College and Research Libraries Revie-w Articles Patterns of &holarship Changing Patterns of Schola'rship and the Future of Research Libraries: A sympo- sium in celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the establishment of the University of Pennsylvania Library. [Rudolph Hirsch, editor] Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Press, 1951. I33P· $2.50. This is an important contribution to the literature of research librarianship. While the individual papers contain little that is new, the cumulative effect of the papers under the special circumstances of the symposium is very interesting. Participating in the sympo- sium was an experienced group of some eight major , speakers and twelve discussants. Of the total group, thirteen are now, or until quite recently have been, associated directly with research library administration. The other seven contributors are principally en- gaged in teaching and research and related scholarly pursuits. Much of the interest grows out of the fact that the speakers were assigned their topics, in advance of th~ meet- ings, with specific and, in a number of in- stances, provocative . commentaries. A fair share of interest in reading the symposium therefore, relates to the contrast between what those who are primarily librarians and what those who are primarily scholars have to say on some of these common topics. The papers are also inter.esting for the other variant views they contain and for what is not said. The topics cannot all be equally important, but a very wide range of the critically current and important is covered. The commentaries in a number of instances are so phrased as to reveal an intentional or unintentional bias on the part of the organizer, Charles W. David, which the speakers sometimes accept, and sometimes depart from quite sharply. It is neither necessary nor possible for this review to attempt to summarize all the as- pects of this Symposium, but it is appropriate to indicate the nature of some of the topics and, where it seems possible, something con- cerning the kinds of answers that were pre- sented. The general topics of the Symposium together with the principal speakers were as follows: OCTOBER .. 1952 "Patterns of Research and Changing Library Needs," Crane Brinton and Conway Zinkie. Discussion by Ralph A. Beals and G eorge A. Hutchinson. "The Ever-Expanding Demand for Materials and the Threatened Decline of Support: How shall the Gap be Filled?", Keyes D. Metcalf. Discussion by Luther Evans and A !fred H. Williams. " The Research Library in Contemporary Soci- ety: A Problem of the Proper Recognition of Services Rendered," Carl M. White. Discus- sion by Kurt Peiser and Louis B. Wright. "The Balance of Conflicting Interests in the Building of Collections: Comprehensiveness versus Selectivity," f/ ern er W. Clapp and Ralph Ellsworth. Discussion by A !b ert C. Baugh and Donald Coney. "Libraries and Scholarship: Should Libraries Be Passive Instruments of, or Active Partici- pants in, Research?", Harry M. Lydenberg. Discussion by Conyers R ead and Warner G. Rice. . "What Type Research Librarian?", Louis Round Wilson. Discussion by C. H. Brown and Donald F. Cameron. In the presentation these topics were divided into two major areas: "The Library" and "The Intellectual Process." As the topics were outlined and presented , this distinction was not very meaningful. The pattern of the symposium consisted in the presentation for each topic of a major, but brief , paper-in two instances, two papers were presented_:_ followed by a more or less formal commen- tary or extension of remarks by two discuss- ants. Following this there was usually some further very informal discussion including the program participants and the audience. Only the last element of the program is omitted from the published volume. It will be seen that the title of the book is a little misleading since it turns out that the papers deal with chan.ging patterns of research in only a very limited way. There are a few general observations that one may hazard on these interesting proceed- ings. First, the papers indicate that the schol- ars and the librarians-to set up a dichotomy that is common in our professional vocabu - laries but which is often non-existent in prac- tice, as Wilson reveals very nicely in his paper -are, in a considerable measure , concerned 393 about the same things, but the answers to their concerns often take quite different direc- tions. There is a widely expressed concern with the physical growth of libraries and the in- crease in the costs of operation of large schol- arly libraries. There is some mutual concern with bibliographical organization. The humanistic scholar's approach to these problems is given by Messrs. Brinton, Baugh, and Read, and one can distinguish common and divergent attitudes even though each of these speakers participated in different topics. Brinton does not seem concerned with either the growth of literature or the bibliographical organization of it. He pleads for even greater coverage including what he recognizes as the apparently trivial and ephemeral, but is satis- fied to leave library bibliographical organiza- tion at approximately its present levels. His views are succinctly put in the first paragraph where he says that the demand upon facilities " ... is ... almost infinite, wholly elastic. We shall take what you give us, and always ask for more." Baugh, while stating the case for fairly comprehensive coverage, recognizes that some degree of selectivity in library acquisitions is inevitable and outlines the levels on which selectivity might well be approached. At the level of greatest specialization he joins with Coney in asserting that the collecting policies of the research library should reflect the cur- rent interests of the faculty. · Conyers Read in a series of forceful and refreshing remarks implies that exhaustive coverage in special subject fields might b~~t emerge in the future from an increasing num- ber of smaller specialized libraries such as the Folger and the Library of the College of Phy- sicians. He hopes that such libraries can be established. These libraries could concen- trate their collecting about a limited subject area and develop concurrently special biblio- graphical tools of great value to research per- sonnel. The scientists, Zirkle and Hutchinson, seem in some ways closer to the thinking of the librarians. Zirkle and Hutchinson both recog- nize the fundamentally critical aspects of the present rates of growth. Zirkle recognizes the problem essentially in terms of the need for a far more elaborate and efficient biblio- graphical organization of literature, but Hutchinson points out more clearly than any- one else in the symposium that a large amount of the growth is wasteful and redundant and recognizes that among the fundamental solu- tions is a requirement that research personnel write only when they have something worth saying and then do so clearly and succinctly. But Mr. Hutchinson makes another observa- tion of importance that may easily be over- looked, for he does not stress the point. He urges that ". . . a great deal more effort should be put into making comprehensive monographs and summaries that really do render most copies of everything that ~ent before quite unnecessary, at least in the sci- ences." It has been for a long time one of the most firmly established scholarly tradi- tions that an author should always go to the original sources-if he can. A basic change in the methods of scholarship of the kind out- lined would obviously be difficult to carry through, yet, in the opinion of the reviewer, such a change in many fields of knowledge may well become imperative. The sheer growth of knowledge will require that schol- ars be increasingly concerned . about the effi- cient disposition of their time, and they will more and more find it impossible to read and digest all of the relevant original works bear- ing on a piece of investigation-even if the original works are isolated by an efficient bib- liographical apparatus. The librarians believe that individual li- braries cannot be complete on all aspects of knowledge, but there appears to be no con- sistent agreement among them on the effects of this observation and the ways in which it should be recognized and met. It is said that libraries will, and should, continue to be _as complete as their individual resources will permit, that they can solve the problem either at the national or regional level through co- operation ·in storage and acquisition, that inter- library loan is not an adequate substitute for immediate access, that the importance of im- mediate access is tangible but quantitatively and qualitatively unknown, that the solution is not one of contraction in collecting and services, but greater public recognition and support, that federal and industrial support of large research libraries may be a partial an- swer, that the relation of collections to bibli- ography-local, regional, national, subject-is important, but imperfectly understood. 394 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES From all of this it becomes clear that both the librarians and the scholars are conscious of critical problems affecting research libraries. On the whole the librarians are more con- scious of the ramifications of the problems than are the scholars. While there are a large number of solutions and partial solutions sug- gested, there is no real unanimity on the direc- tion in which solutions are most likely to be found. Furthermore it is important to note that many of the proffered answers are un- likely to be within our grasp in the immediate future. Above all it is apparent that there are major gaps in our general knowledge of scholarly needs and behavior that urgently require filling, if we are to find appropriate answers. It is in the stimulus to such think- ing that the principal value of this book rests. We congratulate the University of Pennsyl- vania on this highly constructive observation of the 20oth anniversary of the founding of its library.-H erman H. Fussier, University of Chicago Library. Philosophy of Professional Education Social Work Education in the United States,· the report of a study made for the National Council on Social Work Education. By Ernest V. Hollis and Alice L. Taylor. New York, Columbia University Press, I95 I. xviii, 422p. $s.so. Librarians familiar with the activities lead- ing to presentation of standards for accredita- tion by the American Library Association's Board of Education for Librarianship to the Association's Council last summer, will re- member the senior author of this study, Ernest V. Hollis, for his two appearances before groups of the library profession in the inter- ests of clarifying basic issues and reaching an understanding of the proper role of an ac- crediting body within a profession. In the opinion of this reviewer, then chairman of the Board of Education for Librarianship, Hollis' steadying hand based on wide experience and study of professional education was a signifi- cant factor in producing a document which received the Council's unanimous approval (reported in A me ric an Library Association Bulletin 46: 48-9, February, I952). This study of social work education was OCTOBER, 1952 done with the assistance of Alice L. Taylor, training consultant, Bureau of Public Assist- ance, Federal Security Agency, and in consul- tation with many others in the field of higher education in general and social work educa- tion in particular. Titles of the three major sections describe its scope: I. Foundati~ns for Educational Planning; II. Charting a course for Social Work Education; and III. Implica- tions: Translating the report into action. The book is reviewed here, not so much for its contribution to the field of Social Work Edu- cation, which will no doubt be considerable, but rather for its relevance to current prob- lems in developing a sound program of pro- fessional education for librarianship. The questions in common with librarianship are many including: (I) need for a more thor- ough understanding of the evolution of educa- tion for librarianship; ( 2) need to define more clearly the scope and status of library work and to take cognizance of ·the probable future role of librarians in a h:ghly complex society; ( 3) decisions as to the respective roles of. the undergraduate and graduate colleges in the professional education of librarians and the desirable administrative structure within institutions of higher education; (4) educa- tional responsibilities of professional associa- tions; ( 5) accreditation. Except for some elision and the substitution of library work for social work, the above topics are actually the chapter headings of the Hollis-Taylor study. Working backwards with respect to the above list of topics, six different organizations are now engaged in some form of accredita- tion of social work education or have ex- pressed such intentions: (I) American Association of Medical Social Workers; (2) American Association of Psychiatric Social Workers; ( 3) American Association of Group Workers; (4) National Association of School Social Workers; (5) American Association of Schools of Social Work (54 schools accredited up to I950) ; and ( 6) National Association of Schools of Social Work Administration (list- ing 39 members in I950). The first four are individual membership organizations, the·· last two, associations of institutions. A funda- mental cleavage between the latter stems from differences of opinion on the amount of general education that should precede the professional program and on the nature of preprofessio~al 395 .