College and Research Libraries Recent PublicatioilS BOOK REVIEWS COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES Davis, Donald Gordon, Jr. The Association of American Library Schools, 1915-1968: An Analytical History, reviewed by Samuel Rothstein 157 Davis, Donald Gordon, Jr. Comparative Historical Analysis of Three Associations of Pro- fessional Schools, reviewed by Samuel Rothstein 157 Harleston, Rebekah M., and Stoffie, Carla J. Administration of Government Documents Collections, reviewed by Joyce Ball 158 Parish, David W. State Government Reference Publications: An Annotated Bibliography, reviewed by Earl Shumaker . 159 Stevens, Robert D., and Stevens, Helen C., eds. Reader in Documents on International Organizations, reviewed by Mary J. Ryan 160 Basler, Roy P. The Muse and the Librarian, reviewed by Norman Hoyle . 161 Kennedy, James R., Jr. Library Research Guide to Religion and Theology: Illustrated Search Strategy and Sources, reviewed by Margaret Umberger 162 Other Books of Interest to Academic Librarians . 162 Davis, Donald Gordon, Jr. The Association of American Library Schools, 1915-1968: An A .nalytical History. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1974. 385p. $12.50. Davis, Donald Gordon, Jr. Comparative Historical A .nalysis of Three Associa- tions of Professional Schools. ( U niversi- ty of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science Occasional Papers, no.115. Sep- tember 1974) 39p. $1.00. Most library histories have been little more than pious memorials, blandly chron- icling events with scant attempt to ascer- tain or convey their real significance. Don- ald Davis' twofold assessment of the Asso- ciation of American Library Schools (i.e., the accredited library schools) is an abrupt departure from that unwelcome tradition of "nihil nisi bonum ." There can be few li- brary publications which are as forcefully critical and frank, as determinedly judg- mental as these two monographs. The two were originally one, joined to- gether as Davis' doctoral dissertation, com- pleted in 1972. The Scarecrow Press book is the main work, constituting essentially the original dissertation sans the section on "comparative analysis of three associations." The Occasional Paper represents the eco- nomical recycling of the material removed from the book. From internal evidence, one may guess that the revision has been more a case of not always well-concealed cutting and pasting than of extensive rewriting. The studies address themselves to the question: "What has been the role of the AALS in education for librarianship?" or, rather more bluntly, "Have the criticisms of the AALS been justified?" ( p.3). The answers are to be found in reviewing the history of the AALS itself and in compar- ing the role of the AALS with that played by two other associations of professional I 157 158 I College & Research Libraries • March 1975 schools: the Association of American Law Schools ( AALawS) and the Council on So- cial Work Education (CSWE). Both approaches lead Davis to conclu- sions which amount to a verdict of: very guilty. "The AALS has not played a very influential part in the development of li- brary education," and "the general criti- cisms of the AALS were amply supported by the evidence examined," says the book ( p.298). The Occasional Paper is hardly less severe: "The library school association did not to any degree obtain the effective- ness in achieving objectives that wa~ dis- played by the comparison groups" (p.33- 34). Davis accounts for this failure by iden- tifying two "fatal weaknesses" in the AALS -its lack of identity and its too often half- hearted leadership. The two factors were interdependent. Having yielded responsi- bility for accreditation and the establish- ment of standards to the American Library Association, the AALS seemed to have no clear idea of what it was for or what it was to do. The main impetus for its continued existence was reduced to not much more than a simple desire for informal commu- nication and fellowship ( p.299) . This lack of a sense of mission in tum made it all too easy for many AALS officers to give the as- sociation a low priority in their attention .and efforts. Or perhaps, Davis speculates, it was the other way around-ineffective leadership making for vagueness and leth- argy regarding goals and activities. In any case, it was the classic vicious circle. For these harsh verdicts Davis offers am- ple evidence, perhaps even too much. Con- sidering his view that AALS had so few tangible accomplishments to show for its existence, it seems somewhat odd, not to say dull, to have him give a year-by-year, program-by-program detailing of what little went on. Yet in another sense, one may wonder if Davis has collected the right sort of evidence at all. He apparently obtained testimony only from the "producers" of AALS programs, who probably suffered the normal sense of guilt about the gap be- tween their aspirations and achievements. But did the "consumers"-the ordinary members-feel any similar disappointment? Perhaps informal interchange of ideas and a chance to get to know colleagues were quite good enough for them? Davis might well have found out, but he did not try. Some doubts also attach themselves to the comparisons which Davis makes with the other professional school associations: AALawS and CSWE. One fact may be enough to make the point: At the 1968 meetiogs of the three groups, AALawS reg- istered 1,853 persons, CSWE more than 2,000, and AALS about 100. With this de- gree of disparity in size and resources, are the three associations really comparable? A final caveat must be made in respect of the "currency" of these studies. Al- though Davis circumspectly makes it clear that his gloomy conclusions apply only to the period up to 1968, it would be easy to infer from his studies that AALS' s past has been prologue to a hopeless present. In point of fact, however, AALS's directions and character seem to have changed rather considerably since 1968. Membership, ac- tivities, and resources are all much greater than ever; it is thriving as never before. In short, AALS's future might well invalidate its past. Would it not be ironic if Davis' his- torical study, so admirably thorough, can- did, and forthright, turned out to be of only historical interest?-Samuel Rothstein, Pro- fessor, School of Librarianship, University of British Columbia, Vancouver . Harleston, Rebekah M., and StofBe, Carla J. Administration of Government Docu- ments CoUections. Littleton, Colo.: Li- braries Unlimited, 197 4. 178p. $9.50. There has long been the need for a stan- dard manual for the processing of U.S. doc- uments. This is an excellent publication which should fill this need for almost every library; those libraries which have not pre- viously developed their own manual can easily use this. Every function and routine in a documents collection is clearly defined, carefully and concisely explained, and ac- companied by appropriate sample cards or forms. Chapters cover the history and develop- ment of government publishing and the de- pository system, the SuDocs classification, bibliographical control, types and forms of records, acquisitions, processing, special- ized procedures (corrections in the Month-