College and Research Libraries


168 I College & Research Libraries • March 1977 

with divergent alternatives in the use of 
catalog copy. · 

The book should be quite useful to li-
brary school students and new catalogers. 
For those catalogers with considerable ex-
perience, there is perhaps too much detail 
and tedious repetition, although many will 
welcome the handy reminder of the alterna-
tives they face daily. Detailed discussion 
is provided regarding integrating the de-
scription, main entry, added entries, subject 
headings, and classification/ call numbers 
into an existing system. The format consists 
of many questions, followed by alternative 
answers, each of which is accompanied by 
a list of the benefits and -liabilities that will 
result from any decision made. A summary 
of the questions and alternative answers is 
provided at the end of each chapter, and 
then a comprehensive summary closes the 
entire work. 

The author has provided a great deal of 
help to the novice in understanding the 
idiosyncrasies of Library of · Congress prac-
tice. Several appendixes also provide use-
ful information, such as a comparison of 
ISBD and pre-ISBD punctuation rules, a 
sample copy cataloging manual, and de-
scriptions of commercial sources of equip-
ment for photocopying entries from book 
catalogs, duplicating services, sources of 
catalog card sets, and processing sets. 

The author effectively demonstrates that 
"it is possible to use out$ide copy exactly 
as it appears only if the library and its users 
are willing to accept the potential conse-
quences: varying forms of erib::y; lack of 
some locally needed entry points; subject 
separation of editions and other related ma-
terials; errors or discrepancies that cause 
mis-filing or that convey misinformation; 
widely variant classification for the same 
subject, editions, or translations; and insuffi-
ciently complete call numbers" (p.231). A 
careful reading of Cataloging with Copy 
should provide any cataloger with a better 
understanding of the perplexities of copy 
cataloging.-John L. Sayre, Director of 
University Libraries, Phillips University, 
Enid, Oklahoma. 

Studies in Library Management. Volume 
Three. Edited by Gileon Holroyd. Lon-
don: Clive Bingley; · Hamden, Conn.: 
Linnet Books, 1976. 192p. $10.00. 

ISBN 0-85157-213-8 Bingley; ISBN 
0-208-01526-4 Linnet; ISSN 0307-0808. 
The aim of this series of studies is to 

acquaint librarians and library students 
with the latest developments and trends in 
management theory and practice. This 
third volume in the series contains six 
studies drawn from both sides of the Atlan-
tic and one from Australia. 

The first study, by Ralph Blasingame 
and Mary Jo Lynch, looks at the work of 
the Public Library Association on defining 
new standards or guidelines for public li-
brary systems and is a rewrite of their con-
tribution to the debate on this topic. For 
those, like the present writer, who are not 
fully conversant already with the debate 
this paper should be of considerable inter-
est and value. The authors' analysis of the 
traditional public library and its setting is 
one which could be usefully applied to 
other libraries outside the public sector. 

James A. Hennessy's study on urban in-
formation management requires very care-
ful reading and a background knowledge of 
British local and national government to be 
fully understood, and this paper may be be-
yond the reach of many library students 
particularly in the U.S.A. Elizabeth Orna 
presents a clear and far-sighted view of the 
structure and inner workings of an indus-
trial training board and the importance to 
the development of an effective ser\rice for 
an organization. 

Patricia Layzell Ward's study of the ca-
reer patterns of U.K. librarians is mainly of 
interest for its survey of trends over the 
past forty years. Gileon Holroyd's survey 
of the Maryland manpower studies, whilst 
making interesting reading, is also a valu-
able starting point for selecting parts of the 
Maryland project for reading in depth. 

The study on finance and librarians deals 
with the financial background to British 
public libraries and universities. Whilst this 
background is only too familiar to practis-
ing British librarians in these sectors, the 
details are accurate and up to date and 
would make valuable reading for students 
specializing in these fields of librarianship. 
Colin F. Cayless' concluding paper on eval-
uating administrative effectiveness is as 
much a literature survey as an evaluation. 

All the studies are very readable, and 
the majority contain a commendable lack 



of jargon. Useful bibliographies appear at 
the end of each study. They should be of 
value to library students in both Britain 
an~ the U.S.A., not only for their insight 
into current problems in library manage-
ment but also for the valuable background 
information they contain. 

Practising librarians may well not wish 
to read every study .in detail, but the ma-
jority should find something of relevance 
and value in this volume.-]. K. Roberts, 
Librarian, University of Wales Institute of 
Science & Technology, Cardiff, Wales. 

Archive-Library Relations. Edited by Rob-
ert L. Clark, Jr. · New York: Bowker, 
1976. 218p. $15.95. LC 76-18806. ISBN 
0-8352-077 0-6. 
Expecting much from a book with such 

a title and from contributors of recognized 
stature, I was . aqutely disappointed. This 
volume, designed to explore the relation-
ships that exist between the library and 
archival professions, is weak becaus_e it is 
devoid of analysis and without demonstra-
ble historic~! perspective. The principal 
authors, Robert L. Clark, Jr., and Frank C. 
Burke, simply don't get to the heart of the 
matter. 

For example, most major manuscript col-
lections have developed within the context 
of libraries, more particularly within "spe-
cial collections" units administered by those 
with a rare books orientation. In addition, 
early manuscript collecting was for reasons 
of institutional prestige, was inherently 
elitist, and did not attempt to be compre-
hensive in its documentary, coverage of 
events and developments. Under these his-
torical circumstances a rarities approach 
seemed to be suited. Not so for modern 
manuscript collections which seek compre-
hensiveness of documentation and which 
are becoming the repositories for corporate 
records and personal papers as quickly as 
they reach inactive status. 

No heed is given to the fact that archives 
for public records are primarily extensions 
of administration and have only secondary 
value for research, thereby clearly differen-
tiating them from manuscript collections 
which are assembled primarily for research. 
Historically, it was this same kind of con-
fusion of purposes (and demonstrated here 
by Clark and Burke) which impeded the 

Recent Publications I 169 

development of archival theory and prac-
tice in the U.S. The writings' of Margaret 
Cross Norton1 and T. R. Schellenberg2 
point this out, but arguing cogently and 
convincingly against the appropriateness of 
applying library methodology to archives 
and manuscript collections. Neither Burke 
nor Clark shows evidence of any familiarity 
with the writings of Norton or Schellen-
berg, yet I'm confident they are. 

If the above judgment seems unduly neg-
ative,. it is, nevertheless, justified in light of 
the recent Modern Manuscripts by Kenneth 
Duckett. 3 For all the good things about 
Duckett's book, it is absolutely archaic in 
its coverage of contemporary ·collection de-
velopment and recommendations for "bib-
liographical control." Burke and Clark share 
his weakness, and all three look to technol-
ogy to save us, Burke through Spindex and 
Clark through MARC. 

Clark avoids the historical/ institutional 
setting in dealing with the administrative 
placement of the management of archival 
and manuscript collections in libraries, be-
lieving the problem i,s a personality issue, 
not an institutional one (see especially 
p.157-60) . . As noted above, the placement 
of manuscript collections under special col-
lections units has been damaging historical-
ly, impeding the development of an appro- . 
priate body of theory and practice to deal 
effectively with the man~gement of manu-
script collections. The placement of state 
archives under library administration as 
well confounds the primary function of a 
state archives which is an extension of state 
administration (see p.156-60). 

If the above assessment of this book is 
harsh, it is intended to be just that. Both 
B"!-uke and Clark act as though the differ-
ences of these disparate functions ought to 
be blurred if we are to nurture amiable re-
lationships. But if that is their hope, we 
will continue in a miasma lacking the neces-
sary historical perspective, and without that 
no analysis of these relationships will lead 
us out of the fog. 

There are strengths in the book, how-
ever. Both Burke and Clark, despite their 
shortcomings, do describe (but do not 
"analyze") the archival and library "set-
tings," methodology, education, collection, 
poliCies, and administrative relations. Miri-
am Crawford's sections on '1egislation,