College and Research Libraries


tion Science. It is hoped that the others 
will be equally as impressive. The gener-
al objectives are excellent-Donald E. 
Thompson, Wabash College. 

The Maturity of Librarianship as a Pro-
fession. By Dale Eugene Shaffer. Me-
tuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1968. 
166p. $5. (68-2631). 

Although he contends that "the future 
appears very bright for librarianship," Shaf-
fer paints a dark picture of its status as a 
profession in this compact almanac of pro-
fessionalism. "Librarians like to think of 
their occupation as a profession and do not 
want it thought of as a job or b·ade. How-
ever, it is still considerably below the re-
quirements set up by the recognized pro-
fessions of law and medicine." (pp. 131-
132) 

This dismal conclusion is based on an 
extended summary and analysis of what 
many authors have said over many years 
about the true professional and his role in 
society. Shaffer measures librarianship 
against his restatement of the criteria for 
professional status and finds it wanting. 
He then offers a sort of catalog of recom-
mended means of salvation from this 
wretched state. If long, numbered lists of 
verbal propositions supplemented by even 
longer lists of professional and educational 
institutions, associations, and accrediting 
bodies can win an argument, Shaffer is a 
winner. He even lists the thirty-nine ac-
credited librarianship schools (as of 1967) 
and the eighty-three national, state, and 
local library associations. 

However, there is a certain verbal 
scholasticism to the whole procedure. This 
is not Shaffer's fault. It is inherent in the 
question, "Is librarianship a profession?" 
Reduced to absurdity, the syllogism goes 
this way: 

The only ancient and true professions are 
law, theology and medicine; librarianship 
is not law, theology or medicine; therefore, 
librarianship is not a profession. 

Although Shaffer's argument is some 166 
pages more complicated than this, it is still 
circular. 

Librarianship should not strive to emu-
late other occupations, just because they 

Recent Publications I 383 

are called "professions," at the expense of 
"doing its own thing" (as the current jar-
gon has it) . This is not to say that there is 
no value in Shaffer's carefully worded in-
dictments and his corresponding catalog of 
remedies. However, their value should be 
judged according to their potential for 
making the occupation a better servant of 
society rather than in meeting the terms of 
some arbitrary definition derived from the 
Oath of Hippocrates. 

Just as the study of Saint Thomas is ex-
cellent discipline for the seminarian; so is 
the reading of Shaffer an excellent way to 
introduce the neophyte into the prof . . . er 
... occupation of librarianship. All the ma-
terials for his hair shirt are here. Should 
such standard lamentations as "full mem-
bership in the American Library Associa-
tion is open to anyone having an interest 
in librarianship" or "no specialized body of 
theory presently exists which requires com-
munication" (p. 132) fail to evoke appro-
priate feelings of inferiority, then try the 
Curse of Eve: 

Eighty-five per cent of those in librarian-
ship are females. Consequently, the public 
views librarianship as a woman's work, in 
contrast to the recognized professions, 
which are predominantly male. (p. 133) 

(At this point your reviewer prefers to join 
the ladies in opting out of Shaffer's Com-
pany of the Elect.) 

Shaffer does not burden his arguments 
with a plethora of footnotes. Sources of 
major points and direct quotations only are 
given. So thoroughly has he reworked and 
synthesized a very large body of literature 
that a footnote for every sentence or so 
would be required to document it com-
pletely. Detailed bibliographic access to 
the literature is readily available elsewhere, 
notably in Gilda Nimer's recent "Profes-
sions and Professionalism: A Bibliographic 
Overview" in the University of Maryland 
School of Library and Information Service's 
Manpower Research Project Newsletter, 
no. 2, July 1966. 

Speaking of the Maryland and Manpow-
er Project, Shaffer's work seems to have 
been completed before the advent of that 
massive assault on the problems of librar-
ianship as a profession. At any rate, he 



384 I College & Research Libraries • July 1969 

makes no reference to such major docu-
ments as Mary Lou Bundy's "Profession-
alism Reconsidered" (CRL 29: January 
1968, 5-26). Less understandable is his 
failure to cite sociologist William J. Goode's 
oft-reprinted deflation of the claims of li-
brarianship to professional status, "The Li-

brarian from Occupation to Profession," Li-
brary Quarterly, 31: October 1961, 306-
318. On the other hand, let's face it, so-
ciology isn't law, medicine, or theology 
either.-Perry D. Morrison, University of 
Oregon. 

••