Study Architecture 
ProPEL AASL January Column
January column by Barret Havens
Association of Architecture School Librarians Recommended Publishers Survey: Results and Reflections
*This article details the efforts of one AASL member to explore, by means of a survey, which architecture and design book publishers are preferred by AASL members. By the author’s own admission, the survey will likely need to be revised and administered again for it to be a valid instrument for measuring publisher preferences among AASL members. The results of the survey have not been endorsed officially by AASL as an organization.
AASL members sometimes refer to the combined expertise represented by the organization’s members as the “collective wisdom.” During the fall semester of 2024, the author tapped into that collective wisdom to gather feedback from AASL members about which architecture and design book publishers they hold in the highest regard. The survey received 24 responses, which represents at least 25% of the total AASL membership that would have been eligible to take the survey at that point in time (currently employed in academic libraries serving architecture or design schools, non-retiree).
The survey was distributed via the AASL listserv, and included a ratings matrix corresponding to a list of publishers. For each publisher, respondents were asked to “rate how useful, in general, you find books from the following architecture and design publishers to be in terms of assisting your library users with information needs (for images, plans, or textual content).”
The four possible ratings for each publisher were: “highly useful,” “somewhat/sometimes useful,” “optional or not recommended,” and “not sure.”
(Screenshot demonstrating layout of ratings matrix)
Additionally, the survey prompted respondents to submit the names of any publishers that were not included that they felt should have been included. Admittedly, there was a great deal of subjectivity involved in the author’s selection of the 37 publishers that respondents were asked to rate. Among those excluded inadvertently that AASL members called attention to were Braun (an egregious oversight, and one of the author’s favorite publishers!), Bloomsbury, and Walther König.
Some AASL members suggested the consideration of university presses the author excluded intentionally. Only those university presses that he deemed to have a highly significant focus on architecture/design publications (Princeton, Yale, MIT, etc.) were added to the survey, as including every university press that has produced design-related books would have made the survey unwieldy. Regardless, the inclusion of those additional university presses to any future iterations of the survey should be considered, if the collective AASL membership sees value in readministering it.
Results
Ratings of “highly useful” scored 2 points for a publisher, whereas “somewhat/sometimes useful” scored 1 point. No points were awarded to a publisher for ratings of “optional or not recommended” or “not sure.” The publishers listed below represent the top 20, as ranked by AASL members.
Detail Verlag
Birkhäuser Verlag
MIT (Massachusetts Inst. of Technology) Press
Yale University Press
Princeton Architectural Press
RIBA (Royal Inst. of British Architects) Publishing
Harvard Design Press
Phaidon Press
Wiley
Society of Architectural Historians
ORO Editions
Cambridge University Press
Getty Publications
Actar
DOM Publishers
AA (Architectural Association) Publications
Columbia University Press
Routledge
Lars Müller
Taschen
Future directions
At the upcoming AASL conference in New Orleans in March, the author will discuss the results further and seek feedback from members regarding what could be done with these data. Would AASL like to readminister the survey again, including those publishers that members felt should be added to the list? Would AASL like to establish a “core publishers list,” analogous to their “core periodicals” and “core reference” lists? The author will pose those questions and more in New Orleans.
