College and Research Libraries By N E I L C . V A N D E U S E N Field W o r k in Accredited Library Schools ED U C A T I O N for librarianship poses prob-lems that receive scant attention in our professional literature. I n contrast to the many studies on all phases of primary, sec- ondary, and higher education, there have been fewer than ten m a j o r studies of educa- tion for librarianship in the past twenty-five years. T h e authors of The Program of Instruction in Library Schools cite but seven references in their survey of the growth of professional training and note at the end of their introductory chapter that the instructional program in library schools is today f a r behind other advances in educa- tion for librarianship. T h e y w r i t e : The difficulties in this regard are concerned directly or indirectly with: 1. The training and educational qualifica- tions of the instructors. 2. T h e fact that so much of the library school program is of an elementary nature. 3. T h e fact that there is no philosophy of librarianship to give point and depth to certain parts of the program.1 T h e third point suggests the need for in- vestigating not only the general philosophy of librarianship but also the teaching phi- losophies in librarianship. T h e purpose of this paper is to examine the present status of field work in the programs of accredited library schools, in the belief that this specific question leads directly to basic questions of library educational philosophy and, ulti- mately, to the still more difficult question of a general philosophy for librarianship. 1 M e t c a l f , K e y e s D . , R u s s e l l , J o h n D . , a n d O s b o r n , A n d r e w D . The Program of Instruction in Library Schools. U r b a n a , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1943, p . 7. I T h e philosophy of library education with respect to the value of field work has been similar to the swing of a pendulum. T h e early library schools emphasized the prac- tical; present schools tend to emphasize the theoretical sides of librarianship; and there are indications that a re-evaluation of both philosophies of librarianship are in store for the near f u t u r e . A brief review of the history of field work theory illustrates these changing assumptions. Melvil Dewey, in the first catalog of the School of Library Economy of Columbia College, states the apprenticeship method with which American library schools began. T h e aim of M r . Dewey's curriculum was entirely practical: to give the best obtain- able advice with specific suggestions for the solution of the questions that arise f r o m the time a decision is made that a library is desirable until it is placed in perfect work- ing order.2 T h e Williamson report, Training for Library Service, stimulated library educa- tional philosophy to move in the direction of more emphasis upon the professional or theoretical aspects of librarianship. A f t e r an examination of field work requirements in the library schools of the early twenties, M r . Williamson concluded that it should be looked upon as that phase of formal instruc- tion carried on by purposeful observation supplementing classroom instruction. H e 2 School of Library Economy of Columbia College, 1887-89; Documents for a History. N e w Y o r k , S c h o o l of L i b r a r y S e r v i c e , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1937. P- 9 ° . JULY, 1946 24 7 recommended decreased emphasis but not the elimination of field work from the li- brary school curriculum. In his opinion it was still one important method of instruc- tion.3 Thirteen years later the pendulum had swung still farther away from acceptance of the field work method. Ernest J . Reece, in The Curriculum in Library Schools, recommends that field work supplement the library school curriculum through summer assignments or postschool internships. H e places special emphasis upon the separation of field work from the curriculum.4 It is a short step from this position to the com- plete elimination of all field work require- ments in a few accredited library schools at the present time. T h e need for a re-evaluation of library field work is evident in the recent study by t h e a u t h o r s of The Program of Instruc- tion in Library Schools. T h e y r e c o m m e n d more careful planning, supervision, and re- porting of field work experience and advo- cate the search for new devices such as clinics and motion pictures for presenting the practical aspects of librarianship. I I If we turn from library educational theory to contemporary library school prac- tice, what has been the effect of theory upon practice with regard to the status of field work? In an attempt to secure the neces- sary data for an answer to this question, a questionnaire was sent in 1944 to the thirty- four library schools accredited by the Amer- ican Library Association through its Board of Education for Librarianship. T h i r t y - two schools replied. T h i s high percentage of replies is testimony to the interest of the 3 W i l l i a m s o n , C. C. Training for Library Service; A Report Prepared for the Carnegie Corporation of New York. N e w Y o r k , 1023, p. 139-40. 4 Reece, E r n e s t J. The Curriculum in Library Schools. N e w Y o r k C i t y , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1936, p. 129-30. faculties of our library schools in this sub- ject. Twenty-eight schools indicated that some form of field work is required of at least some students. Of these schools, two re- ported that field work is required only of f u t u r e school librarians. T w o others in- dicated that longer field work periods are required of those preparing for school li- brarianship than for other students. In one case, special field work in addition to the regular period is required for those prepar- ing for special library work. Of the twenty-eight, two indicated that field work is not required for students entering with substantial experience in library work. Twelve schools require blocked practice periods only; three indicated that field work is done in connection with classes; ten re- ported that they require both blocked field work and periods of practice work scheduled with classes. T w o have pre-matriculation periods of practice, and one did not answer this question. T h e most common length of time for the blocked practice period is twTo weeks (80 hours). Sixteen schools use the two-week period; the others range from one week to one month. T h e type of library in which the student practices depends upon a number of factors. Five schools specializing in the training of school librarians or who require practice only of future school librarians limit field work almost invariably to school libraries. T w e n t y schools indicated that public, school, college, university, or special li- braries are used. T w o said that public libraries are generally chosen, and one school uses both public and school libraries for all students. In choosing libraries for field work, knowledge by the library school of the li- braries is the determining factor in fifteen schools; students' interest in a specific li- 250 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES brary, in four schools; and both factors, in nine others. Among the factors considered by library school directors in the selection of supervising libraries are the interest and training of the supervising librarian, the time that the librarian has to give to super- vision, the locality, and the nature of the library program. T h e supervision of the field work of twenty-three schools is done entirely by the cooperating librarian and his staff. In only two schools is the work supervised entirely by instructors from the library school. In three schools the library school staff aids the cooperating librarian in supervision. In most cases a rating scale is filled out by the cooperating librarian. These rating scales usually contain a series of questions about traits, technical efficiency, special aptitudes, and ask for general estimates and comments. Follow-up work on deficiencies revealed by the field work is handled by a conference with the student in nineteen schools; with stress in subsequent classwork, in two schools; by a combination of individual classwork and conference, in four schools; by faculty discussion of ratings, in one school; and by oral reports and discussion of ratings, in one school. One school has only a pre-matriculation practice period and tries to correct personality defects during the year of residence. In only two schools is any attempt made to secure any written reaction from the student. Twenty-six schools reported that the period is valuable. Approval is qualified in two cases to apply only to school librar- ians. T w o schools with practice periods report that it is not especially valuable. Of the four reporting no use of a practice period, one indicated that it has an observa- tion period and that the discussion of field work will be reopened when the curriculum is revised; one mentioned special field work projects from time to time but no regular period. Only two are firmly convinced that the period has no value. T o the question as to whether or not the field work program should be modified, thirteen replied in the affirmative and thir- teen in the negative. In five schools the matter is now under consideration. Sugges- tions for modification included more prac- tice (nine schools), more practice if library course were two years in length (three schools), more professional and less routine field work (three schools), and the addition of funds for library school faculty visits to supervising libraries (one school). T h e last question on which reports were made was concerned with the use of practice situations involved in teaching specific courses; for example, the assignment of reference students to the college or univer- sity reference desk one or more hours per week. T e n schools reported that they use this type of teaching device in one or more of the following courses: administration, reference, book selection, circulation, meth- ods, cataloging, and hospital libraries. I l l It is clear from the survey of current field work practices that M r . Williamson's recommendations for decreased emphasis upon field work have been followed by the majority of library schools. A period of field work from four to twelve weeks in length was universally required by the li- brary schools in 192021. By 1944, four schools had dropped the requirement en- tirely, two others demanded it only for prospective school librarians, and two others had flexible arrangements qualified by the amount of library experience each student brings to library school. Furthermore, the period devoted to field work has been cut to one to four weeks. A large majority of the representatives of accredited schools, however, still consider JULY, 1946 251 that this experience is invaluable. T h e reasons given are quite different f r o m those cited by library school directors in the W i l - liamson report. Classification of about twenty-five statements of the reasons for field work reveal f o u r main categories: 1. Field work develops an understanding of what goes on in a library, allows for self- evaluation and the testing of theories, shows the unity of the library school course, gives the "feel" of library service, provides contact with active libraries and a sense of concrete- ness. Statements such as these occurred in twenty-four questionnaires. The common element in these opinions is the conviction that field work is a teaching device which clinches classroom points, reveals interrelationship of courses, and makes the textbooks come alive. 2. Field work develops student confidence and poise and increases professional enthusi- asm. This is the gist of the replies in twenty- three questionnaires. 3. Many library school graduates, especially school librarians, go into "one-man" situations. They may anticipate little or no expert super- vision and must have a trial period under supervision so that they will not be entirely unacquainted with the variety of practical problems for which they will be responsible. This was mentioned only twice, but it deserves careful attention. 4. Three schools mentioned the value of the field work for placement. T h e placement consideration is the only factor which is identical with the reasons given by the library school directors of 1920-21 for the field work requirement. Library school directors of 1944, unlike those of 1920, mention only once or twice the fact that routine skills may be learned. T h e y stress the value of field work for the learning process that comes from comparison of theory with practice and for the integra- tion of library functions. W h i l e the deans in 1920 decided that field w o r k is needed to reveal student capacity for library work, the directors in 1944 stress the importance of the period for the development of the professional point of view. In general, present library school theory is based upon M r . Williamson's idea that field work should be an instructional period pointing up the application and integration of theories rather than a period for the learn- ing of routine skills. H o w does this theory work in practice? T u r n i n g to the reasons given by the four schools which do not require field work and to the one school which, although disapprov- ing in principle, is forced by state require- ments to schedule this period for school librarians, we find the following objections: 1. Cadets are often exploited by assignment to routine work which the regular library staff has saved for them. 2. There are difficulties and unjustifiable expense involved in finding qualified libraries with supervision which has educational value and staffs organized upon a sound profes- sional-and-clerical basis. 3. T h e problem method in specific courses is a more economical way of securing the same results. 4. There are many difficulties involved in the cooperation of librarians and library schools in this matter. Most libra/ians are not interested in teaching. M a n y of the schools which do use field work assignments list these same criticisms, especially the danger of exploitation, but feel that the advantages outweigh the dis- advantages. Several point out that their field work is directed more toward observa- tion than toward active library work. O n e school indicates the need for a larger budget to permit supervision of cadets while in their field positions. Several report that more attention should be paid to follow-up pro- cedures. O n l y one of the four chief objections to field work is theoretical in nature. T h i s is the position that the problems method in specific courses gives the same result with more economy than field work. All the other objections are practical. T h e y all follow the f o r m : "If the situation were 252 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES different, field work might be useful." T h e implication is that the cost in time, money, and effort to secure conditions under which field work would be ideal are exorbitant. I V If the library field work period has pos- sibilities as a teaching device and as an instrument to hasten the growth of pro- fessionalism, can anything be done to elimi- nate the practical difficulties mentioned by library school directors? T h e D e p a r t m e n t of Library Education at State Teachers College, Geneseo, N . Y . , has been experi- menting with field work practices over a long period and believes it can offer evidence for the following propositions: 1. Where a library school prepares librar- ians for one or two types of libraries, field work can be administered successfully with a very small staff. Under these conditions no insuperable difficulties have been met with regard to selection of excellent cadet centers, elimination of exploitation of students, super- vision by the library school staff, and careful follow-up work for individual deficiencies. 2. When properly integrated with theoreti- cal courses, the field work period proves to be an economical device for teaching students to apply theory. 3. Field work pays high dividends in devel- oping professional attitudes among students. 4. T h e field work period is an effective instrument for discovering necessary curricu- lar adjustments, both in the library program and in the academic courses pursued by the students. 5. The field work period exerts a beneficial professional effect upon the practicing librar- ians supervising the cadets. T h e D e p a r t m e n t of Library Education at Gerteseo trains librarians for the public schools of the State of N e w York. T h e thirty-six hours of the library curriculum are distributed throughout the f o u r years, with most of the courses falling in the junior and senior years. T h e field work period at Geneseo comes in the middle of the second semester of the junior year, following a period of practice teaching during which each student teacher is observed carefully to see how well he applies his knowledge of libraries in an actual classroom situation. Before students go to their field work centers, they are given topical outlines which are designed to direct their observation. These topics are discussed and students are required to sub- mit papers summarizing and evaluating their field experience in terms of the topics outlined. T w o days are devoted to in- tensive preparation for the six-week field work period. Supervising librarians are furnished with a twenty-two-point rating scale and are asked to check a list of library, school, and community activities in which the cadet has had an opportunity to participate. I n addi- tion, a library school instructor visits each cadet at least once while he is in residence in the field. These visits are usually made not later than the third week in order that the instructor can be helpful if problems of personality or procedure have arisen. Field work centers are chosen carefully upon the basis of a knowledge of the school and the librarian. W h e n there are indica- tions that the cadet is kept busy with routine or even with a limited group of professional activities, the objectives for requiring prac- tice in a wide variety of professional fields are explained to the supervising librarian at the time of the visit. Field work centers are scrutinized each year and eliminated when unsatisfactory for the set purposes. I n addition, conferences with supervising librarians have been held at the college to secure the joint contributions of librarians in the field for the improvement of courses and the field work program and to explain the objectives. T h e last conference of this type resulted in an improved rating scale. W h e n the cadets return to the campus, JULY, 1946 253 there are t w o types of f o l l o w - u p procedure. F i r s t , the i n s t r u c t o r f o r school l i b r a r y serv- ice and the head of the d e p a r t m e n t read the field w o r k papers submitted and check the r a t i n g scales and the lists of activities in which the cadet has p a r t i c i p a t e d . E a c h s t u d e n t is then i n t e r v i e w e d and questioned closely a b o u t w h i c h procedures or situations w e r e easy and w h i c h w e r e difficult. O n the basis of the paper, the r a t i n g scales, the visits of i n s t r u c t o r s to field w o r k centers, a n d the s t u d e n t interview, prescriptions are m a d e f o r the senior year. F o r example, eight or ten s t u d e n t s are r e p o r t e d each year to the speech d e p a r t m e n t f o r special t r a i n i n g to eliminate speech defects, to give m o r e experience and confidence in m a k i n g book talks, and to improve efficiency in all public relations w o r k involving speech. T h e course in school l i b r a r y a d m i n i s t r a - tion, to w h i c h the f u l l time of the j u n i o r s is devoted d u r i n g the last f o u r weeks of the semester, provides the second f o l l o w - u p pro- cedure f o r the field w o r k period. T h i s course is built a r o u n d s t a n d a r d readings and problems in l i b r a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the experience w h i c h each s t u d e n t brings f r o m his field w o r k . Discussion of school li- b r a r y c i r c u l a t i o n systems, f o r example, d r a w s upon the various systems in use in field w o r k centers as well as upon textbooks. Discussion of all problems is enlivened w i t h a t least t h e beginnings of practical ex- perience. T h e c a r e f u l i n t e g r a t i o n of field w o r k w i t h o t h e r l i b r a r y a n d academic courses can be one of the strongest teaching and pro- fessional t r a i n i n g devices in the c u r r i c u l u m . M a n y s t u d e n t s w h o are only average or below average have s u d d e n l y f o u n d t h e m - selves d u r i n g these periods. O b s e r v a t i o n of s t u d e n t s applying l i b r a r y theories may result in suggestions f o r the i m p r o v e m e n t of courses. F o r example, c o r r e l a t e d courses in t h e education d e p a r t m e n t have been s t r e n g t h e n e d t h r o u g h suggestions f r o m stu- dents w h o have analyzed their difficulties. M a n y supervisors have also indicated t h a t they have obtained n e w ideas f r o m cadets. V Does the f o r e g o i n g discussion cast any light upon the basic questions of l i b r a r y educational philosophy or of a philosophy of l i b r a r i a n s h i p in g e n e r a l ? If field w o r k problems are typical of o t h e r l i b r a r y school teaching enigmas, w e are justified in looking f o r m o r e practical t h a n theoretical difficul- ties in o u r profession. P e r h a p s the essence of t h e t e a c h i n g philosophy f o r w h i c h w e are searching is f o u n d in discovery of ways to fit means to ends r a t h e r t h a n in the discovery of the ends themselves. T h e first step t o w a r d a philosophy of l i b r a r y education may be m a d e t h r o u g h a c a r e f u l study of the existing specific tech- niques used in the t e a c h i n g of l i b r a r y courses. The Program of Instruction in Library Schools considers l i b r a r y school in- s t r u c t i o n a l problems in general and is the most h e l p f u l recent publication in this field. T h e r e is need, h o w e v e r , f o r a survey of specific techniques in l i b r a r y e d u c a t i o n . T h e listing, analysis, evaluation, and publi- cation of all types of assignments, projects, problems, a n d devices used in the teaching of subjects in the field of l i b r a r i a n s h i p should prove t o be a most effective w a y to begin the i m p r o v e m e n t and r e o r i e n t a t i o n of l i b r a r y school instructional p r o g r a m s . T h i s publication should s t i m u l a t e all l i b r a r y schools to e v a l u a t e and p e r f e c t their teach- ing m e t h o d s a n d w o u l d present the r a w m a t e r i a l f o r this e v a l u a t i o n — t h e collective t e a c h i n g experience of all schools. A second step t o w a r d a w o r k i n g phi- losophy of l i b r a r i a n s h i p m i g h t come w i t h the f o r m a t i o n of an association e m b r a c i n g all l i b r a r y school faculties in its member- ship. T h e A m e r i c a n Association of L i b r a r y 254 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Schools limits its membership to faculties of accredited l i b r a r y schools. T h i s in effect means t h a t those schools w h i c h m i g h t con- ceivably benefit most by association are ex- cluded f r o m the a d v a n t a g e s of an effective means f o r the i n t e r c h a n g e of professional l i b r a r y t e a c h i n g ideas. T h i s association of all l i b r a r y schools w o u l d be similar to the A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association f o r general l i b r a r i a n s h i p ; it w o u l d welcome all interested in l i b r a r y educational problems. W i t h detailed k n o w l e d g e of present teaching techniques in use in all l i b r a r y schools a n d w i t h an association a d m i t t i n g the e n t i r e professional l i b r a r y t e a c h i n g per- sonnel, w e w o u l d have the lever and the wheel necessary f o r an e x a m i n a t i o n of w h a t teaching in the field of librarianship should be. A t this point a t h i r d step t o w a r d o u r professional philosophy may be t a k e n by in- v i t i n g practicing l i b r a r i a n s a n d the users of their libraries to c o n t r i b u t e to the u n d e r - s t a n d i n g of the type of l i b r a r y personnel w h i c h should be p r o d u c e d . T h e s e t h r e e steps are in themselves an e n o r m o u s order, and the goal lies still f u r t h e r . T h i s goal of l i b r a r i a n s h i p is well k n o w n . L i b r a r i a n s h i p aims t o m a t e readers and ideas f o u n d in p r i n t e d and n o n p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l s in any w a y t h a t w i l l be f r u i t f u l . W h a t is n o t w e l l k n o w n is t h a t it is m u c h easier to see w h e r e you w a n t to go t h a n to provide and utilize the m e a n s f o r g e t t i n g there. T h e crucial problems in a philosophy of librarianship a r e not scientific or philo- sophical, b u t engineering problems concerned w i t h time, money, and personnel w i t h in- genuity f o r f i t t i n g means to ends. A Theofy of Subject Headings (Continued from page 248) ings of Bliss9 or Kelley 1 0 or of practical rules proposed by V a n H o e s e n . 1 1 B u t several problems needing f u r t h e r investigation should be n o t e d . A t first glance, one m i g h t expect t h a t an increased n u m b e r of headings w o u l d m e a n a m u c h g r e a t e r n u m b e r of cross references, b u t there is some reason f o r think- i n g t h a t f u l l e r use of correct and up-to-date headings w o u l d mean f e w e r see and see also r e f e r e n c e s ; the relative scarcity of both in such a detailed and specialized index as t h a t of Psychological Abstracts is interesting in this connection. T h e relation between the theory suggested above and the classified catalog needs discussion. M y o w n experi- ence, as well as t h a t of H e l e n S t a r r , 1 2 is 9 B l i s s . H . E . Organisation of Knowledge in Librar- ies and the Subject Approach to Books. N e w Y o r k C i t y , W i l s o n , 1939. 1 0 K e l l e y , G . O . Classification of Books: an Inquiry into Its Usefulness to the Reader. N e w Y o r k C i t y , W i l s o n , 1937 1 1 V a n H o e s e n , op. cit. 1 2 S t a r r , H . K . " S u b j e c t H e a d i n g s in a C h a n g i n g W o r l d . " Library Journal 5 9 : 2 ' o s , M a r . 1, 1934- t h a t the use of m o r e specific headings re- duces the average n u m b e r of subject entries per title ( a c t u a l l y , since a cataloger w h o is also a subject m a t t e r specialist can o f t e n omit less essential added or title entries, savings are even g r e a t e r ) ; w h e t h e r this w o u l d hold t r u e f o r all fields is a problem to be investigated. C a t a l o g e r s w h o are also subject specialists w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y dis- cover legitimate needs w h i c h o u r catalogs do n o t n o w meet ;1 3 on the o t h e r h a n d , they could probably w i t h d r a w l a r g e n u m b e r s of cards r e l a t i n g t o fields w h e r e a d e q u a t e bib- liographies are available. T h e approach to subject headings suggested here implies changes in the o r g a n i z a t i o n of c a t a l o g i n g w o r k a n d in l i b r a r y school c u r r i c u l a . B u t these problems are b e t t e r l e f t f o r f u t u r e dis- cussion. 13 Cf. M c M u r t r i e , D . C . " L o c a t i n g the P r i n t e d S o u r c e M a t e r i a l f o r U n i t e d S t a t e s H i s t o r y . " Missis- sippi Valley Historical Review 31:369-406, D e c e m b e r 1944- JULY, 1946 24 7