College and Research Libraries


Participative Management 

Participative management is a live subject in librarianship. It has been dis-
cussed frequently in the pages of this journal, and many academic librarians are 
directly involved in committees and projects of all sorts, communicating, setting 
goals, evaluating themselves and their peers, raising standards and productivity. 
Participation has heightened awareness. In the process, aspirations have been 
raised for librarianship and for librarians. For these reasons, the draft proposal 
of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science should spur 
widespread interest from the library community. The report's recommendation for 
streamlining the bibliographic apparatus, integrating a disparate collection of li-
braries and information centers into a national system is long overdue. Yet be-
cause their expectations have been raised, librarians will also want to know more 
than the document now tells them, and how they fit into the proposed scheme. 

Ironically, the word "librarians" doesn't even appear in this 18 page proposal 
called "A New National Program of Library and Information Service." True, the 
document does devote two brief paragraphs and a stray sentence or two ·to 
human resources. But the gist of these references is simply that human re-
source needs have not been assessed and that nobody knows just what they 
are ( p. 3); and that new educational approaches to manpower development 
will be required ( p. 11). Although this may imply that the proposed system will 
come to grips with the very real probability of technological unemployment, this 
matter remains ill-defined. And because technology is a sweeping current which 
may be redirected but cannot be reversed, this is only one aspect of a more 
overriding question. Thi~ concerns decision-making power and the nature and 
effects of library /information science work. 

What role will the cataloger, administrator, reference librarian, academic 
librarian/ specialist, etc. ( or their future counterparts ) have in the proposed 
national system of library and information centers? Will they participate in 
such decisions as what kinds of data bases or information and abstracting services 
will be included; how information will be analyzed; whom it will serve, and how 
the costs will be distributed when the system is operational? Will there be any 
assurances that critical viewpoints will be represented; that searches won't be 
made on who's requesting what data; that government information will be more 
accessible rather than less so as a result of the new system? 

The Commission may have considered some of these questions, and its support 
for studies of user needs reflects an essential perspective. At the same time, the 
draft document itseH is based on economic arguments, with a few social benefits 
thrown in. Persuasive as these may be, the document ignores any discussion of 
social costs. 

In other areas of our existence, we have learned at our peril that these so-
called "externalities'' cannot be ignored. ·Least of all can we afford to ignore them 
in the knowledge industry. The NCLIS should examine how the recommended 
national library and information system will affect the knowledge workers who 
will operate it, and whether its social benefits to society will outweigh its 
social costs. 

ANITA R. SCHILLER 

I 417