College and Research Libraries By M A U R I C E F. T A U B E R The Columbia University Libraries Self-Study TH I S B R I E F report 1 on the self-study of the Columbia University Librar- ies will be concerned primarily with the purposes, general methodology, and de- vices used in measuring adequacy. Since the report is at present being readied for publication by the Columbia Uni- versity Press,2 it does not seem appro- priate at this time to discuss in detail conditions and conclusions, although reference to some findings will be made at various points. PURPOSES T h e study developed from the pro- posal of the Director of Libraries, in May, 1956, that the President's Commit- tee on the Educational Future of the University include in its self-study of current and prospective institutional problems those relating to the Univer- sity Libraries. At a meeting in May, the Director of the President's Committee had indicated that it had been thought that the Libraries represented a com- plex problem that would require the as- sistance of a subcommittee. Authoriza- tion for the library study was made in June, 1956, and the subcommittee con- sisted of Richard H. Logsdon, Director of Libraries, C. Donald Cook, an as- sociate of the School of Library Service, and your reporter. I was relieved of my teaching duties for the fall semester of 1 Paper presented at the Eastern College Librarians Conference, Columbia University, November 30, 1957. 2 Planned for publication in summer, 1958. Dr. Tauber is Melvil Dewey Professor of Library Service, Columbia Univer- sity. 1956; Mr. Cook worked half-time with me, since he was teaching one of my courses. We had a full-time secretary. Al- though February 1, 1957, was the given deadline, many problems arose which made it necessary to extend this dead- line to April 1. This was not a serious delay, since the parent committee had met delays which coincided. However, it meant that both Mr. Cook and myself found ourselves with other obligations as well as the completion of the report. We were under considerable pressure most of the time, and we ran into some difficulty with the questionnaires which we used because of the relatively short time available to us. It was decided by the members of the subcommittee, after meeting with the President's Committee, that it would be necessary not only to include but also to go beyond the observations and records of the staff of the University Libraries in evaluating the Libraries' resources, facilities, and services. T h a t is, one of the major purposes of the study was to involve the administration and faculties, as well as the students, in the question of library service. It was evident in the discussions with the President's Commit- tee that the members considered the Li- braries an integral part of the instruc- tional and research program of the Uni- versity. METHODOLOGY T h e methodology of the survey or self-study followed common devices of examination used in similar studies in the past. Questionnaires, interviews, group discussions, visits, requests by tel- ephone and correspondence, analyses of documents and records for historical and statistical purposes, and special reports prepared by various personnel were em- ployed. T h e r e was no special effort made to compare C o l u m b i a with other librar- ies, although reference is made to Co- lumbia's gradual loss of rank in terms of annual library expenditures. T h e battery of questionnaires used probably was as formidable as any ever employed in a university library study. Included were: (1) interview schedule for deans, directors, and other executive officers, (2) questionnaire to faculty members, (3) questionnaire to library de- partmental heads, (4) questionnaire to library staff members, (5) questionnaire to graduate and professional school stu- dents, (6) questionnaire to undergrad- uate students, (7) a letter-questionnaire to a group of New York City librarians on matters relating to cooperation. T h e director of the survey interviewed deans, directors, and other executive of- ficers or their representatives concerning their plans for the development of cur- ricula and research programs for the fu- ture. In preparation for the interviews with executive officers, a checklist of points to be considered was prepared and distributed prior to the meetings. A number of the executive officers filled these forms out for the subcommittee, but in most cases they served primarily as a basis for discussions relating to the department, school, institute, or other unit of the University in relation to the Libraries in terms of present or future problems. In a few cases, executive of- ficers had chairmen of the library com- mittees or library representatives for the particular units present at the meeting. T h e checklists were particularly useful in stimulating the discussions. Essential- ly, the schedule includes observations on problems of enrollment affecting library service (changes in character of student body, proportion of resident to com- muting students, number of part-time students, including evening students, and foreign students), changes in faculty affecting library service (size, type of ac- tivity—instructional, research, clinical, etc.—utilization of fellows, teaching as- sistants, research assistants), changes in curriculum and research programs (course structure, kinds of problems like- ly to be studied, doctoral and post-doc- toral research, governmental contracts, other contractual relationships), relation of unit to library program (committee and individual faculty member action), need for special (departmental) library resources, quarters and equipment, courses in the use of the libraries, at- titudes toward cooperative enterprises, collecting policy of the future, sugges- tions concerning library program, and observations on any special problems in- volving library resources or services. In so far as possible, the chairman of the subcommittee visited the executive officers and faculty members in their own quarters. T h i s was done deliberate- ly. It provided the chairman with an op- portunity to see how the personal li- braries of deans, directors, and faculty members were developing. In the large university, such as is represented by Columbia, there is some inclination on the part of faculty members and admin- istrative officers to build up large per- sonal collections. T h i s may have some direct effect upon their attitudes toward the libraries. In some cases, they seldom visit them, even their departmental li- braries. In other instances, they have lit- tle idea of the many problems facing the library personnel. T h e y cannot always understand their students' problems, particularly when there is a shortage of copies or materials. T h e y lend students materials, rather than approach the li- braries. It would be difficult to estimate the number of volumes in the offices of non-library personnel at Columbia, but there are any number which run into several thousands of volumes. In numer- ous instances, faculty members have 278 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES even larger collections of materials at home. A total of 143 individuals represent- ing the administration or the faculty was interviewed. While the chairman was interviewing, the associate proceed- ed to develop the questionnaires to be used in obtaining information from the other groups. Drafts of these question- naires, as well as the interview schedule for administrative officers, were reviewed by the President's Committee, the super- vising librarians, and the Director and Assistant Director of Libraries. After changes were made, the questionnaires were tested with individuals in the groups for which they were intended. T h e y were distributed during November and December, 1956. On the whole, the questionnaires served well in providing the information desired. However, because of the pres- sure of time, the percentage of returns which could be tabulated was not always as high as had been hoped for. Of the 2,250 questionnaires sent to faculty members, including part-time faculty and clinical professors, 709 were re- turned when the tabulations were closed; of these, 644 could be used. Of the 1,500 forms sent to undergraduate students, 395 were used; of the 2,000 sent to graduate and professional school students, 355 could be used; of the 274 sent to the 1956 Ph.D. graduates, 91 were used; all departmental librarians returned their questionnaires; of the 256 forms sent to all full-time library staff members, 109 were used. T h e question- naire to 23 librarians in metropolitan New York concerning matters of inter- library cooperation was returned by 22 individuals. It may appear from these figures that the returns were inadequate for our pur- poses. We do not believe so, at least for most of the questions which we were try- ing to answer. In respect to resources, a basic problem, it will be necessary to pursue this further, since individual re- actions to collecting policies are sought. Mr. Cook will study this problem in more detail as a doctoral investigation in the School of Library Service. I should mention that since the survey was closed in respect to questionnaires, we have received a large number of fac- ulty replies. These will be used by Mr. Cook in his analysis of the relation of the faculty to the building of library col- lections. One general question of methodology which might be raised in connection with this survey is concerned with the estimate of objectivity. Were not the individuals associated with the study so close to the Libraries that it would not be possible for the members to be ob- jective in recommendations? T h e self- study, of course, may have certain limita- tions in this respect. It should be re- membered, however, that the general study by the President's Committee was basically self-study, even though outside consultants were used and visits were made to other universities. In the use of standards and general principles of uni- versity library administration, it may be said that the subcommittee, as well as the supervising librarians who worked closely with the study during its entire period, were constantly critical and bent over backwards in trying to attain ob- jectivity. Undoubtedly, there are some observations which might have occurred to outsiders and which might have escaped the attention of persons associ- ated with the particular institution. It might be said in this connection, how- ever, that the President's Committee was rigorous in its concern about question- naires and the general structure of the survey. In so far as self-surveys are likely to be introspective, I suspect that the Columbia Libraries survey may have suf- fered somewhat. From my knowledge of surveys of other libraries, however, I would guess that the suffering would be minimal. JULY 1958 279 D E V I C E S F O R M E A S U R I N G A D E Q U A C Y One of the great difficulties in eval- uating a library is to measure needs and services. What does an institution need in terms of service? What kinds of serv- ices should the libraries provide? How does one measure book collections, budg- ets, catalogs, and classification systems or reference service and other activities of the library? Why are buildings, or li- brary quarters, inadequate? In the development of the self-study, a total of 165 questions were evolved which were concerned with the various parts of the library service—administra- tive organization, resources, cataloging and classification, quarters, equipment, preservation of materials and photodu- plication, personnel, readers' services, in- terlibrary cooperation, and financial sup- port. These questions were reviewed as to their efficacy in providing a basis for drawing conclusions on the ten ques- tions which formed the basis of the study. Many of these questions are an- swered in the survey. Others require more minute studies which should be made during the next decade, unless there are developments in librarianship which will change the patterns which we follow today. It may be worth reviewing these areas in terms of instruments of measurement. Administrative Organization. How does one measure administrative organ- ization? T h e existence of organizational charts to show relationships is but a sim- ple start. T h e history of C o l u m b i a Uni- versity Libraries in respect to its ad- ministrative organization has been one of considerable change since 1943. T h e pattern has been altered three times in major administrative posts. T h e present structure of supervising librarians, de- veloped on the basis of subject or phys- ical units (e.g., the law librarian, or the librarian of the physical sciences), has proved successful for the present. T h e general, centralized system of the Li- braries, with the exception of the af- filiated institutions, likewise has been re- garded by the university and library administrations as effective and worth retaining. T h r o u g h meetings held reg- ularly, memoranda, and direct contact, the supervising librarians work closely with the director and assistant director in carrying on the work of the Libraries. In response to specific questions on the general pattern of the library adminis- tration, there were no serious suggestions that any unit of the Libraries be given completely independent authority. Such special needs as separate acquisition or cataloging units, which exist in the law and medical Libraries, have been met when necessary. T h i s is also true for local cataloging units for music and East Asiatic libraries, for indexing in the Avery architectural library, and for similar operations. In regard to communications within the libraries and from the libraries to the administration, and vice versa, it was observed that although there were efforts to communicate freely, important lapses have occurred in both respects. T h e creation of a Library Committee of the University Council in 1951 led to im- proved communications. T h i s has been furthered by the inclusion of the Direc- tor of Libraries on the President's Com- mittee on Educational Policy. Resources. How does one measure the resources of a Library? In surveys of li- braries which have been made in Amer- ican university libraries, there has been a common pattern of evaluating hold- ings through such measurements as (1) checking the resources against bibliog- raphies in separate subject fields, (2) seeking faculty opinions on the strengths and limitations of collections, (3) exam- ining users' difficulties in obtaining materials needed for course work and re- search, and (4) measuring the collections against the holdings of other research libraries in the country. T h e volume by Robert B. Downs, The Resources of Li- 280 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES braries of New York City, issued in 1937, contains considerable information about the holdings of the Columbia Libraries, among the other libraries in the city. Although out of date, it provides a pre- liminary guide to the collecting direc- tions of the Columbia Libraries, which have been acquiring materials on a world basis to meet the needs of instruc- tion and research. In the Columbia survey, we did not check bibliographies specifically for in- formation. T h i s does not mean that de- partmental librarians have not used bib- liographies as guides in the development of collections. T h i s practice has been an automatic procedure of the Libraries, and the items in the desiderata file in the acquisitions department represent either the lack of funds or the inability to obtain items at reasonable prices. It was learned from interviews and from other sources of information—de- partmental librarians and faculty mem- bers themselves (in questionnaires)— that there was room for improvement on the part of the faculty in the develop- ment of resources. T h e assumption held that faculty members were largely re- sponsible for the development of the col- lections was sorely tested in the Colum- bia survey. Despite this failure in many respects, it must be said that the faculty members who do participate in selection jealously guard this right, and indeed there was a strong feeling that publicity should be given to the amount of book funds allotted to different departments. Faculty opinions regarding the re- sources were obtained on a wide scale through a separate section of a faculty questionnaire. Many of the individual faculty members did remarkable jobs in analyzing their collections from the point of view of level of collecting: (1) basic information collection, collect mate- rials on a limited basis in fields not cov- ered in curriculum (agriculture), (2) a working collection, which is adequate to determine current knowledge in a sub- ject in broad outline and support under- graduate courses, (3) a general research collection, which contains materials ade- quate to the needs of graduate students of the subject, (4) a comprehensive col- lection, which goes beyond the general research collection in depth and types of materials, language, and period of time covered, (5) exhaustive collection, which attempts to gather all materials on the subject. T h e report provides a detailed section, worked out by William L . Williamson and Erie Kemp, of the Libraries staff, of the reports of the faculty members on their respective fields. T h e departmental librarians were asked to evaluate the collections in much the same way as the faculties. T h e r e was an extremely high correlation between the evaluations of the departmental li- brarians and those of the faculty mem- bers. It might be assumed that this was to be expected and that the librarians oriented the faculty members in the de- ficiencies and strengths in the collections. T h i s is perhaps true to some extent. T h e point might well be made, however, that the faculty members at Columbia are highly individualistic and are independ- ent in their views. In most of the re- ports from several members of a teach- ing department there was a common reaction to the status of the collections. T h e r e is no hiding of the fact that cer- tain collections at Columbia are weak and that present funds are not permit- ting the proper development of them. One of the ways in which the subcom- mittee attempted to evaluate the collec- tions was through the questioning of all —except two—of the Ph.D. graduates of 1956. Columbia offers the Ph.D. de- gree in forty-nine different fields, and ar- rangements may be made to take the degree in other fields. In addition, doc- toral degrees are awarded to professional students in seven additional fields (sci- ence of law, medical science, public health, education, engineering science, JULY 1958 281 social welfare, and library science). It was found that Columbia was able to provide source materials for 90 per cent of the students (ninety-one answered during the period provided, although several other forms came in later) who responded. What was evident in the re- sponses was the wide range of libraries in New York City and elsewhere—in- cluding foreign countries—used by the doctoral students in the development of their dissertations. Other Areas.—Various approaches were made to problems dealing with cataloging and classification, quarters, equipment, preservation of materials, photoduplication, personnel, readers' services, interlibrary cooperation, and fi- nance. T h e s e are spelled out in some de- tail in the published volume and cannot be discussed in this brief report. It should also be noted that the several questionnaires used in the study are in- cluded in the volume. H.R. 10381 At the college level we must provide library service to meet the needs not only of an enormously increased enrollment b u t also of the revolutionary new demands for study and research in science, languages, and other rapidly widening fields. T h e great research libraries must be strengthened in their holdings, their bibliographi- cal services, and their ability to make instantly available to American scientists the results of foreign, as well as domestic, research. It is in these libraries that much re- search begins. . . . T h e library is the intellectual laboratory of every school system—of the sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, the fine arts. It is in many ways the nerve cen- ter, the communications center of the vital intellectual functions of a school, col- lege, or university. Because of the increasingly complex nature of our educational structure, and in the face of the increasing demands of growing student bodies, .libraries need more support than ever before. Any scholarship program, any re- sfear^h program, any increase in enrollment, any widening of collegiate functions causes comparable increases in the demands on college libraries and on their use. T h e amount and complexity of printed and other materials produced which must be systematically acquired, processed, and retrieved for use by the student and research worker,"demand increased skills and training. It would indeed be tragic if there were support on a national level for the subject fields, especially sci- ence and technology, without accompanying effort to train sufficiently the neces- sary number of librarians needed to collect, organize and produce on demand these materials. T o be able to meet satisfactorily the continuing national emergency, greater numbers of more highly trained librarians must be forthcoming. T h e field of library science is not a large one, but even percentage-wise there are pitifully few scholarships available at the present time. As the nation and the states move to strengthen the educational foundations of our security and freedom, it is imperative that the country's need for libraries and their services at all levels of education b e fully recognized and adequate provision be made for their support.—Part of a statement by Germaine Krettek, director of ALA's Washington office, on H.R. 10381 before the House Subcommittee on Educa- tion. 282 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES