who understands the discipline and can anticipate the needs of their architecture department. A selector with subject expertise can reliably determine whether resources may be well utilized in electronic format or when print is required. Centralization of those decisions decreases the likelihood that formats will follow user preferences and may decrease the value of resources in an inappropriate format. While the original goal of this white paper was only to address formats, the authors found they could not address that without also addressing the recent elimination of subject specialist positions in academic libraries. The guidance of authoritative architecture librarians cannot be separated from good stewardship of architecture collections. The centralization and simplification of collection development policies may help drive the elimination of positions, or it may be the other way around. This paper argues that, “the [architecture] librarian receives information from users about their information needs and uses it to inform and direct the services they provide and the materials they purchase for the collection.” 

Thanks to the involvement of Sara Mautino, the authors were also able to draw upon early findings from Architecture Faculty Attitudes Toward Architecture Librarians and Libraries, an ongoing research project led by Mautino and others. Data from a survey of 73 architecture professors in the United States concurred with published research and statements made by AALA members: 

• architecture collections cannot be understood through a simple e-preferred framework 
• digital and physical resources are not interchangeable in architecture education 
• Architectural studies requires a hybrid model in which digital access, physical collections, and subject-specialist librarian support each remain essential 

Informed by data from this survey and the other sources, The Everlasting Importance of the Academic Architecture Collection and its Librarian makes the following recommendations to library administrators, policy makers, and collections specialists: 

1. Academic libraries should not limit the purchase of architectural resources by format or automatically purchase an electronic resource when print may be more appropriate. 
2. Whenever possible, architecture resources should be close to architecture classrooms and studios. 
3. A librarian with subject expertise should select architectural resources and advise collections staff about the development and maintenance of architectural collections. 
4. Collection development policies should include subject-specific policy statements for architecture and design programs, in order to meet diverse research needs. 

Link to the full paper (PDF)